• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Plan to remove Croydon rail bottleneck

Status
Not open for further replies.

LUYMun

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2018
Messages
794
Location
Somewhere
Apparently, Network Rail proposes to replace junctions around Selhurst, Norwood Junction and Croydon areas into flyovers.
Article is here:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...lan-to-remove-croydon-railway-bottleneck.html
...If approved, the scheme would see lines in the Croydon, Norwood Junction and Selhurst areas reconfigured with flyovers to replace junctions, an increase from five to seven tracks north of East Croydon, and two extra platforms and a bigger concourse provided at East Croydon station

‘Removing the Croydon bottleneck is the only practical way to provide the step-change in reliability and capacity that passengers and businesses in Sussex so desperately want to see’, said John Halsall, Network Rail Route Managing Director for the South East. ‘For too long, train performance on the Brighton Main Line has been below the level that commuters and other passengers expect and deserve...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,420
This has been under discussion for many years, it’s possible there’s an existing thread but I can’t find it yet. Seems to have been discussed as part of a wide range of other subjects such as within the CP6 HLOS.

But it’s just another step in the process towards a future TWA Order application, so there’ll still be some years before any movement on the ground.
 
Last edited:

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,219
There was a description in Modern Railways a few months ago.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
Curious as to what the requirement for public consultation is and whether they really expect people to understand the proposals? Surely if you ask anyone that uses trains through Croydon East "would you like us to make your trains more reliable and faster?" the answer is yes...
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
Curious as to what the requirement for public consultation is and whether they really expect people to understand the proposals? Surely if you ask anyone that uses trains through Croydon East "would you like us to make your trains more reliable and faster?" the answer is yes...
Think planning consultation.
Pre TWAO consultation as some non railway land is being used (key bits mostly already compulsory purchased, LB Croydon also erroneously gave planning permission on some of the land too close to existing tracks) but there will need to be some road layout changes and road bridge rebuild (currently v narrow) so that will be addressed to.
Similar to NR's approach with EWR with an early consultation to flush potential issues out.

Council very supportive (makes a change!)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,194
Think planning consultation.
Pre TWAO consultation as some non railway land is being used (key bits mostly already compulsory purchased, LB Croydon also erroneously gave planning permission on some of the land too close to existing tracks) but there will need to be some road layout changes and road bridge rebuild (currently v narrow) so that will be addressed to.
Similar to NR's approach with EWR with an early consultation to flush potential issues out.

Council very supportive (makes a change!)

Nothing has been compulsorily purchased, simply because there are no powers to do so. I gather some property has been purchased through negotiation, though.

Consultation is required as the scheme requires land outside railway ownership, and also because there will be some rather hefty engineering works within the boundary. Any development of any type of significant scale needs to demonstrate how the local community have been consulted. It’s planning law. Then, when it come to granting the necessary powers, anyone objecting on the grounds of not being consulted will not have a leg to stand on. A good example is the level crossing closures on the Felixstowe line, where a number of objections on the grounds of no / little consultation were dismissed because Network Rail demonstrated it had consulted, fully and properly.
 

Astradyne

On Moderation
Joined
14 Mar 2015
Messages
350
I am intrigued as to how they intend to make Norwood Junction accessible, which is also included in the plans.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,785
I am intrigued as to how they intend to make Norwood Junction accessible, which is also included in the plans.

Lifts and footbridge in the usual Network Rail style I would imagine - plenty of examples around the country although I concede that platform 2/3 is a bit narrow.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,142
Location
SE London
Looks like we'll all have to wait until 5th November to find out the details of the plans. This is NR's consultation hub:

NetworkRail said:
Our consultation on proposed improvements to the railway in Croydon goes live on Monday, 5 November. Please come back then.
 

Astradyne

On Moderation
Joined
14 Mar 2015
Messages
350
Lifts and footbridge in the usual Network Rail style I would imagine - plenty of examples around the country although I concede that platform 2/3 is a bit narrow.
Platform 3, as my local station, is exactly why I am intrigued .... How they propose widening the platform ...
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Lifts and footbridge in the usual Network Rail style I would imagine - plenty of examples around the country although I concede that platform 2/3 is a bit narrow.

You could quite easily fence off the Platform 2 face and put the lift on that side of the island. It’s most unlikely Platform 2 will ever be used again with the current layout.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
You could quite easily fence off the Platform 2 face and put the lift on that side of the island. It’s most unlikely Platform 2 will ever be used again with the current layout.
Unless you start doing lots of rebuilding the only place a lift can go on the P2/3 island is right at the southern end in which case you are looking at new overbridge for everything and worth being mindful of thinking about 12 car trains too. In the future P1,3 & 4 will be up platforms and 5, 6, & 7 down platforms
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,420
You could quite easily fence off the Platform 2 face and put the lift on that side of the island. It’s most unlikely Platform 2 will ever be used again with the current layout.
On the other hand the 2016 postcript to the 2015 layout mentioned by hwl in post #4 above suggests P3 might be used for a second up slow platform. That would put that island into more regular use anyway?
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,400
Location
Between the parallel lines
Unless you start doing lots of rebuilding the only place a lift can go on the P2/3 island is right at the southern end in which case you are looking at new overbridge for everything and worth being mindful of thinking about 12 car trains too. In the future P1,3 & 4 will be up platforms and 5, 6, & 7 down platforms

I rather suspect there could be opportunities at the north end. Don’t forget that the far south end has not one but two pedestrian underpasses underneath it. (One within the confines of the station and one which runs outside it.)

It would be best to:
- Extend Platforms 6 and 7 to full 10 coach capacity and bring Platform 7 into use again (a useful holding point in the event of sudden disruption in the East Croydon area and a potential conflict reduction measure for trains leaving the flyover to the north)
- Improve signalling and crossover arrangements so that the Up Fast can access more than one platform from immediately outside the station
- Provide a new lift shaft / waiting area a few metres north of the current end point of the Platforms 4 & 5 island
- Create a walkway from the north end of the Platforms 6 & 7 island and construct a lift in line with the Platforms 4 & 5 island
- Fence off Platform 2 and use the disused northern half of Platform 2 as access to a lift in line with the lifts on 4-7
- Construct a further lift on Platform 1, midway down the platform
- Link said lifts with a new bridge
- Extend canopies to mitigate against long walks in poor weather en route to the new accessible bridge and to allow people to spread out down the platforms

On the other hand the 2016 postcript to the 2015 layout mentioned by hwl in post #4 above suggests P3 might be used for a second up slow platform. That would put that island into more regular use anyway?

I’m not quite sure how extra usage of Platform 3 would preclude use of the redundant Platform 2 as a base for a new lift. You would seriously struggle to use Platform 2 as a reinstated platform without shuffling Platform 1 further west (which could itself seriously impede on the fabric of the station buildings) and then installing a parallel track to the west of the present Up Slow.

At this point you end up with things getting extremely cramped at both ends of the station with the junction layouts (which would be difficult to modify without losing geographical sense, bearing in mind there are already flyovers trying to make the most of it!). You would also struggle to use Platforms 2 and 3 at the same time anyway - the overcrowding could become lethal.

If anything, if Platform 3 sees more usage by itself, a new fence along the Platform 2 edge would prevent people on the crowded platform accidentally falling onto the Up Slow. This could be disastrous.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,496
Curious as to what the requirement for public consultation is and whether they really expect people to understand the proposals? Surely if you ask anyone that uses trains through Croydon East "would you like us to make your trains more reliable and faster?" the answer is yes...

Oh yes!

Can we something near your property higher and something else closer and more noisy

NO!... And don't make any rabbits homeless either ..
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,916
Location
Nottingham
I've just been trying to work out how this thread relates to the East Croydon that we all know and mostly hate, and concluded most of you are actually talking about Norwood Junction.
 

Astradyne

On Moderation
Joined
14 Mar 2015
Messages
350
No the thread does not relate to East Croydon ... rather the Croydon area.

One of the goals of this change is listed as making Norwood Junction accessible ... which is why it relates to this thread!
 

03_179

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Messages
3,384
Location
At my desk
It's going to be chaos in the area for us residents ...

Selhurst area roads are packed most of the time anyway and with certain bridges closed (One on St. James' Road, over Selhurst Road by the station) it'll make is nigh on impossible to move around ... God help us !
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,420
I've just been trying to work out how this thread relates to the East Croydon that we all know and mostly hate, and concluded most of you are actually talking about Norwood Junction.
Headline writers? Network Rail more accurately call it the “Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme”...
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,067
Headline writers? Network Rail more accurately call it the “Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme”...
It's not illogical to talk about Norwood Junction or Selhurst for that matter. I didn't see any reference to a station name in the conversation at all though, and also couldn't make any sense of the various comments about an unused face on platform 2
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,420
It's not illogical to talk about Norwood Junction or Selhurst for that matter. I didn't see any reference to a station name in the conversation at all though, and also couldn't make any sense of the various comments about an unused face on platform 2
Post #9 and reply introduced accessibility at Norwood Junction.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Unless you start doing lots of rebuilding the only place a lift can go on the P2/3 island is right at the southern end in which case you are looking at new overbridge for everything and worth being mindful of thinking about 12 car trains too. In the future P1,3 & 4 will be up platforms and 5, 6, & 7 down platforms

Granted but they could when it's all said and done just renumber the platforms so Platform 1 stays as it is then the others drop a number so Platform 3 becomes Platform 2, Platform 4 becomes Platform 3 etc so Platforms 1 to 3 would serve Up services and Platforms 4 to 6 would serve Down services.

This has been done before for example in Peterborough when they opened the three new platforms a few years ago, they closed the old bay platform (Platform 1) and used that platform number for the old Platform 2 and reused Platform 2 for the old Platform 3 and reused Platform 3 for the new platform adjoining Platform 2.

Then any new platforms would become Platforms 7 and 8.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
Granted but they could when it's all said and done just renumber the platforms so Platform 1 stays as it is then the others drop a number so Platform 3 becomes Platform 2, Platform 4 becomes Platform 3 etc so Platforms 1 to 3 would serve Up services and Platforms 4 to 6 would serve Down services.

This has been done before for example in Peterborough when they opened the three new platforms a few years ago, they closed the old bay platform (Platform 1) and used that platform number for the old Platform 2 and reused Platform 2 for the old Platform 3 and reused Platform 3 for the new platform adjoining Platform 2.

Then any new platforms would become Platforms 7 and 8.
Talking about renumbering generally causes confusion in addition to the other changes.
Platform numbers can be hardwired into the signalling system as in this case so will stay the same till re-signalled as part of the works (also see Kings Cross P0 etc.)

It is worth remembering that originally P1 was much narrower and there were 2 tracks between the current P1 and P2 and a north facing bay on the west side of P1 - also note the spare bridge deck between the 2 Up lines to the north of the station. There is some (historic) logic to the current numbering
A potential option to widen the current P2/3 island is to cut back P1.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Talking about renumbering generally causes confusion in addition to the other changes.
Platform numbers can be hardwired into the signalling system as in this case so will stay the same till re-signalled as part of the works (also see Kings Cross P0 etc.)

It wasn't that confusing when Peterborough got it's platforms renumbered so can't see how it can be confusing at this London station....
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,398
It wasn't that confusing when Peterborough got it's platforms renumbered so can't see how it can be confusing at this London station....
I'm talking about forum discussions rather than post completion reality.
Whether people are talking about the old platform X or the new platform X and then stop mentioning "old" or "new" see the Liverpool discussions (and previous London Bridge rebuild) hence easier to use the current numbering for forum discussion purposes especially as there isn't an official remuneration proposal.

Agree with the principle of renumbering though.
 
Last edited:

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I'm talk about forum discussions rather than post completion reality.
Whether people are talking about the old platform X or the new platform X and stop mentioning "old" or "new" see the Liverpool discussions hence easier to use the current numbering for forum discussion purposes especially as there isn't an official remuneration proposal

Agree with the principle or renumbering though.

Ahh now I understand.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,249
Location
Torbay
Platform numbers can be hardwired into the signalling system as in this case so will stay the same till re-signalled as part of the works (also see Kings Cross P0 etc.)

Upcoming Kings Cross remodelling provides an ideal opportunity to renumber, removing #0 if so desired, as it involves complete resignalling of the area. Incidentally, that could also put the Harry Potter #9 3/4 feature in the concourse in the correct place sequentially across the station, not that such a consideration would contribute much to the business case!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top