Landslip between Redhill and Tonbridge

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Southern Dvr

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2010
Messages
466
A 375 has to have a conductor. GTR drivers wouldn't know what to do with a conductor.
And surely SouthEastern need their trains for their own services anyway?
would we not? It’s a wonder that I can make it Uckfield and back every day really considering we have to have one down there.

the comment also makes no sense because Redhill GTR drivers work a lot of the Redhill-Tonbridge workings with conductors.

trains working out or Purley Aggregates heading north require a bit more mainline shunting which is where the problems will lie. Fortunately the Yuletide season will mean it’s not too much of a problem.

latest I’ve heard is end of January at the earliest.
 
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
274
I am sure there is a signalling process that allows one train in possession to use the line like a long headshunt surely. There is a crossover just along from Redhill that could be used to swap lines at the Redhill end. Just needs a bit of willing organisation especially as this looks like it could be weeks, even months before there is a fix.
You'd have to run out of Redhill over the Up line but as its not a signalled move would involves quite a few set of points having to be called manually and talked past T493 cant see that happening. At least in return direction it could be normally signalled.
This is as significant as the slip on the Hastings line in 2014 and that was a three month job.
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
794
Location
redhill
around 1990 when first converting godstone tunnel and further channel tunnel work we first had a thumper shuttle to nutfield single line via the tonbridge siding clipped and padlocked for single line fully on the the up road
this was later extended to edenbridge as normal running but using the edenbridge ground frame as the work progressed.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,002
around 1990 when first converting godstone tunnel and further channel tunnel work we first had a thumper shuttle to nutfield single line via the tonbridge siding clipped and padlocked for single line fully on the the up road
this was later extended to edenbridge as normal running but using the edenbridge ground frame as the work progressed.
Up Tonbridge Goods Loop now known as Up Tonbridge Siding is now as the name suggests no longer a through road.

The other problem is that Nutfield is well within the T3 possession limits.
 
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
274
Up Tonbridge Goods Loop now known as Up Tonbridge Siding is now as the name suggests no longer a through road.

The other problem is that Nutfield is well within the T3 possession limits.
They could shorten back the slip site is around former Crowhurst Jcn area a couple of miles from Godstone but unlikely they will instigate any special working at Redhill giving the relatively low level of usage at the two stations can be covered by buses.
 

carriageline

Established Member
Joined
11 Jan 2012
Messages
1,836
They could shorten back the slip site is around former Crowhurst Jcn area a couple of miles from Godstone but unlikely they will instigate any special working at Redhill giving the relatively low level of usage at the two stations can be covered by buses.
Where does the DC isolation for the T3 go to? That’s probably dictated the limits more than anything
 

Cletus

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2010
Messages
1,882
Location
Dover
The description in one of the tweets certainly suggests a long job.

The location of the landslip is very remote, which means access is difficult. We need to build a road across the fields, cut a hole in an abandoned railway embankment, and then build a bridge over the River Eden...
 
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
274
Where does the DC isolation for the T3 go to? That’s probably dictated the limits more than anything
They could shorten back to Godstone TPH or Dodds Coppice S/Stn but as to how they would work the trains in/out Redhill if normal signalled routes not available will determine whether there are any attempts to deliver a service - i suspect not.
 

island

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
10,730
Location
0036
Current best guesstimate from Southern is the line isn’t going to see service this side of February.
 

Surreytraveller

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2009
Messages
1,572
They could shorten back to Godstone TPH or Dodds Coppice S/Stn but as to how they would work the trains in/out Redhill if normal signalled routes not available will determine whether there are any attempts to deliver a service - i suspect not.
To do a wrong direction move is time-consuming. Everything else would have to be brought to a halt whilst it took place. Its not a simple matter of a signaller saying 'off you go, driver'. It would cause disruption to every other train
 

Hellzapoppin

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
144
The spoil removed from the abandoned embankment may be used in the construction of the haul road or the reconstuction of the failed embankment so wouldn't go to waste.
 

30907

Established Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
8,916
Location
Airedale
re-instate the Crowhurst spur which would provide access without cutting a hole in it. Could also be of use in the future?
Doesn't get you much nearer the landslip, leaving aside the practicalities. Still, it would be a first for the Crowhurst Spur to be of use :)
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
2,465
Why's a road needed when by definition there's a railway to the works site? Too difficult to transfer stuff down from the embankment to where it's needed?
 

big all

On Moderation
Joined
23 Sep 2018
Messages
794
Location
redhill
Why's a road needed when by definition there's a railway to the works site? Too difficult to transfer stuff down from the embankment to where it's needed?
locomotive and several wagons will have to stop perhaps 50-100 yards short to sit on solid track formation requiring perhaps 150-200 yds transportation off materials off a high bank so not an option
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
1,222
Why's a road needed when by definition there's a railway to the works site? Too difficult to transfer stuff down from the embankment to where it's needed?
locomotive and several wagons will have to stop perhaps 50-100 yards short to sit on solid track formation requiring perhaps 150-200 yds transportation off materials off a high bank so not an option
Plus materials and equipment needed are likely to be coming from non-rail-connected suppliers, so needing double handling onto railway vehicles, as well as off them as big all pointed out. Both operations would be costly and awkward.

Some of the earthworks plant needed is likely to be too large to fit on rail wagons - road/rail 360° backhoes are small by earthworks standards.

Road vehicles deliver bulk materials in a steady stream which can be matched to rate of placing - a train delivers a large quantity at infrequent intervals.

One or more locos and rakes of wagons need to be sourced, which may take them away from other work.

(I was once (very peripherally) professionally involved in an operation moving rock armour for sea defences to site by train, and it had taken a lot of advance planning.)
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,578
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Two railways cross here and we still can't get anything to site by rail - all the issues above notwithstanding...by way of contrast:

1. Cut out the affected track,
2. bring a spoil train or two in and deposit however many thousands of tons are needed,
3. deliver a couple of diggers to install piles to contain the new embankment, and
4. create a temporary road next to the line to allow the distribution of the spoil,
5. deliver a few more diggers to assist with moving and consolidating the spoil into an embankment,
6. reinstate track and cables,
7. test, clear site and re-open.
 

AndrewE

On Moderation
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
3,605
Two railways cross here and we still can't get anything to site by rail - all the issues above notwithstanding...by way of contrast:

1. Cut out the affected track,
2. bring a spoil train or two in and deposit however many thousands of tons are needed,
This is not as easy as you make it sound. Several thousand tonnes of stone will take quite a few thousand metre trains to shift it and big machines at rail height to empty the wagons: even if you have end-doored wagons you still need to shunt each one up to the breach to unload it, just consider the logistics of that! and it has always looked to me as though self-unloading wagons on automated track-laying trains have a pitiful payload by comparison with a propor wagon.
3. deliver a couple of diggers to install piles to contain the new embankment, and
4. create a temporary road next to the line to allow the distribution of the spoil,
5. deliver a few more diggers to assist with moving and consolidating the spoil into an embankment,
6. reinstate track and cables,
7. test, clear site and re-open.
It might be quicker to put huge piles in and bridge between them to create a viaduct! (Which is a strategy that some people on here suggested should be piloted on the Conwy valley line...)
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,506
As a reminder the river Eden also flows through the triangle between the East Grinstead and Tonbridge lines and the former curve, erosion of the river bank is also the cause of the landslip and embankment slip hence sorting out and stabilising the river bank is required which isn't easily done from the railway.

The Eden was also diverted to be more perpendicular to the Tonbridge line during construction in the 1840s which may be part of the current issues.

This old OS map via NLS hopefully shows the local geography is fairly complex:
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103316677
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
6,705
Location
UK
Two railways cross here and we still can't get anything to site by rail - all the issues above notwithstanding...by way of contrast:

1. Cut out the affected track,
2. bring a spoil train or two in and deposit however many thousands of tons are needed,
3. deliver a couple of diggers to install piles to contain the new embankment, and
4. create a temporary road next to the line to allow the distribution of the spoil,
5. deliver a few more diggers to assist with moving and consolidating the spoil into an embankment,
6. reinstate track and cables,
7. test, clear site and re-open.
Assuming this is all actually possible, what would be the estimated time frame and cost please ?
Is there an estimate of how many tons of spoil are needed and where that maybe sourced from ?
Assuming a site survey will take place; what soil will be chosen to replace what has slipped and will that affect tract layout ?
Would a new linespeed be implemented due to the risk of future slips ?
Will there be any mitigation steps, such as underpinning, or will this be a like for like replacement ?
If track and cables are to be replaced, will there be an opportunity to upgrade the existing interlocking/signalling to current standards or will Grandfather rights take precedent ?
I notice from the video that the track looks pretty solid and just the bank has slipped Is there any chance that the existing track could be reused and remain in situ or will it all need to be replaced ?
Will any other banks of similar nature, construction, locality, etc. be affected/investigated ?

Good luck and Happy Christmas to the Orange Army.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,506
It might be quicker to put huge piles in and bridge between them to create a viaduct! (Which is a strategy that some people on here suggested should be piloted on the Conwy valley line...)
Already done successfully at Dover...
 
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
274
Assuming this is all actually possible, what would be the estimated time frame and cost please ?

.
See this from a similar failure at Botley http://www.osborne.co.uk/assets/files/botley.pdf

Note the embankment on the Up Side was rebuilt with a piled wall a few years back, presumably as a result of the River Eden weaken it on that side, but there was ready access off a public highway.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,393
Location
Between the parallel lines
You'd have to run out of Redhill over the Up line but as its not a signalled move would involves quite a few set of points having to be called manually and talked past T493 cant see that happening. At least in return direction it could be normally signalled.
You’d probably depart Redhill onto the Down line towards Tonbridge as normal, but then cross over on the way back. The human resource for doing this would be quite intense, as I can’t see it happening without a pilot, or perhaps the signaller advising every train driver about the points of obstruction (Nutfield doesn’t have a platform starter signal on the Down, so you have nothing to hold at danger).

Up Tonbridge Goods Loop now known as Up Tonbridge Siding is now as the name suggests no longer a through road.

The other problem is that Nutfield is well within the T3 possession limits.
It might almost be better to just go ahead and replace the points at the east end of the Up Tonbridge Loop properly - but I can’t see that happening unless you could run trains through to Godstone (that would be at least double the benefit of serving Nutfield, and would mean every station on the line could be served by train).

Unfortunately the signalling stops working when you get to Bletchingley Tunnel due to the effects of the cable damage caused by the landslip. So you’d then be looking at several months of degraded working or alternative methods of working to get to Godstone.

They could shorten back the slip site is around former Crowhurst Jcn area a couple of miles from Godstone but unlikely they will instigate any special working at Redhill giving the relatively low level of usage at the two stations can be covered by buses.
You wouldn’t necessarily need special working from Redhill itself, but you would need it beyond Nutfield.

The description in one of the tweets certainly suggests a long job.
It will be. I suspect the design of the complete solution will, in and of itself, take some time. Let alone the work itself.

Not to mention we’ve lost quite a lot of the signalling on the branch extending way beyond the slip point up to and including Nutfield.
As above, it’s Bletchingley Tunnel, really. Or so I was told by the Important People. As that’s country side of Nutfield, I’m pretty sure a shuttle service could physically run.

They could shorten back to Godstone TPH or Dodds Coppice S/Stn but as to how they would work the trains in/out Redhill if normal signalled routes not available will determine whether there are any attempts to deliver a service - i suspect not.
Don’t forget there’s already a minibus shuttle to Nutfield (the station itself has a long and dangerous walk to the stops for the full-size buses) which seems to be easing complaints.

Current best guesstimate from Southern is the line isn’t going to see service this side of February.
That’s really a case of “the software on the passenger messaging system said that we had to pick a date” not “we know something you don’t”.

There must already be vehicular access, as Google Maps show a ploughed field in the area?
Not to the triangle of land where the landslip is. It’s awkward enough that some of the best assessments so far have come from the NR chopper...

The spoil removed from the abandoned embankment may be used in the construction of the haul road or the reconstuction of the failed embankment so wouldn't go to waste.
Probably the road, if anything. If you can get to the embankment and remove the material without a road!

Plus materials and equipment needed are likely to be coming from non-rail-connected suppliers, so needing double handling onto railway vehicles, as well as off them as big all pointed out. Both operations would be costly and awkward.

Some of the earthworks plant needed is likely to be too large to fit on rail wagons - road/rail 360° backhoes are small by earthworks standards.

Road vehicles deliver bulk materials in a steady stream which can be matched to rate of placing - a train delivers a large quantity at infrequent intervals.

One or more locos and rakes of wagons need to be sourced, which may take them away from other work.
All the above are good points. There is also welfare provision (eg. staff cabins and so on) and staff access to consider. Changing a Portaloo tank by freight train is awkward...

Two railways cross here and we still can't get anything to site by rail - all the issues above notwithstanding...by way of contrast...
You probably won’t find any use from the East Grinstead line, so that’s a bit of a no-go. And the Redhill to Tonbridge Line is now an exclusion zone for staff on foot due to the landslip risk, let alone able to support trains anywhere nearby.

Would a new linespeed be implemented due to the risk of future slips ?
Will there be any mitigation steps, such as underpinning, or will this be a like for like replacement ?
If track and cables are to be replaced, will there be an opportunity to upgrade the existing interlocking/signalling to current standards or will Grandfather rights take precedent ?
I notice from the video that the track looks pretty solid and just the bank has slipped Is there any chance that the existing track could be reused and remain in situ or will it all need to be replaced ?
In order:
- The area has already seen various emergency and temporary speed restrictions over the years, some of which have been quite awkward. I can’t see Network Rail wanting to limit performance any more.
- I would be surprised if there won’t be.
- I should imagine cabling would be replaced like-for-like. The rest of the signalling system itself doesn’t appear to have been damaged, so it’s much like a giant version of some yobs nicking some cable in a trackside troughing route.
- The track will have undergone some interesting strain due to the fact that the embankment has now completely disappeared in the vicinity. I'd be surprised if it was reused.

Already done successfully at Dover...
Some sort of bridge or very small viaduct is probably not out of the question here. It would certainly mitigate future risk from water being forced on an unnatural path and undermining the railway.
 

Top