Redhill Platform 0

[Bikeman78]

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.

Therein lies the problem. No one asked for the Thameslink timetable. It has resulted in sub optimal timetables on almost every route it interacts with, even if you ignore the May meltdown. I know one person that moved from Royston to Cambridge because he predicted it would be a shambles. What a wise move that turned out to be.

 

[Bikeman78]

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!
View attachment 60067

I wonder if the people that designed that abomination think they've done a good job. Virtually nowhere to sit, a roof that blatently won't keep the rain off and nowhere warm to wait.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

You'd have to be insane to risk a three minute connection at Redhill, even before platform 0 was built. Now it would take that long just to get from the north end of 0 to the subway let alone get to any of the other platforms.

 

[JonathanH]

Therein lies the problem. No one asked for the Thameslink timetable. It has resulted in sub optimal timetables on almost every route it interacts with, even if you ignore the May meltdown. I know one person that moved from Royston to Cambridge because he predicted it would be a shambles. What a wise move that turned out to be.

What aspect of the Thameslink timetable did people not ask for? Not everyone travelling to London works within walking distance of their London Terminal and in the future they may be able to look at jobs in more locations.

 

[big all]

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.

it used to be platform one you would stop just by the lift with the back off the train clear off the signal
and platform 2 any where between the office door [massive cast iron kettle always boiling inside] and top off the stairs
iff they wanted you on the six it would be 2 or 6 fingers or 9 car mark would be a finger pointed north and signal would be a touched head

 

[infobleep]

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.

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.

What is the reason the Junction can't be fast? The fact trains need to stop at the platforms?

 

[JonathanH]

What is the reason the Junction can't be fast? The fact trains need to stop at the platforms?

Space, probably. A fast turnout such as that at Stoats Nest Junction needs to be quite long to enable the higher speeds - the junctions at the south end at Redhill are quite short to fit in between the platforms and the Reigate / Tonbridge lines.

 

[MarkyT]

Space, probably. A fast turnout such as that at Stoats Nest Junction needs to be quite long to enable the higher speeds - the junctions at the south end at Redhill are quite short to fit in between the platforms and the Reigate / Tonbridge lines.

The Reigate Junction is very tight indeed, and rather complex with the long multi-diamond crossing from platform #3. It is essentially the old steam age layout at this end still, largely because during the 1980s resignalling planned track remodelling was cancelled due to the stark capital funding cutbacks imposed in the Thatcher era, so the old over-complex and expensive to maintain layout has been 'locked in' ever since by the signalling configuration. The north end has been simplified significantly recently of course in conjunction with the new platform, and one day something similar may be possible at the south, when junction speeds might be improved as well.
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

 

[infobleep]

The Reigate Junction is very tight indeed, and rather complex with the long multi-diamond crossing from platform #3. It is essentially the old steam age layout at this end still, largely because during the 1980s resignalling planned track remodelling was cancelled due to the stark capital funding cutbacks imposed in the Thatcher era, so the old over-complex and expensive to maintain layout has been 'locked in' ever since by the signalling configuration. The north end has been simplified significantly recently of course in conjunction with the new platform, and one day something similar may be possible at the south, when junction speeds might be improved as well.
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

So short term cutbacks meant longer term maintenance costs. Sometimes one has to spend to save.

 

[MarkyT]

So short term cutbacks meant longer term maintenance costs. Sometimes one has to spend to save.

I started work at the BR(WR) signalling drawing office in Reading in 1983 and they were facing similar problems on the so called 'West of England' resignalling scheme incorporating the new Westbury and Exeter PSBs. Westbury construction was already too far advanced to change anything significant but the shears were out heavily on the Exeter scheme. They were too late for St Davids station thankfully, but I was shown the original plans that had been approved for Newton Abbot and Taunton. There was no possibility of retaining the original mechanical layouts at these sites so remodelling of some sort had to be carried out, but BR had been instructed by the treasury to make further substantial savings and thus engineers were tasked with reducing the number of new turnouts to be provided in the new layouts by approximately 50% compared to the totals originally planned. At Newton Abbot, a four platform layout proposed with outer through lines, some sidings and a double junction to the Torbay branch was heavily simplified to create the lobotomised three platform setup that survives today with its single lead connection to the branch. The layout struggled from day one and the situation steadily became worse with increasing traffic levels. Branch trains in particular often have to wait for a free platform today and connections are sometimes missed. I guess we were lucky the branch wasn't singled at the time too, but that was probably only because retaining double avoided additional points for an intermediate passing loop somewhere enroute! The layout at Taunton was also heavily simplified, with, for instance, the only exit eastbound from Fairwater yard being via the down platform loop, at the time the only platform available for all down passenger trains, despite there being two fast lines right through the station that actually had very little use at the time.

 

[infobleep]

I started work at the BR(WR) signalling drawing office in Reading in 1983 and they were facing similar problems on the so called 'West of England' resignalling scheme incorporating the new Westbury and Exeter PSBs. Westbury construction was already too far advanced to change anything significant but the shears were out heavily on the Exeter scheme. They were too late for St Davids station thankfully, but I was shown the original plans that had been approved for Newton Abbot and Taunton. There was no possibility of retaining the original mechanical layouts at these sites so remodelling of some sort had to be carried out, but BR had been instructed by the treasury to make further substantial savings and thus engineers were tasked with reducing the number of new turnouts to be provided in the new layouts by approximately 50% compared to the totals originally planned. At Newton Abbot, a four platform layout proposed with outer through lines, some sidings and a double junction to the Torbay branch was heavily simplified to create the lobotomised three platform setup that survives today with its single lead connection to the branch. The layout struggled from day one and the situation steadily became worse with increasing traffic levels. Branch trains in particular often have to wait for a free platform today and connections are sometimes missed. I guess we were lucky the branch wasn't singled at the time too, but that was probably only because retaining double avoided additional points for an intermediate passing loop somewhere enroute! The layout at Taunton was also heavily simplified, with, for instance, the only exit eastbound from Fairwater yard being via the down platform loop, at the time the only platform available for all down passenger trains, despite there being two fast lines right through the station that actually had very little use at the time.

Thank you for that fascinating insight.

 

[Deepgreen]

You'd have to be insane to risk a three minute connection at Redhill, even before platform 0 was built. Now it would take that long just to get from the north end of 0 to the subway let alone get to any of the other platforms.

Indeed, but, whether a booked connection or not, if reversers use platform 1, then the cross-platform to/from p2 at least allows impromptu connections which are impossible from p0. It's not all about planned connections, but enabling ease of use in general.

 

[Deepgreen]

I wonder if the people that designed that abomination think they've done a good job. Virtually nowhere to sit, a roof that blatently won't keep the rain off and nowhere warm to wait.

Almost everything about the product screams poor passenger requirements considerations: four next train DMIs, but none actually where people most need them - near the entrance; a canopy which, as you say, is almost pointless (and which trains don't use anyway) and ill-considered stopping marks that deliberately increase walking times for passengers.

The railway is being littered with dire infrastructure designs - just up the line at East Croydon, the new footbridge is a laughable example - a roof that doesn't keep the rain off, compounded by floor tiles that are extremely slippery! How on earth are these things approved for construction?

 

[Bikeman78]

Almost everything about the product screams poor passenger requirements considerations: four next train DMIs, but none actually where people most need them - near the entrance; a canopy which, as you say, is almost pointless (and which trains don't use anyway) and ill-considered stopping marks that deliberately increase walking times for passengers.

The railway is being littered with dire infrastructure designs - just up the line at East Croydon, the new footbridge is a laughable example - a roof that doesn't keep the rain off, compounded by floor tiles that are extremely slippery! How on earth are these things approved for construction?

I see someone has had a grumble in the letters page of RAIL. I didn't realise that the Reading DMUs trundle all the way to the London end of platform 0. What is point in that when they are heading back south or west almost immediately? I doubt it can be signal sighting otherwise how would a 12 car EMU head south from 0?

 

[JonathanH]

I see someone has had a grumble in the letters page of RAIL. I didn't realise that the Reading DMUs trundle all the way to the London end of platform 0. What is point in that when they are heading back south or west almost immediately? I doubt it can be signal sighting otherwise how would a 12 car EMU head south from 0?

That question is posed and answered earlier in the thread.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/redhill-platform-0.178424/#post-3907887

 

[Bikeman78]

That question is posed and answered earlier in the thread.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/redhill-platform-0.178424/#post-3907887

Oh yes, I'd forgotten your earlier post. I can't say I agree. Very few failures result in a train being unmovable. In most cases the fault is only in one cab or you can isolate various things and run the train empty back to depot. So in the Redhill example you could move the unit to the north end of the platform using the working cab or run it empty to Reading.

 

[Ianno87]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten your earlier post. I can't say I agree. Very few failures result in a train being unmovable. In most cases the fault is only in one cab or you can isolate various things and run the train empty back to depot. So in the Redhill example you could move the unit to the north end of the platform using the working cab or run it empty to Reading.

But while you're faffing around figuring out what's wrong, speaking to fleet controller, etc. the entire platform remains unavailable.

 

[JonathanH]

But while you're faffing around figuring out what's wrong, speaking to fleet controller, etc. the entire platform remains unavailable.

...and in the case of Redhill, in theory at least a Reading to Gatwick train may need to use the South end of the platform. Remember that the 3tph timetable has Reading to Gatwick trains at Redhill in both directions at the same time.

 

[Bikeman78]

But while you're faffing around figuring out what's wrong, speaking to fleet controller, etc. the entire platform remains unavailable.

I still don't see the problem. If the XX38 arrival from Reading fails, it's over 40 minutes before the next reversing train is booked into 0. If the XX25 arrival fails then replatform the XX38 into the south end of 1 behind the Tonbridge. Passengers naturally congregate around the platform entrance but the railway thinks it's okay to annoy people twice an hour all day. Very strange.

 

[Bikeman78]

...and in the case of Redhill, in theory at least a Reading to Gatwick train may need to use the South end of the platform. Remember that the 3tph timetable has Reading to Gatwick trains at Redhill in both directions at the same time.

Even if the 3tph happens I doubt they would put the trains to and from Gatwick in the same platform at the same time. If 0 was blocked by a hypothetical failure then you put the Reading to Gatwick in 1 and the Gatwick to Reading in 2, or vice versa.

 

[JonathanH]

Even if the 3tph happens I doubt they would put the trains to and from Gatwick in the same platform at the same time. If 0 was blocked by a hypothetical failure then you put the Reading to Gatwick in 1 and the Gatwick to Reading in 2, or vice versa.

No, the Reigate to Victoria train is also there at the same time and the Gatwick to Bedford train not far away.

 

[Bikeman78]

No, the Reigate to Victoria train is also there at the same time and the Gatwick to Bedford train not far away.

Are we really discussing what would happen following a failure in a timetable that isn't even running! Anyway, I've looked at Deepgreen's picture of March 6th and the position of the train is not as bad as I thought so apologies for stirring up the hornets nest. I'm not even convinced that they could get a second three car unit behind the one pictured.