Redhill Platform 0

[Deepgreen]

When the new platform 0 was built at Redhill, it was intended that GW trains would, as a rule, use platform 1, which became a ten-car south-facing bay, worked as a two section platform when required. However, many GW trains use platform 0 to reverse, even when platform 1 is empty. One such time is the 1223 arrival (reverses to form the 1230 departure) and the 1242 Reading to Gatwick reverser.

Both these could use platform 1, which would avoid the need for connecting passengers to cross via the subway to/from platform 2 (to/from the stopping point halfway up platform 0 - why can't there be a specific 3 car mark sited to make the GW trains stop as close to the subway as possible?!). The use of platform 1 would also keep platform 0 (a through road) free for use by any other trains that may be late, etc. I have seen many passengers with luggage miss a Reading train (only 2 hourly at some intermediate stations!) which they would easily have caught if it had been across the same platform.

It seems that passenger convenience has, yet again, been overlooked for want of a bit of thought about operations here.

 

[Carlisle]

When the new platform 0 was built at Redhill, it was intended that GW trains would, as a rule, use platform 1,

I’ve never been keen on all these meaningless platform 0s that have appeared throughout the network over recent years, they should only be prermitted on a temporary basis until a proper renumbering scheme can take place at some point

 

[JN114]

The 1223 arrival

I’ve never been keen on all these meaningless platform 0s that have appeared throughout the network over recent years, they should only be prermitted on a temporary basis until a proper renumbering scheme can take place at some point

Generally requires much more thorough signalling alterations at major stations; which would only be done as a part of a much wider scheme.

The likes of Cardiff Platform 0 can’t be renumbered, otherwise the tiled platform numbers in the subway wouldn’t be correct; those cannot be altered as a part of the stations listing.

To the question in the OP - while it does appear 1 is free for that time window; I’m not sure without looking at the timetable planning rules whether using 1 would cause a platform reoccupation conflict with the inbound Tonbridge; but that would be the likely rationale. In short, just because you can’t see a train in the platform; doesn’t make the platform available from a timetable compliance perspective.

 

[DelW]

I've never understood why the GWR units have to go to the north end of either platform 0 or 1 - it seems to serve no purpose other than to make passengers walk further (from the subway steps / lift), and to be marginally more likely to miss their train when interchanging. I have the impression that it's become the norm since platform 0 opened, but I'm not sure if that's maybe just my experience. It's particularly annoying when the service is switched from p0 to p1 (or v.v.) at the last minute, as I have experienced.

I have once missed a Reading train from platform 1 (some years ago, when I think GWR trains more often did wait at the south end) - I came up from the subway onto a crowded platform, and as the Reading train was shown on the p1 departure board near the top of the steps, I waited there. Unfortunately the train was already up at the north end, but I only realised that as it departed past me.

 

[Deepgreen]

"Platform reoccupation conflict"? Another term to excuse a failure to put passengers' needs first? The Tonbridge and Reading trains do not conflict in the timetable, and if disruption demanded, platform 0 could always be used as an alternative, rather than the first (timetabled) choice. The use of two different platforms to reverse short trains at different times is just a waste and ignores the very real possibility of missed connections on this very infrequent service. The platform stopping mark on zero is far too far north for a 3 car GWR unit and there should be a specific mark for these to place them as close to the exit as possible - again, to put passenger convenience first when there is no operational reason not to. Specific stopping marks were provided for the 700s, so there's no reason why the 165/166s can't have them.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

"Platform reoccupation conflict"? Another term to excuse a failure to put passengers' needs first? The Tonbridge and Reading trains do not conflict in the timetable, and if disruption demanded, platform 0 could always be used as an alternative, rather than the first (timetabled) choice. The use of two different platforms to reverse short trains at different times is just a waste and ignores the very real possibility of missed connections on this very infrequent service. The platform stopping mark on zero is far too far north for a 3 car GWR unit and there should be a specific mark for these to place them as close to the exit as possible - again, to put passenger convenience first when there is no operational reason not to. Specific stopping marks were provided for the 700s, so there's no reason why the 165/166s can't have them.

Platform end conflicts is when two trains would effectively have a conflicting schedule. There are various margins and headway’s used to ensure this doesn’t happen and an impossible plan is created - this can be found within Network Rail’s Planning rules which are available online.

In this case the arrival from Tonbridge and the arrival from Reading are both booked in at around the same time (xx.36 and xx.38 from memory). Thus the Tonbridge train arrives in platform 1 and the train from Reading arrives parallel into platform 0.

 

[JN114]

Creating a robust timetable is putting passengers needs first. That’s why timetable planning rules exist.

Network Rail are short of timetable planners at the moment, if you genuinely think you can do a better job I’m sure they’d welcome your application.

 

[Deepgreen]

Creating a robust timetable is putting passengers needs first. That’s why timetable planning rules exist.

Network Rail are short of timetable planners at the moment, if you genuinely think you can do a better job I’m sure they’d welcome your application.

Indeed, although a "robust timetable" means different things to different parties - to the TOCs it means minimised penalties, whereas to passengers it means achieving advertised and unadvertised connections connections, etc.), but there is no insoluble clash here! If the Tonbridge train arrives first, it goes to the north end of p1 anyway (inconveniencing its passengers in the process), and then the Reading train can come in on top. If the Tonbridge train is very late, it can use p0 (but this would only be relatively infrequently), otherwise it could use p1 after the GW train has gone again. The upshot would be that more passengers get a better interchange arrangement than now.

As I said, passengers' needs have been put second again. More thought needs to be given to interchanges involving trains like this running at two hourly intervals. As I also said, the stopping marks also need attention, as GW trains currently stop way too far north for no reason other than a failure to provide specific 2/3 car marks to put the units next to the stairs. Large sums were spent on providing dedicated stopping marks for the 700s which were even only a couple of feet away from the existing marks, so it could and should be done for GW.

 

[JN114]

Indeed, but there is no clash here! As I said, passengers' needs have been put second again.

Without a thorough interrogation of the planning rules I couldn’t say there isn’t a clash with any certainty. There is a Tonbridge service due in only a couple of minutes after the Reading departs; and they all have to thread between the Southern and Thameslink services.

Just because the platform is empty doesn’t mean it is available. A robust timetable satisfies the largest group of passengers needs. That is imperative above anything else. Planning rules are rules to be followed, not guidelines that can be sacrificed for the convenience of a comparatively small number of interchange passengers.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed, although a "robust timetable" means different things to different parties - to the TOCs it means minimised penalties, whereas to passengers it means achieving advertised and unadvertised connections connections, etc.), but there is no insoluble clash here! If the Tonbridge train arrives first, it goes to the north end of p1 anyway (inconveniencing its passengers in the process), and then the Reading train can come in on top. If the Tonbridge train is very late, it can use p0 (but this would only be relatively infrequently), otherwise it could use p1 after the GW train has gone again. The upshot would be that more passengers get a better interchange arrangement than now.

As I said, passengers' needs have been put second again. More thought needs to be given to interchanges involving trains like this running at two hourly intervals. As I also said, the stopping marks also need attention, as GW trains currently stop way too far north for no reason other than a failure to provide specific 2/3 car marks to put the units next to the stairs. Large sums were spent on providing dedicated stopping marks for the 700s which were even only a couple of feet away from the existing marks, so it could and should be done for GW.

...what a fantastically hilarious comment.

Firstly, the xx.36 arrival from Tonbridge is a timed connection into the xx.41 Victoria departure (ex-Reigate). Therefore reasonable it uses Platform 1 to be cross-platform to the Reigate-Victoria on Platform 2.

Next, is the xx.38 arrival from Reading, which *must* reverse and depart onwards to Gatwick at xx.42 to meet it's path (and indeed its own turnround time once it reaches Gatwick. That's 4 minutes for driver to change ends, passengers on and off, etc.

Now, if this were to platform share, it could *not* arrive at xx.38 anymore. You need to add in at least 30 seconds to allow for the permissive working arrangement, the train getting 'called on' from the previous signal using the position lights (which are heavily approach-controlled, and the drivers must approach the platform at reduced speed, suitably cautiously). Now you're reversal time is down to only 3 1/2 minutes; if you need 4 minutes for the reversal then that's the path bust on the BML to Gatwick.

The whole North Downs line timetable is very delcately structured around the long headways on the route, mixed stopping patterns, and interaction with SWR at Guildford. You can't just make claims that changing the timetable is "not insoluble". Similarly, the main line pattern bewteen Readhill and Gatwick is ultimately driven by the Thameslink core.

Other considerations:
-Imagine you're GTR and your Tonbridge train every hour is worked on top of by a GWR train.... Then you're at the mercy every single hour of the GWR train not failing (particularly risky as it's reversing on a minimum reversal time), so at high exposure to being unable to operate your Tonbridge train every time there's a problem with the GWR train, when there's an unused platform alongside.
-Similarly if you're GWR, do you *really* want the performance of your Reading-Gatwick train to depend on minute-perfect arrival of the Tonbridge train every hour, particularly when it then knocks on down the BML towards Gatwick?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Indeed, although a "robust timetable" means different things to different parties - to the TOCs it means minimised penalties, whereas to passengers it means achieving advertised and unadvertised connections connections, etc.), but there is no insoluble clash here!

This is utter rubbish. I know you generally dislike GWR but suggesting that they have no interest in operating a reliable timetable and are simply in it for the money - particularly knowing there are GWR members of staff on this forum who take their personal time to provide information and updates - and who clearly care about providing as good a service as possible - is frankly offensive IMO.

 

[MML]

Redhill doesn't seem to have sufficient through platforms for the number trains using it.
Every morning Thameslink trains have to wait outside Redhill station waiting for the southbound Platform 3 to be vacated.
In almost all cases, there is a Reigate train occupying platform 3. A Horsham - Peterborough on Platform 2, the Tonbridge terminator on platform 1 and the GWR service on Platform 0.

 

[big all]

they could do with a bay south end off 3 to keep tonbridge shuttles clear off the junction pretty much where the old cattle dock was

 

[JonathanH]

Redhill doesn't seem to have sufficient through platforms for the number trains using it.
Every morning Thameslink trains have to wait outside Redhill station waiting for the southbound Platform 3 to be vacated.
In almost all cases, there is a Reigate train occupying platform 3. A Horsham - Peterborough on Platform 2, the Tonbridge terminator on platform 1 and the GWR service on Platform 0.

There are fewer Thameslink trains southbound in the morning peak than there should be because of the congestion at Redhill.

Two problems:
a) delayed GWR trains towards Reading can cause delay to a Reigate train from platform 3.
b) delay to the Southern Reigate / Gatwick service on its passage through the congested Croydon to Purley corridor.

 

[Sunset route]

they could do with a bay south end off 3 to keep tonbridge shuttles clear off the junction pretty much where the old cattle dock was

That was in one of the original plans which I have somewhere, but the plans run out of time to include the south Junction or use “computer based interlocking”.

 

[big all]

years ago about 1990 the plan was from memory move the whole station north some distance perhaps 200 metres to give more room for a more complicated layout south end and i think but could be wrong the postoffice dock a through island platform giving a 4 platform through layout with the two through tracks as well
but as i say may be fully gossip or miss remembered as quite a while ago

 

[infobleep]

That was in one of the original plans which I have somewhere, but the plans run out of time to include the south Junction or use “computer based interlocking”.

Were the previous works done in such a way that they could make additional changes later or did the works have no barring on any future changes?

I can't see the timetable wouth for Thameslink services increasing any time soon. Maybe in 20 years time it might. I exaggerate there.

So far all the responses have been about the timetable but does anyone, who works in the industry, have views on the stopping position of the NDL trains? If there a perticular reason why it couldn't be changed to closer to the steps?

It is a shame they aren't able to hold trains there when other services run late. I appreciate why this might be but it still can leave people waiting for ages.

I wonder if GWR would provide a taxi if your next train was in 2 hours?

 

[JonathanH]

So far all the responses have been about the timetable but does anyone, who works in the industry, have views on the stopping position of the NDL trains? If there a perticular reason why it couldn't be changed to closer to the steps?

You don't need to work in the industry to suggest obvious reasons why terminating trains stop at the north end of platforms 0 and 1.

Both branches approach from the south. If a train fails in the platform, parking it at the north end means you can continue to use platforms 0 and 1 for further terminating/ reversing trains.

By having a practice of sending all of them to the north end you don't get any confusion about where a particular service is meant to stop on the platform.

Terminating trains on platform 2 do so at the southern end of the station by local convention.

Yes, it is a nuisance for passengers with all the interchange facilities at the south end but operationally it makes a lot of sense, especially since platform 1 has become a bay.

 

[JN114]

So far all the responses have been about the timetable but does anyone, who works in the industry, have views on the stopping position of the NDL trains? If there a perticular reason why it couldn't be changed to closer to the steps?

You don't need to work in the industry to suggest obvious reasons why terminating trains stop at the north end of platforms 0 and 1.

Both branches approach from the south. If a train fails in the platform, parking it at the north end means you can continue to use platforms 0 and 1 for further terminating/ reversing trains.

By having a practice of sending all of them to the north end you don't get any confusion about where a particular service is meant to stop on the platform.

Terminating trains on platform 2 do so at the southern end of the station by local convention.

Yes, it is a nuisance for passengers with all the interchange facilities at the south end but operationally it makes a lot of sense, especially since platform 1 has become a bay.

This.

As for Taxis, GWR should usually arrange one, via the station staff, if there’s more than an hour wait after missing a valid timetabled connection. I’d need to re-read the passenger charter but I’m fairly sure it’s in there.

Obviously GWR need to know there’s actually people who have missed the connection - A quick word with the platform staff at Redhill and they’ll forward the request on to GWR control.

 

[infobleep]

This.

As for Taxis, GWR should usually arrange one, via the station staff, if there’s more than an hour wait after missing a valid timetabled connection. I’d need to re-read the passenger charter but I’m fairly sure it’s in there.

Obviously GWR need to know there’s actually people who have missed the connection - A quick word with the platform staff at Redhill and they’ll forward the request on to GWR control.

Thanks for that. Some how I didn't take that bit in about the platform position. Edit: actually that was after my post. Apologies you were quoting someone else.

At Guildford trains don't stop at one end or the other, yet they could fail. I'm sure trains terminating in platform 2 and 3 don't go to the far end.

Is it only terminating trains they would be concerned about?

By the way I'm not disputing what you say, just interested in it and the situation elsewhere.

 

[infobleep]

You don't need to work in the industry to suggest obvious reasons why terminating trains stop at the north end of platforms 0 and 1.

Both branches approach from the south. If a train fails in the platform, parking it at the north end means you can continue to use platforms 0 and 1 for further terminating/ reversing trains.

By having a practice of sending all of them to the north end you don't get any confusion about where a particular service is meant to stop on the platform.

Terminating trains on platform 2 do so at the southern end of the station by local convention.

Yes, it is a nuisance for passengers with all the interchange facilities at the south end but operationally it makes a lot of sense, especially since platform 1 has become a bay.

Would it make sense for the local convention on platform 2 to be removed, if it makes operational sense for trains to terminate at the north end?

If it doesn't matter, could they, playing devil's advocate here, extend the local convention to cover platforms 0 and 1.

 

[JN114]

Thanks for that. Some how I didn't take that bit in about the platform position. Edit: actually that was after my post. Apologies you were quoting someone else.

At Guildford trains don't stop at one end or the other, yet they could fail. I'm sure trains terminating in platform 2 and 3 don't go to the far end.

Is it only terminating trains they would be concerned about?

By the way I'm not disputing what you say, just interested in it and the situation elsewhere.

Guildford you operationally have effectively 2 stations. Platforms 1/2/3 are almost exclusively used by terminating services from London Waterloo. The majority of those services take up most of the platform length, so there is no flexibility to be gained by those services leaving room; they just stop where a 4/8/10 car would normally stop. The Mainline side of Guildford - 4/5/6&7/8 - the majority of traffic runs through the station, with only the Ascot services terminating on a very short turnaround. These generally have exclusive use of platform 6&7 for most of the day, with 4 being used for Portsmouth line and EB GWR services, 5 being used for fast services to London and 8 being used for WB GWR services. There is greater operational flexibility at Guildford. Once the timetable is robust, and there is enough slack in the infrastructure, you can start doing cute things like stopping mid-platform to save passenger shoe leather.

Redhill only has 4 platforms - and only 3 of them are on through lines - but a much higher proportion of services terminate or reverse there. The needs of the greater good - allowing enough operational railway to mitigate failures - outweigh the needs of the comparatively small number of interchange passengers who would benefit from the shorter walk or easier change. That and as previously stated many times - the Thameslink timetable, which everything that gets remotely near the Brighton main line has to fit into, is so knife-edge that seemingly small changes have large and far reaching consequences.

A “Tonbridge bay” on the east side would be a marvellous addition, and reduce junction conflicts at the south end significantly. Alas Redhill isn’t the biggest bottleneck on the Brighton mainline at present; and probably won’t get the attention it needs until it is so.

 

[infobleep]

Guildford you operationally have effectively 2 stations. Platforms 1/2/3 are almost exclusively used by terminating services from London Waterloo. The majority of those services take up most of the platform length, so there is no flexibility to be gained by those services leaving room; they just stop where a 4/8/10 car would normally stop. The Mainline side of Guildford - 4/5/6&7/8 - the majority of traffic runs through the station, with only the Ascot services terminating on a very short turnaround. These generally have exclusive use of platform 6&7 for most of the day, with 4 being used for Portsmouth line and EB GWR services, 5 being used for fast services to London and 8 being used for WB GWR services. There is greater operational flexibility at Guildford. Once the timetable is robust, and there is enough slack in the infrastructure, you can start doing cute things like stopping mid-platform to save passenger shoe leather.

Redhill only has 4 platforms - and only 3 of them are on through lines - but a much higher proportion of services terminate or reverse there. The needs of the greater good - allowing enough operational railway to mitigate failures - outweigh the needs of the comparatively small number of interchange passengers who would benefit from the shorter walk or easier change. That and as previously stated many times - the Thameslink timetable, which everything that gets remotely near the Brighton main line has to fit into, is so knife-edge that seemingly small changes have large and far reaching consequences.

A “Tonbridge bay” on the east side would be a marvellous addition, and reduce junction conflicts at the south end significantly. Alas Redhill isn’t the biggest bottleneck on the Brighton mainline at present; and probably won’t get the attention it needs until it is so.

I appreciate what you say and I won't dispute it. There are of course parts of the day at Guildford where through trains do use platform 2, 3 and 6 but as you say its not most of the day, well apart from the Reading to Redhill using platform 6 most of the day. However there are alternative platforms for it if necessary.

Of course there are terminating trains at Woking on platform 5 but these do at least carry on in the same direction, rathe than reversing even if they do at times delay trains behind. Trains that don't terminate there are able to clear the platform more quickly than those that do. Again I guess other platforms are avilable if a train fails.

Effingham Junction has terminating trains in peak rush hour that can delay trains if late. At least within the next couple of years or so, those trains will no longer terminating there.

I think the issue at Redhill wouldn't be so bad if there were more trains heading south or heading along the North Downs Line. For the NDL more local trains wouldn't be ecnomincal. For trains heading south from Redhill I don't know if purely on economics, whether more trains would work financially. Logistically they may not work elsewhere however.

By having more trains, it might not matter so much if a passenger missed one of them.

Back to my point nf platform 2, would it be better if services terminated north and the local onvention was removed?

 

[DelW]

Yes, it is a nuisance for passengers with all the interchange facilities at the south end but operationally it makes a lot of sense, especially since platform 1 has become a bay.

Which rather confirms Deepgreen's point.

Obviously GWR need to know there’s actually people who have missed the connection - A quick word with the platform staff at Redhill and they’ll forward the request on to GWR control.

If only Redhill station operated in such a passenger-friendly manner.
Last autumn I was trying to get from there to Guildford when the NDL had fallen apart due to a failed train at Reigate. Platform staff (Southern) were sending all westbound passengers out to buses in the car park - but the bus drivers were adamant that they were only going to Reigate, with no certainty there would be any trains heading west from there. Back into the station where platform staff were still saying go to Reigate by bus and hope something runs from there. Passengers from Gatwick with luggage and connections to make at Reading were heading to and fro, uncertain whether to try that or buy new tickets to go via London. Basically no-one wanted to do anything for GWR passengers. Eventually I saw on Realtime that a GWR train was apparently expected to get through to Redhill, so I hung on there until it did arrive and formed a train back, around an hour after I should have left.

 

[infobleep]

Which rather confirms Deepgreen's point.

If only Redhill station operated in such a passenger-friendly manner.
Last autumn I was trying to get from there to Guildford when the NDL had fallen apart due to a failed train at Reigate. Platform staff (Southern) were sending all westbound passengers out to buses in the car park - but the bus drivers were adamant that they were only going to Reigate, with no certainty there would be any trains heading west from there. Back into the station where platform staff were still saying go to Reigate by bus and hope something runs from there. Passengers from Gatwick with luggage and connections to make at Reading were heading to and fro, uncertain whether to try that or buy new tickets to go via London. Basically no-one wanted to do anything for GWR passengers. Eventually I saw on Realtime that a GWR train was apparently expected to get through to Redhill, so I hung on there until it did arrive and formed a train back, around an hour after I should have left.

Well in cynical mode for a moment, maybe it could be said as tickets are cheaper to stations on the line, you have to get a lesser service. Of course were that the case then no one is saying it.

This evening someone got on the train and asked if it was the train to Reigate. I siad no. Then someone else said thanks for letting me know and got off.

I had a look at the playform screen and it clearly said Gatwick Airport. However further down the platform was one saying Reigate.

I don't know if the extended far enough to fall under or close to that screen to lead to confusion.

Gppd job someone asked as they might have ended up at Gatwick and what if their ticket was valid to Gatwick Airport. I know staff tend to be more lenient when people make mistakes.

 

[Deepgreen]

Just returned from another Redhill journey today. The 1211 from Dorking Deepdene arrives at platform 0 at 1223 and leaves at 1230, with absolutely no clash with any other scheduled workings on platform 1. It could, and should, use platform 1. The stopping mark on platform 0 is also ludicrous (see photo, with the 1223 arrival having just changed ends) as there should be a stopping mark for 2/3 car trains that would allow them to stop close to the stairs AND under the canopy! At the moment, the stopping position is plain stupid. There is also no 'next train' DMI on the platform by the stairs, only a summary of departures, which is not what passengers coming up the stairs at platform 0 need to see first. However, there ARE four DMIs further along the platform - a huge over-provision for passengers who are already on the platform!

The 1238 reverser from Gatwick has 2 minutes separating it from the 1236 Tonbridge arrival. The signalling headway makes this perfectly achievable, even with the permissive rules. With a three car train, reversing in three minutes at Redhill should be easily achievable, OR the Tonbridge arrival could be re-timed to a minute earlier, which still gives a two minute clearance for the 1233 Horsham departure from platform 3. Two minute crossings are routine, e.g. at Stoat's Nest, where my ex-Reigate train - 1R27 - waits for 9J57 to cross in front of it.

IF there is disruption, there is always the fall-back of platform 0, but platform 1 should be the first choice, to minimise connection difficulty (the subway is terrible at times already). As it is, passengers are needlessly inconvenienced in so many ways, simply because no thought has been given to the easy ways in which they could be assisted. To those who say 'could you do better?' - yes, I certainly could, as could anyone who has a basic grasp of passenger needs!

 

[Deepgreen]

This is utter rubbish. I know you generally dislike GWR but suggesting that they have no interest in operating a reliable timetable and are simply in it for the money - particularly knowing there are GWR members of staff on this forum who take their personal time to provide information and updates - and who clearly care about providing as good a service as possible - is frankly offensive IMO.

I didn't specify GWR in this particular post - it's a general issue with all TOCs. The TOCs' commercial arrangements are such that they are driven by targets that must ultimately favour their shareholders - there's no point in denying this fact - it's the whole basis of the railway today. GWR is no worse than so many others in this respect. As for forum users giving their personal time - well, presumably almost all of us do the same?! There will be many users of this forum from many TOCs, so I don't see the point in claiming that GWR users here are somehow superior! One of the main problems with the railway now is that genuine pride and drive to provide good service has disappeared -NOT entirely, but to a large extent.

 

[westcoaster]

I think the stopping point is due to signal sighting issues. Also recall an issue with iirc TPWS grids/AWS magnets.

 

[FenMan]

Just returned from another Redhill journey today. The 1211 from Dorking Deepdene arrives at platform 0 at 1223 and leaves at 1230, with absolutely no clash with any other scheduled workings on platform 1. It could, and should, use platform 1. The stopping mark on platform 0 is also ludicrous (see photo, with the 1223 arrival having just changed ends) as there should be a stopping mark for 2/3 car trains that would allow them to stop close to the stairs AND under the canopy! At the moment, the stopping position is plain stupid. There is also no 'next train' DMI on the platform by the stairs, only a summary of departures, which is not what passengers coming up the stairs at platform 0 need to see first. However, there ARE four DMIs further along the platform - a huge over-provision for passengers who are already on the platform!

The 1238 reverser from Gatwick has 2 minutes separating it from the 1236 Tonbridge arrival. The signalling headway makes this perfectly achievable, even with the permissive rules. With a three car train, reversing in three minutes at Redhill should be easily achievable, OR the Tonbridge arrival could be re-timed to a minute earlier, which still gives a two minute clearance for the 1233 Horsham departure from platform 3. Two minute crossings are routine, e.g. at Stoat's Nest, where my ex-Reigate train - 1R27 - waits for 9J57 to cross in front of it.

IF there is disruption, there is always the fall-back of platform 0, but platform 1 should be the first choice, to minimise connection difficulty (the subway is terrible at times already). As it is, passengers are needlessly inconvenienced in so many ways, simply because no thought has been given to the easy ways in which they could be assisted. To those who say 'could you do better?' - yes, I certainly could, as could anyone who has a basic grasp of passenger needs!

View attachment 60067

BR Times reports the minimum connection time at Redhill is 5 minutes (or 3 min for Southern/Southern connections), which seems to be rather ambitious given the positioning of GWR arrivals.

 

[IrishDave]

The Timetable Planning Rules (TPRs) are the basis of any train timetable. A timetable which doesn't comply with the TPRs can and should be rejected by NR. The TPRs are there to provide a robust, achievable timetable with a modicum of reliability. You can't just go ignoring them.

The TPRs for Sussex have recently been thoroughly revised and brought up to date, and the May 2018 Timetable was (I believe) the first timetable to use the new rules. This has led to a lot of places (like Redhill) being given specific junction margins, rather than simply using generic network-wide values. This has been done specifically to reflect what can actually happen on the ground.

The 1238 reverser from Gatwick has 2 minutes separating it from the 1236 Tonbridge arrival. The signalling headway makes this perfectly achievable, even with the permissive rules.

No it doesn't. Permissive working requires the second train to be brought almost to a stand at the protecting signal before being cleared into the platform, and then the train has to proceed more slowly. As a result the TPRs specify a ½-minute adjustment for any permissive arrival from Reigate. As a result the train from Reading would have to arrive at 12:38½, as Ianno87 has already explained upthread.

Moreover, there are three good reasons to use platform 0:

• It's safer, as it doesn't require the use of permissive working. Permissive working is always a reduction in safety, and if it can be avoided it should be avoided.
• It's more robust: if the Tonbridge arrival is late, then the Reading-Gatwick train will have to use platform 0. The passengers then have to transfer at short notice to platform 0, causing confusion, and potentially delaying an on-time train. By advertising it as platform 0 from the beginning such a problem is avoided.
• It avoids the confusion of having two departures (albeit separated by 18 minutes) in the same platform at the same time.

With a three car train, reversing in three minutes at Redhill should be easily achievable

Three minutes is permissible in the TPRs, by the look of it, and some other GWR trains reverse in three minutes at other times of day. So yes, that would be possible, but see comments above on why platform-sharing could be avoided.

OR the Tonbridge arrival could be re-timed to a minute earlier, which still gives a two minute clearance for the 1233 Horsham departure from platform 3. Two minute crossings are routine, e.g. at Stoat's Nest, where my ex-Reigate train - 1R27 - waits for 9J57 to cross in front of it.

A junction margin of two minutes at a relatively fast junction like Stoats Nest Junction is reasonable. But here the train from Tonbridge will almost certainly have come to a stand at the signal (it has 3 minutes pathing time approaching Tonbridge), and then has to traverse 15mph points to get into Platform 1. It seems unlikely that that could be achieved within two minutes of the departure of the Horsham train. The margin is three minutes for a reason.

IF there is disruption, there is always the fall-back of platform 0, but platform 1 should be the first choice, to minimise connection difficulty (the subway is terrible at times already). As it is, passengers are needlessly inconvenienced in so many ways, simply because no thought has been given to the easy ways in which they could be assisted. To those who say 'could you do better?' - yes, I certainly could, as could anyone who has a basic grasp of passenger needs!

Thought has been given in many ways to how passengers may be conveyed safely on a robust timetable. Cross-platform connections should only be planned if they can be achieved without detriment to safety.