Platform extension at Hertford East (update: planning permission has been granted)

[RailWonderer]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...technical-discussion-and-introduction.158396/

Platform lengthening at Hertford East I don't think is a priority. The local council twice denied permission for removal of an old signal box to clear the way for construction.

 

[Dave242]

Platform lengthening at Hertford East I don't think is a priority. The local council twice denied permission for removal of an old signal box to clear the way for construction.

That “old signal box” is a Grade 2 Listed Building

Dave

 

[Spekejunction]

Referring to platform lengthening at Hertford East..
I suppose that one of the options that could have been considered..
Would be to have selective door opening of the front 5 Coaches only ,
leaving the rear 5 empty from Ware to Hertford East.
As far as I know this happens in other areas..
It may also be possible to selectively open coaches 6 and 7 to ensure no one is trapped ...

 

[Dave242]

In regards to post 229 in this thread by 47421, Planning Permission has been granted at Hertford East to extend the platforms and move the signal box. So 10 car will be eventually be able to run out of Hertford East

https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov....ils.do?keyVal=PZRVZ1GLLM300&activeTab=summary

Proposal	Dismantling and re-location of signal box. Demolition of equipment room. Extension of fencing and platforms 1 and 2 with erection of steps, handrail and fence with lockable gate to the end of extended platform. Refurbishment and repositioning of gas lamps and new buffers.
Status	Decided
Decision	Grant Consent w Conds (LBC & ADV)

Dave

 

[47421]

Thanks for update. On Hert East line work also needed at Ware and St Margarets as if stop at signal 10 car will overhang crossing. Same issue at Enfield Lock and Elsenham.

 

[delt1c]

Dont think Waltham Cross can take 10 cars

 

[Ianno87]

Thanks for update. On Hert East line work also needed at Ware and St Margarets as if stop at signal 10 car will overhang crossing. Same issue at Enfield Lock and Elsenham.

I seem to recall the Down platform at Elsenham has what looks to be a covered up stop board off the end of the platform...i.e. the rear of the trains stops on the platform (clear of the crossing) with the front hanging off instead.

 

[47421]

Dont think Waltham Cross can take 10 cars

Many platforms on WA 8 car only but can use SDO. Franchise Agreement identifies where work needed (Hert East, Ware, St Margaret's, Enfield Lock and Elsenham) cus SDO not practical usually because if stop at signal at platform end rear of train will foul level crossing.

(Mods any chance you could rename thread WestAnglia platform lengthening or the like, thanks)

 

[delt1c]

Difficult at Waltham Cross as during my commuting days last 2 coaches would be of the platform unless the signal has been moved

 

[55002]

Many platforms on WA 8 car only but can use SDO. Franchise Agreement identifies where work needed (Hert East, Ware, St Margaret's, Enfield Lock and Elsenham) cus SDO not practical usually because if stop at signal at platform end rear of train will foul level crossing.

(Mods any chance you could rename thread WestAnglia platform lengthening or the like, thanks)

how they going to,do,that at Ware, there a level crossing one end and a road bridge at the other?

 

[Sean Davidson]

Could have been entirely prevented if GA had ordered 4 and 8 car units.

 

[hwl]

Could have been entirely prevented if GA had ordered 4 and 8 car units.

The problem would still have existed for extension to 12car to increase overall capacity.
5/10 car 24m rolling stock is substantially cheaper for any given capacity metric than 4 car 20m units.

 

[47421]

how they going to,do,that at Ware, there a level crossing one end and a road bridge at the other?

good question, if anyone knows please do pipe up

 

[mr_jrt]

I had a quick scan over the planning docs to see what was proposed as there looked to be room for 12 cars without quite as long platforms. I believe the problem is incorporating modern overrun protection...? Regardless, I thought it interesting to note the plans have a greyed out line for another (presumably long disused) line around the other side of platform 2. I was also wondering if you coudl "close the gap" by shuffling platform 2 slightly south to use the space presumably for a long-gone loco escape road to get the lengthened platform past the box without issue.

...when it comes to the signal box though, I'm surprised it was listed and is being preserved. The attached documents state that there are other examples of that style of signal box, and even in better condition.

 

[malc-c]

In regards to post 229 in this thread by 47421, Planning Permission has been granted at Hertford East to extend the platforms and move the signal box. So 10 car will be eventually be able to run out of Hertford East

https://publicaccess.eastherts.gov....ils.do?keyVal=PZRVZ1GLLM300&activeTab=summary


Dave

Nice find Dave. I was looking for similar when it was agreed to give Stevenage its 5th platform, but wasn't able to find any drawings at the time.

So do you have any plans to document the project when it happens ?

 

[John Webb]

......when it comes to the signal box though, I'm surprised it was listed and is being preserved. The attached documents state that there are other examples of that style of signal box, and even in better condition.

The box is a Great Eastern Railway box, dating from 1887*, with a 45 lever McKenzie & Holland frame. It was listed in 1996 - see Historic England listing which doesn't explain precisely why it was listed! It closed in May 2003 when signalling on the line was shifted to Liverpool Street IECC.

Interestingly an English Heritage review of Signal Boxes in 2012 to consider further boxes to list mentions Hertford East:

(Great Eastern Railway) Type 7, a simple all-timber design, was built in large numbers from 1885 until the 1920s and was the most common GER design. 13 survive as operational boxes with Network Rail and an unusually large number survive in preservation, due to the ease with which the all-timber boxes may be moved. Three are listed, Chappel & Wakes Colne (1891) at the East Anglian Railway Museum, Wroxham (1900), moved further back from the track at its original location and Hertford East (1888*), boarded up and in a poor state of repair since closure. In view of this, there is little need for further listed examples, although there might be stronger claimants for listed status than Hertford East such as Bury St. Edmunds (1888), the winner of a restoration award for May Gurney, the contractors.

* The box appears to have been erected in 1887 and brought into use when the line opened in 1888.

Its present condition is simply due to the fact that once out of use, NR are not obliged to maintain the building, despite it being listed, except as necessary to ensure safety to passing trains and railway workers.

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes, that appears to be the text I read from the planning documents. If there are other examples in better condition, how many need to be listed?

 

[47421]

i think the reason consent was refused first time round was because the local historical society objected, not because the box is of real significance at a national level but because it is one of very few historically significant industrial buildings remaining in Hertford. That and fact that there was no assurance provided by the hertitage railway it was to be moved to that the building would be maintained etc in the future

 

[John Webb]

i think the reason consent was refused first time round was because the local historical society objected, not because the box is of real significance at a national level but because it is one of very few historically significant industrial buildings remaining in Hertford. That and fact that there was no assurance provided by the hertitage railway it was to be moved to that the building would be maintained etc in the future

This is the box in question (click on photo to go to the larger original on the Geograph website):
Redundant signal box. Hertford East

© Copyright Rob Candlish and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Apparently the sidings on the left are out of use; I wonder if the History Society made any suggestion about preserving the box, perhaps by moving it back from the running lines? I note the proximity of the overhead lines! (At St Albans South we are set back due to a previous carriage siding which was in front of the box - but our lease with Network Rail forbids us from waving wet mops out of the windows amongst other things.)

 

[Class 170101]

How many sidings are there to the left?

 

[BS56]

This is the box in question (click on photo to go to the larger original on the Geograph website):
Redundant signal box. Hertford East

© Copyright Rob Candlish and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Apparently the sidings on the left are out of use; I wonder if the History Society made any suggestion about preserving the box, perhaps by moving it back from the running lines? I note the proximity of the overhead lines! (At St Albans South we are set back due to a previous carriage siding which was in front of the box - but our lease with Network Rail forbids us from waving wet mops out of the windows amongst other things.)

This is the box in question (click on photo to go to the larger original on the Geograph website):
Redundant signal box. Hertford East

© Copyright Rob Candlish and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

Apparently the sidings on the left are out of use; I wonder if the History Society made any suggestion about preserving the box, perhaps by moving it back from the running lines? I note the proximity of the overhead lines! (At St Albans South we are set back due to a previous carriage siding which was in front of the box - but our lease with Network Rail forbids us from waving wet mops out of the windows amongst other things.)

How many sidings are there to the left?

I think most of them now lifted and new flats have been built there along with a new road called Claude Hamalton way built where that siding was it then turns sharp left. But bits of them might still be there.
, post: 4712437, member: 24309"]

 

[malc-c]

I think most of them now lifted and new flats have been built there along with a new road called Claude Hamalton way built where that siding was it then turns sharp left. But bits of them might still be there.
, post: 4712437, member: 24309"]

Google Maps (street view) show evidence of that at the junction with Mead lane

Apparently the sidings on the left are out of use; I wonder if the History Society made any suggestion about preserving the box, perhaps by moving it back from the running lines? I note the proximity of the overhead lines! (At St Albans South we are set back due to a previous carriage siding which was in front of the box - but our lease with Network Rail forbids us from waving wet mops out of the windows amongst other things.)

I was thinking that too. From the images and looking at Google maps it seems that there is ample room to relocate the signal box within a few metres of its original location and still allow the extension of the platform, even if it means lifting some of the remaining redundant rusted sidings.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm not sure that artifact of a level crossing was part of the carriage sidings - appears to be something else...a factory siding, perhaps?

Georeferenced Maps - Map images - National Library of Scotland

...Also of interest, that rusty line behind the signal box isn't one of the carriage sidings, it appears to be the rump of the GNR branch to Welwyn..

 

[BS56]

Yes you are right this open crossing was a spur off the old GNR branch to Welwyn . It served the old Gas works for many years early on but later two new sidings were laid for a tar distribution works which was in use until the early eighties. Class 33's came up from Fawley I think to unload there I have been told although I did see them myself.

 

[swt_passenger]

Nice find Dave. I was looking for similar when it was agreed to give Stevenage its 5th platform, but wasn't able to find any drawings at the time.

I think the issue comes back to whether or not the work is within NR’s “permitted development rights“. So in the Stevenage case, if the council responded to the “screening opinion” that an environmental statement wasn’t required, then you wouldn’t see any more detailed drawings within the public planning process.

But in this case at Hertford, they had to do a proper planning application to deal with removal of a listed building, and certain alterations to the station, also a listed building.

But even then, they explain in the covering letter to the application that:
“The platform extensions and associated works themselves are granted planning permission by part 8 of the GDPO [1] details have been included for information.”
So the drawings that are available are presumably for background info, and probably wouldn’t have been provided normally; and similar drawings may not become available for other platform lengthening work on the route.

[1] GPDO is the abbreviation for “The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015”

 

[mr_jrt]

Apologies for the tangent, but I wonder why when the Welwyn branch was closed the line between Hertford East and North wasn't retained? Seems like it would have been a useful link with some minor work, and would have enabled attention to be focussed on one four-platform station, with Hertford East being a through station on that route instead.

 

[BS56]

The problem with Hertford North was that the branch bypassed the station and so a fifth platform would also be needed there the up bay never had any track! as far as I know. The old Cowbridge station was even closer to the East station but I doubt if any one missed it when it closed in 1924. The branch was only single track it would need to be double and a facing connection put in before the east station .

 

[jopsuk]

remember in all of this that stations that currently take 8 car trains take 160m trains, and the "10 car" trains coming are 243m (about the length of a current 12-car)

 

[TheHSRailFan]

I was thinking that too. From the images and looking at Google maps it seems that there is ample room to relocate the signal box within a few metres of its original location and still allow the extension of the platform, even if it means lifting some of the remaining redundant rusted sidings.

Apparently the sidings on the left are out of use; I wonder if the History Society made any suggestion about preserving the box, perhaps by moving it back from the running lines? I note the proximity of the overhead lines! (At St Albans South we are set back due to a previous carriage siding which was in front of the box - but our lease with Network Rail forbids us from waving wet mops out of the windows amongst other things.)

Sorry to say this but the Steet view images are very old and the council has since then paved over it. The curb on the railway side still has a dip to show where trains would go over but its sadly gone. There is some track still visible after you go over the mill road river lea bridge. But that really is kind of paved over and hard to see.

On the topic of moving the signal box a bit back, both Network Rail and Wensleydale Railway have agreed to dismantle and transfer the box up there. I don't know if they have put in planning permission for it to be transferred there but it does say it has to be done now that they have granted. Check 'PROPOSED LOCATION AND TRACK LAYOUT' and a few other bits. Though it looks like this will be heavily monitored thanks to it being listed.

 

[malc-c]

So now that planning permission has been granted, what's the time line for the work to commence. It would make a nice subject for a vlog