Plan to remove Croydon rail bottleneck

[RichardN]

There's a new London Reconnections article article covering this subject, including a diagram capturing the latest state of layout development:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/a-study-in-sussex-part-14-the-beginnings-of-big-changes/

I think the point is that we are being asked if we think the development is worthwhile and there is precious little in the official consultation that explains exactly how much pain rail users and Croydon residents will suffer while the development is in progress. It's only by reading LondonReconnections we find out about staggered platforms, the criticality of Windmill Bridge etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Who drew their map? At least they could show the junctions for Tonbridge and Guildford in the same place and the one for Horsham south of Gatwick Airport.

Oh, and it clearly can't address any of the flat junctions at South Croydon, Purley, Stoats Nest, Redhill, Earlswood, Gatwick, Tinsley Green, Balcombe Tunnel, Keymer or Preston Park so trains from the south will still present late.

Is the point that this is a consultation for locals about the works and how they will affect them rather than the travelling public. Presumably the plans about timeline, routes through the work don't actually need consultation, just the way in which materials will be brought in and hours of work.

Summed up like this in the London Reconnections article (linked just now):
“Topics relevant to this particular consultation include the impact of the scheme, in broad terms, on the local community with issues such as over-platform development at East Croydon, station entrances and changes to the local road system. It is not about track layout, exactly what extra services will be provided or specific details of the proposed replacement for East Croydon station.”

 

[Sunset route]

There's a new London Reconnections article article covering this subject, including a diagram capturing the latest state of layout development:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/a-study-in-sussex-part-14-the-beginnings-of-big-changes/

Interesting that at the moment that they plan to leave the ASC alone until what looks like the final stage before moving the three panels across the track to the ROC, I was convinced it would of been easier to migrate it on to workstation(s) first.

 

[takno]

Interesting that at the moment that they plan to leave the ASC alone until what looks like the final stage before moving the three panels across the track to the ROC, I was convinced it would of been easier to migrate it on to workstation(s) first.

I thought that was a pretty odd statement as well. It's the exact opposite argument that was made when various lines at London Bridge were resignalled before being changed over again. It could be that Three Bridges is a newer panel and easier to adapt, or that the original presumption that it was easier to make changes to a fully digital interlockings has been disproved by experience elsewhere. It could also be that London Reconnections have the wrong end of the stick - everything's still at the high-level planning stages as they say

 

[MarkyT]

Interesting that at the moment that they plan to leave the ASC alone until what looks like the final stage before moving the three panels across the track to the ROC, I was convinced it would of been easier to migrate it on to workstation(s) first.

Resignalling and recontrol before remodelling has been the approach for a number of major remodelling projects recently. Perhaps the geographical interlockings are a factor in deciding not to do this for CARS. Geographical is more easily reconfigured for layout alterations than free wired relay installations, as demonstrated at Redhill recently. Around the Croydon area, interlockings are all Westinghouse Westpac installations like Redhill I believe, and presumably of a late 'Mk' number in that series, given the age of Three Bridges ASC. My experience is that this equipment has aged far better than similar GEC products of the same vintage and can still take significant reconfiguration with few risks. Knocking it about for stageworks could very well be the right decision in this case, assuming suitable skills and resources are available to design and test the changes.

 

[Sunset route]

Resignalling and recontrol before remodelling has been the approach for a number of major remodelling projects recently. Perhaps the geographical interlockings are a factor in deciding not to do this for CARS. Geographical is more easily reconfigured for layout alterations than free wired relay installations, as demonstrated at Redhill recently. Around the Croydon area, interlockings are all Westinghouse Westpac installations like Redhill I believe, and presumably of a late 'Mk' number in that series, given the age of Three Bridges ASC. My experience is that this equipment has aged far better than similar GEC products of the same vintage and can still take significant reconfiguration with few risks. Knocking it about for stageworks could very well be the right decision in this case, assuming suitable skills and resources are available to design and test the changes.

Well it that plan stays that way, then most but not all of the signallers at the ASC will be happy, as migration 400mteres across the tracks is about as popular as a hard border in Northern Ireland at the moment.

 

[Sunset route]

At work we now have copies of the early draft version (I say early as it’s bound to have some changes to it) of the proposed CARS alterations in the area bounded by Thornton Heath, Crystal Place, Anerley, West Croydon and South Croydon. There appears to be a few more crossovers than appears in the London Reconections, but they have published is close enough to the current thinking. Interesting to not that Norwood Junction Fast last platforms are removed and the the up Crystal Palace Spur becomes Reversible.

 

[swt_passenger]

At work we now have copies of the early draft version (I say early as it’s bound to have some changes to it) of the proposed CARS alterations in the area bounded by Thornton Heath, Crystal Place, Anerley, West Croydon and South Croydon. There appears to be a few more crossovers than appears in the London Reconections, but they have published is close enough to the current thinking. Interesting to not that Norwood Junction Fast last platforms are removed and the the up Crystal Palace Spur becomes Reversible.

Is it obvious at all yet whether the removal of the Norwood Jn fast platforms will allow better circulating space and access for the remaining platforms?
We had a bit of a diversion into Norwood Jn facilities a few days ago, but I think we assumed there’d be 6 platforms at that point...

 

[ABB125]

Diagram from Modern Railways

 

[Sunset route]

Diagram from Modern Railways
View attachment 55836

That’s pretty much the same as the internal document that went a couple of weeks ago and I can’t spot any differences between the two at the moment. Alpert from the version I have shows the whole of the Departure and arrival roads in Selhusrt Depot plus the Norwood folk arrival road as well.

 

[Hophead]

That article suggested that the new platforms would utilise the space currently occupied by the Royal Mail building (to the east of the station, adjacent to Cherry Orchard Road), but I assumed that they would go in on the west side, in the gap between the railway and the new apartment blocks north of Boxpark. I'd have got that idea from London Reconnections. Who is more likely to be more correct? Them, or Modern Railways?

 

[edwin_m]

Modern Railways mentions the Royal Mail building as an example of local redevelopment, but the suggestion of using it for platforms only appears in a picture caption. I'm not clear how this would work as there is development immediately south of the road that crosses the railway at the main station entrance.

By contrast, not only the building line on the western side but the new footbridge leaves room for another island (possibly only by moving 1 and 2 a bit further east to allow use of the space between the tracks for 2 and 3). More tracks on the east side would clash with the footbridge stairs, built to serve the upcoming east side devlopment which I think was actually under construction last time I passed by.

I suspect London Reconnections is correct and the Modern Railways item is a case of the caption writer (who may not be the article author) putting two and two together to make five.

 

[hwl]

Modern Railways mentions the Royal Mail building as an example of local redevelopment, but the suggestion of using it for platforms only appears in a picture caption. I'm not clear how this would work as there is development immediately south of the road that crosses the railway at the main station entrance.

By contrast, not only the building line on the western side but the new footbridge leaves room for another island (possibly only by moving 1 and 2 a bit further east to allow use of the space between the tracks for 2 and 3). More tracks on the east side would clash with the footbridge stairs, built to serve the upcoming east side devlopment which I think was actually under construction last time I passed by.

I suspect London Reconnections is correct and the Modern Railways item is a case of the caption writer (who may not be the article author) putting two and two together to make five.

London Reconnections is correct, anything to the east will be connected to extra entrances and potential over site development rather than directly rail related. Big aim to improve East - West Pedestrian links.

 

[Sunset route]

As far as it’s been disclosed at work the new platforms 1&2 will be built adjacent (on the up side) to the existing platforms 1&2 which will become the new platforms 3&4 with all four of these platforms moved slightly further up towards Wildmill Bridge Jc. Then the current 3/4/5&6 will become the new 5/6/7&8.

 

[hwl]

As far as it’s been disclosed at work the new platforms 1&2 will be built adjacent (on the up side) to the existing platforms 1&2 which will become the new platforms 3&4 with all four of these platforms moved slightly further up towards Wildmill Bridge Jc. Then the current 3/4/5&6 will become the new 5/6/7&8.

Everything is currently moving further north too...

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, the land on the west side was specifically reserved for future new lines and platforms over a decade ago.

 

[Angelmoon]

That’s pretty much the same as the internal document that went a couple of weeks ago and I can’t spot any differences between the two at the moment. Alpert from the version I have shows the whole of the Departure and arrival roads in Selhusrt Depot plus the Norwood folk arrival road as well.

Why is the opportunity not being taken to keep the down Crystal Palace Spur line running into a separate platform at Norwood Junction instead of conflicting with the DN London Bridge Slow? Im also wondering how tall some of these structures are going to have to be as Im seeing some places where 3 layers of tracks will likely be needed?

 

[Sunset route]

Why is the opportunity not being taken to keep the down Crystal Palace Spur line running into a separate platform at Norwood Junction instead of conflicting with the DN London Bridge Slow? Im also wondering how tall some of these structures are going to have to be as Im seeing some places where 3 layers of tracks will likely be needed?

On the first point, I have no idea (I only push buttons).

On the second point, they are going to use a lot of dive-unders to create the triple layers (well in this weeks plan, next weeks it could be different lol).

 

[swt_passenger]

Why is the opportunity not being taken to keep the down Crystal Palace Spur line running into a separate platform at Norwood Junction instead of conflicting with the DN London Bridge Slow? Im also wondering how tall some of these structures are going to have to be as Im seeing some places where 3 layers of tracks will likely be needed?

My theory for the first point would be that if they can only fit in a maximum of 5 tracks across the existing formation at that point then it is probably better to have them operating as 3 up and 2 down, as keeping up service trains and up ECS exactly to timetable will have more overall benefits.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Diagram from Modern Railways

I know that the illustration is schematic and not to scale, but nonetheless the new arrangement is going to have some severe gradients, sharp curves and complicated infrastructure: for example, the up West Croydon—Selhurst line (3) goes under the up slow East Croydon—Selhurst line (22), then comes around and up to join it, more or less where both lines go over the West Croydon—Norwood Junction line (1). On the other hand, it does improve the course of the fast lines, and remove the problematic flat junctions, so let's hope that work on the new arrangement gets going.

 

[JonathanH]

Moved from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...3rd-may-reversing-beeching-cuts.204681/page-9

These Croydon/Windmill Bridge links perchance?

Plans announced to demolish and move East Croydon station

East Croydon station could be moving to a new location if plans for a major railway upgrade in the area are approved, and funding found.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

That is quite interesting. I guess there is still quite a bit of work going on prior to making a submission for funding.

Wasn't there always a plan to move platforms 1 to 4 north? Is the new element that platforms 5 to 8 go north as well?

Ten years to build around an existing railway https://consultations.networkrail.c...-the-croydon-bottleneck-phase-2/consult_view/, almost all in future parliaments. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that ticks the quick win box and disruption in the mean time.

 

[MarkyT]

Moved from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...3rd-may-reversing-beeching-cuts.204681/page-9



That is quite interesting. I guess there is still quite a bit of work going on prior to making a submission for funding.

Wasn't there always a plan to move platforms 1 to 4 north? Is the new element that platforms 5 to 8 go north as well?

Quite possible, as presumably the project team have been steadily refining the design over the last couple of years. While much is made of the demolition of the existing station, and it's reasonable that the concourse building and especially the over-steep historic ramps descending to platform level should go in a rebuild, my initial read-through couldn't find confirmation that a direct access would be retained onto the George Street bridge by some means. That seems essential to me, and is probaby inevitable in the new design, as it forms the primary interchange with bus and tram services.

 

[30907]

Quite possible, as presumably the project team have been steadily refining the design over the last couple of years. While much is made of the demolition of the existing station, and it's reasonable that the concourse building and especially the over-steep historic ramps descending to platform level should go in a rebuild, my initial read-through couldn't find confirmation that a direct access would be retained onto the George Street bridge by some means. That seems essential to me, and is probaby inevitable in the new design, as it forms the primary interchange with bus and tram services.

It talks of direct access to/from the tram/bus stations but I read that as from the "new" footbridge. I guess moving the platforms north makes direct access via the "old" entrance awkward.

 

[edwin_m]

This seems to supersede even the revised track layout that was published in June's Modern Railways, which added a few more flyovers to remove some remaining conflicts in the Windmill Bridge area. I assume the 3D visualisation on the Ian Visits site shows part of that layout.

Quite possible, as presumably the project team have been steadily refining the design over the last couple of years. While much is made of the demolition of the existing station, and it's reasonable that the concourse building and especially the over-steep historic ramps descending to platform level should go in a rebuild, my initial read-through couldn't find confirmation that a direct access would be retained onto the George Street bridge by some means. That seems essential to me, and is probaby inevitable in the new design, as it forms the primary interchange with bus and tram services.

The link does say that there will be a short walk from the trams, possibly through a new plaza over the railway tracks (so on the site of the existing main building). I think this is what is shown in the picture at the top of the Ian Visits page, with a new concourse above the tracks rather like the existing one but larger and further north so that the vertical access lands at the southern end of the new platforms. The footbridge further north looks to remain as a secondary access to the platforms, and may well be the only access for a period while the southern one is re-built.

 

[MarkyT]

My favourite quote from the Ianvisits article:

...Selhurst Junction, which has the tangled appearance of a pair of headphone cables after they’ve been left in a trouser pocket for 10 seconds.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Hang on. the ramps from the main entrance (George Street) and trams are not steep at all. They are long and if the station is moved North then they will become longer. Further to walk.

In the description the ramps are to be replaced by Escalators. No way PLEASE. Ramps are far far more reliable than escalators.

There is/was clearly a plan to add a pair of platforms (two faces of one island) on the west side. The new footbridge appears to have been built long enough. Note this new footbridge is not at the North end of the station but is more or less in the middle.

It is ironic that, since i moved to Croydon in 1988, the railway land to the West of the station remained unused/derelict until the last five years. Now the railways need it back !.

It is true that the space for two more platforms is not available as far South as the current platforms so a new platforms 1&2 island would have to start further North. But it seems likely that the deck carrying the concourse, trams and George Street over the railway needs replacing if more than six tracks are needed anyway. Another feature of the South end of the platforms is that the platforms are more curved at that end. There is space between the lines of platforms 2 and 3 by the way.

I think it is likely that the only reason for moving the platforms further North is to allow for a wider station throat if the George Street bridge/deck is not replaced. It would also get rid of the end of the low numbered platforms with the sharpest curve.

 

[MarkyT]

Hang on. the ramps from the main entrance (George Street) and trams are not steep at all. They are long and if the station is moved North then they will become longer. Further to walk.

I think the problem is the ramps are legally just a bit too steep to be suitable for wheelchair access, and can't be re-engineered in situ to incorporate the flat landings required every so often, so while it's been possible to retain them thus far as part of an existing station, not changing them as part of such a major reconstruction would be untenable, and in any case for such a height difference and busy footfall a secondary method such as a lift would be demanded by building regs anyway.

 

[londonbridge]

Wonder what sort of timeframe we'd be looking at? If it goes ahead I'll probably be dead before it's finished.....

 

[mirodo]

my initial read-through couldn't find confirmation that a direct access would be retained onto the George Street bridge by some means. That seems essential to me, and is probaby inevitable in the new design, as it forms the primary interchange with bus and tram services.

From the Network Rail consultation webpage:

It is proposed that the redeveloped station will move north by approximately 100m and be fully reconstructed.

The reconfigured platforms will be accessible by lifts, stairs and escalators; the recently constructed footbridge will be retained and repurposed to form the new gateline into the station.

Access to this main entrance would be available from the tram and bus stations, from Caithness Walk and from Cherry Orchard Road. A new northern concourse with an improved entrance will be created, accessible from Lansdowne Road.

 

[MarkyT]

From the Network Rail consultation webpage:

It is proposed that the redeveloped station will move north by approximately 100m and be fully reconstructed.

The reconfigured platforms will be accessible by lifts, stairs and escalators; the recently constructed footbridge will be retained and repurposed to form the new gateline into the station.

Access to this main entrance would be available from the tram and bus stations, from Caithness Walk and from Cherry Orchard Road. A new northern concourse with an improved entrance will be created, accessible from Lansdowne Road.

Could really do with a sketch plan of the station, it's new entrances and their relationship with the surrounding road and pedestrian layout. Where is Caithness Walk? Is it Lansdowne walk renamed? If there is an east side entrance leading to Cherry Orchard Road, surely the shortest cut to tram and bus will be up Billinton Hill, and the most convenient way to retain this link would be to create a covered passageway along this route. Is the main entrance illustrated actually the east side one? Without a plan I remain confused and I'm disappointed this information has been omitted from the consultation material.