Redhill - Reading

[phil beard]

Can anyone tell me why this route is not being electrified on third rail and given over to Southern or SWT? With FGW being electrified, and much of the Redhill - Reading already third rail, what is the point of keeping FGW diesels operating the line? It's about as mad and short-sighted as the diesel-worked Uckfield and Rye lines not being electrified.

 

[swt_passenger]

NR's electrification strategy gave them a lower priority than many other routes, and they cannot do every possible electrification project at once.

 

[The Ham]

Thing is the line is crying out for longer sets, as the services are run with trains formed of3 coaches of 23m in length with 3+2 seating and it is still full and standing.

If it were to be electrified (ideally then run with a 5 coach 23m stock so they could go back to being 2+2 seating with a bit of capcity for growth) then that would be 3 extra DMU units which could be used elsewhere.

Alternitively I could see that the route could (if there wasn't a use for them elsewhere and they didn't have the same number of seats anyway but spead over 5 coaches) possibly be a suitable place for some class 221's.

 

[tsr]

Whilst the continuity provided by filling in the electrification gaps would be a good move to simplify stock, there are a number of difficulties (no particular order):
1. Filling in with third rail may not be in accordance with current guidance, given the overall length required
2. Parts of the non-electrified sections may require significant local power supply upgrades in order to meet any future enhanced demand, especially from any of the much-discussed possible extra freight avoiding London which could use electric haulage
3. Third rail electrification would be vulnerable to the harsh weather conditions of the North Downs - significantly worse in winter than many other areas of the third rail network, including a microclimate which permits very heavy snowfalls
4. OHLE would perhaps be the most efficient option, and could tie in well with rolling stock cascades, but current systems would require changeovers to reach Gatwick and possibly require retention of the third rail via Guildford and Wokingham
5. Numerous level crossings exist, some of which would not practically be able to be closed or rerouted (Reigate and Betchworth definitely spring to mind), where OHLE would be impractical due to the routes being used as official or unofficial diversions for high-sided vehicles

Therefore, perhaps it's seen as too expensive and a challenge best left for another day. The current diesel units in and of themselves have generally been satisfactory, bar any acceleration problems and emissions, for years. Significant day-to-day disruption problems at present include footpath crossing safety, overcrowding of peak time trains and animal/debris incursions on the line - none of which would be solved by third rail electrification. Strategic changes, such as switching from Reigate SB to the Three Bridges ROC, are yet to come, but probably would not require electrification in and of themselves. Rolling stock, therefore, is really the big unsolved technical issue.

 

[al.currie93]

I have also wondered it, as I have used it a lot. I gather it has always been deemed economically unviable.

I don't think the stock on it currently are too bad, but yes, they can be quite full at times. It is a bit of a regional route so maybe 220s would be a candidate, at leat for the fasts.

I'd personally like to see 73s, four Mk 3s and DVTs on it (where the electro-diesel capability could really be utilised and avoiding apparent uneconomical electrification, and bringing nice regional stock to the line), but I'll probably eat my feet before that ever happens :P

 

[The Ham]

I have also wondered it, as I have used it a lot. I gather it has always been deemed economically unviable.

I don't think the stock on it currently are too bad, but yes, they can be quite full at times. It is a bit of a regional route so maybe 220s would be a candidate, at leat for the fasts.

I'd personally like to see 73s, four Mk 3s and DVTs on it (where the electro-diesel capability could really be utilised and avoiding apparent uneconomical electrification, and bringing nice regional stock to the line), but I'll probably eat my feet before that ever happens :P

The problem (as I see it) is that individal trains are busy, however as there is little/no scope to increase frequncy then the capacity of the line is always going to be underused and therefore not be as viable as routes which can run more frequnet services.

Add to that the limited length of the trains (so once they are busy people are put off from using them) and the limited length of the route (so it is mostly local passengers with no London bound flow) and there is little scope for them to perform as well as other routes.

Also, of course you have the problem that the line requires the use of DMU's pushing up the running costs compared with the electrified routes nearby. If it were able to be run with class 444's then chances are they would be also fairly full (as many people on board if not more), but with the advantage that the cost (at least on a per seat basis) was likely to be lower.

As it is it is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as there are very limited units which would be able to provide more seating and not enough DMU's to provide more capcity whilst electrification is seen as too costly for such a lightly used line.

Even if GW were to run a pair of 2 coach 165's then given the loadings it's unlikely to make much difference and the possible problems of one unit being rammed whilst the other being less busy, having to have three member of staff rather than two, as well as the loss of seating due to the extra pair of cabs and not being able to share facilities.

Which leads to the question, would it be possible to take 8 of the three car 165's and convert them to form four sets with four coaches (for use on this line) and four sets with two coaches (for use on lines where there is less demand, thinking here about where GW could be using them in the West Country post electrification, where three coach sets maybe too long). This could provide trains which have more capacity with over 300 seats and possibly even getting on for about 350 seats (compared with the current about 250 seats).

Such a train would then hopefuly prove that there is the need for the electrification of the line without the risk of electrification. At the very least it would make the line more viable and push it up the list of lines to be electrified a little more. The only problem is that there then comes the problem of what EMU's are there that are 5 coaches long, with 23m coaches and 2+3 seating to be able to cope with the loadings once the new 4 coach 165's are full and standing and electrification finally comes around? As otherwise then the cost would be too high as all the platforms would need lengthening!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course there's always the option to electrify the section from Wokingham to Ash and run 1tph (319's or simlar, with just 2 required to run the service) to take some of the loadings off the existing services over that section, possibly even removing the more local stops from the Redhil service.

Although that would cause mayham in Wokingham with the level crossing closing even more frequently.

 

[TEW]

To increase train lengths would require an expensive programme of platform lengthening. I know Dorking Deepdene can only take 3-carriages. I'm sure there are other platforms which are similarly limited.

 

[Surreyman]

The problem (as I see it) is that individal trains are busy, however as there is little/no scope to increase frequncy then the capacity of the line is always going to be underused and therefore not be as viable as routes which can run more frequnet services.

Add to that the limited length of the trains (so once they are busy people are put off from using them) and the limited length of the route (so it is mostly local passengers with no London bound flow) and there is little scope for them to perform as well as other routes.

Also, of course you have the problem that the line requires the use of DMU's pushing up the running costs compared with the electrified routes nearby. If it were able to be run with class 444's then chances are they would be also fairly full (as many people on board if not more), but with the advantage that the cost (at least on a per seat basis) was likely to be lower.

As it is it is stuck between a rock and a hard place, as there are very limited units which would be able to provide more seating and not enough DMU's to provide more capcity whilst electrification is seen as too costly for such a lightly used line.

Even if GW were to run a pair of 2 coach 165's then given the loadings it's unlikely to make much difference and the possible problems of one unit being rammed whilst the other being less busy, having to have three member of staff rather than two, as well as the loss of seating due to the extra pair of cabs and not being able to share facilities.

Which leads to the question, would it be possible to take 8 of the three car 165's and convert them to form four sets with four coaches (for use on this line) and four sets with two coaches (for use on lines where there is less demand, thinking here about where GW could be using them in the West Country post electrification, where three coach sets maybe too long). This could provide trains which have more capacity with over 300 seats and possibly even getting on for about 350 seats (compared with the current about 250 seats).

Such a train would then hopefuly prove that there is the need for the electrification of the line without the risk of electrification. At the very least it would make the line more viable and push it up the list of lines to be electrified a little more. The only problem is that there then comes the problem of what EMU's are there that are 5 coaches long, with 23m coaches and 2+3 seating to be able to cope with the loadings once the new 4 coach 165's are full and standing and electrification finally comes around? As otherwise then the cost would be too high as all the platforms would need lengthening!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course there's always the option to electrify the section from Wokingham to Ash and run 1tph (319's or simlar, with just 2 required to run the service) to take some of the loadings off the existing services over that section, possibly even removing the more local stops from the Redhil service.

Although that would cause mayham in Wokingham with the level crossing closing even more frequently.

A 30 minute service Reading to Gatwick has been promised, The current service is currently hourly main stns only through to Gatwick, with 'stopping' trains alternating between Reading and Guildford and a less regular service to all stns between Guildford to Redhill. There are committed plans for a new platform to be built at Redhill in a few years time.
This line is a long way down the electrification priority list and being part 3rd rail doesn't help.
I live on this line and use it regularly, the 3 car sets are adequate most of the time.
There are many many other lines with a much greater priority for scarce Electrification funds and resources.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that the extra platform at Redhill will probably allow a 3tph peak service between Reading and Redhill with 2tph continuing to Gatwick.

 

[tsr]

I think that the extra platform at Redhill will probably allow a 3tph peak service between Reading and Redhill with 2tph continuing to Gatwick.

Extension of a second service to Gatwick may partly - at least to some extent - depend on timings over the junctions at Shalford and Redhill, both of which could be tricky. The extra platform at Redhill looks like it'll be useful for a variety of reasons, not just Gatwick services. There appears to be an increasing use of Platform 3 as a loop for faulty or delayed trains whilst others overtake on Platform 1 or 2. Given this restricts Northbound capacity and space for any FGW service to/from Reading - terminating or not - Platform 0, as it's currently called, could reduce the current congestion during disruption.

 

[JonathanH]

I think that the extra platform at Redhill will probably allow a 3tph peak service between Reading and Redhill with 2tph continuing to Gatwick.

I think a 3tph service over the whole line (Reading to Redhill) would be a bit of a stretch for the signalling and headways given an all stations service takes around 84 minutes to cover the line, the current semi-fast takes 64 minutes and an unimpeded "fast" could cover it in 49 minutes (source 2023 Brighton to Birmingham New Street in the Summer 2002 timetable). It also wouldn't fit in with the frequency of other services over the common parts of the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A 30 minute service Reading to Gatwick has been promised, The current service is currently hourly main stns only through to Gatwick, with 'stopping' trains alternating between Reading and Guildford and a less regular service to all stns between Guildford to Redhill. There are committed plans for a new platform to be built at Redhill in a few years time.
This line is a long way down the electrification priority list and being part 3rd rail doesn't help.
I live on this line and use it regularly, the 3 car sets are adequate most of the time.
There are many many other lines with a much greater priority for scarce Electrification funds and resources.

Furthermore, the service is best run from the Reading end as this allows the earliest possible services to and from Gatwick which is probably the key driver of early and late traffic. (I accept that other places are key peak destinations.)

Improvement of the signalling is probably a more worthwhile enhancement than electrification of what is already there, notably the issue that trains can't leave Blackwater northwards before the preceding train has left Wokingham and the long sections over the North Downs.

 

[21C101]

I think a 3tph service over the whole line (Reading to Redhill) would be a bit of a stretch for the signalling and headways given an all stations service takes around 84 minutes to cover the line, the current semi-fast takes 64 minutes and an unimpeded "fast" could cover it in 49 minutes (source 2023 Brighton to Birmingham New Street in the Summer 2002 timetable). It also wouldn't fit in with the frequency of other services over the common parts of the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Furthermore, the service is best run from the Reading end as this allows the earliest possible services to and from Gatwick which is probably the key driver of early and late traffic. (I accept that other places are key peak destinations.)

Improvement of the signalling is probably a more worthwhile enhancement than electrification of what is already there, notably the issue that trains can't leave Blackwater northwards before the preceding train has left Wokingham and the long sections over the North Downs.

I think the economies may alter when the GW electrification of all other lines in the area is complete and the line is an electric island in both SR and WR.

Electrification would allow the stopping services to be split into a London - East Croydon - Redhill - Reigate Betchworth Dorking and all stations to Guildford service and a Reading to Guildford local service, operated by cascaded ex GN class 313s which would release much needed diesel stock for elsewhere. It would also allow the Gatwick Reading service to be combined with stopping Reading to Oxford/Newbury services.

The logical thing to do would be to electrify the short stretch from Ash to Wokingham first which is probably short enough for the powers that be to still allow third rail. As much of the line runs parallel with the Camberley to Ash Vale line existing substations on that line could be used to keep the cost down.

Shalford to Reigate could be done perhaps as a batch with Oxted to Uckfield and Ashford Hastings as 25kV and ideally with a flyover at Redhill to make it more useful for freight.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think the economies may alter when the GW electrification of all other lines in the area is complete and the line is an electric island in both SR and WR.

Electrification would allow the stopping services to be split into a London - East Croydon - Redhill - Reigate Betchworth Dorking and all stations to Guildford service and a Reading to Guildford local service, operated by cascaded ex GN class 313s which would release much needed diesel stock for elsewhere. It would also allow the Gatwick Reading service to be combined with stopping Reading to Oxford/Newbury services.

The logical thing to do would be to electrify the short stretch from Ash to Wokingham first which is probably short enough for the powers that be to still allow third rail. As much of the line runs parallel with the Camberley to Ash Vale line existing substations on that line could be used to keep the cost down.

Shalford to Reigate could be done perhaps as a batch with Oxted to Uckfield and Ashford Hastings as 25kV and ideally with a flyover at Redhill to make it more useful for freight.

Another possibility is a Reading-Guildford-Portsmouth service.

 

[ExRes]

I think the economies may alter when the GW electrification of all other lines in the area is complete and the line is an electric island in both SR and WR.

Electrification would allow the stopping services to be split into a London - East Croydon - Redhill - Reigate Betchworth Dorking and all stations to Guildford service and a Reading to Guildford local service, operated by cascaded ex GN class 313s which would release much needed diesel stock for elsewhere. It would also allow the Gatwick Reading service to be combined with stopping Reading to Oxford/Newbury services.

The logical thing to do would be to electrify the short stretch from Ash to Wokingham first which is probably short enough for the powers that be to still allow third rail. As much of the line runs parallel with the Camberley to Ash Vale line existing substations on that line could be used to keep the cost down.

Shalford to Reigate could be done perhaps as a batch with Oxted to Uckfield and Ashford Hastings as 25kV and ideally with a flyover at Redhill to make it more useful for freight.

Ah, what memories, the Redhill flyover to take Tunnel freight direct to the GW and the electrification for 92s to run from Dollands Moor to London ......

Has 20+ years gone by already .......

 

[JamesRowden]

Ah, what memories, the Redhill flyover to take Tunnel freight direct to the GW and the electrification for 92s to run from Dollands Moor to London ......

Has 20+ years gone by already .......

And the reason that it was abandoned was that the tunnels on the North Downs Line were deemed to be too restrictive to justify the investment in the flyover.

 

[ExRes]

And the reason that it was abandoned was that the tunnels on the North Downs Line were deemed to be too restrictive to justify the investment in the flyover.

Its been many a year since I last travelled that line and I'm blowed if I can think of any tunnels other than leading into Guildford from Shalford direction, is my memory letting me down or are they the ones you're referring to ?

 

[Bald Rick]

And the reason that it was abandoned was that the tunnels on the North Downs Line were deemed to be too restrictive to justify the investment in the flyover.

Just imagine the difference it would make if all those Tunnel - GW trains were diverted away from London...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The logical thing to do would be to electrify the short stretch from Ash to Wokingham first which is probably short enough for the powers that be to still allow third rail. As much of the line runs parallel with the Camberley to Ash Vale line existing substations on that line could be used to keep the cost down.

Very expensive section to do, there are some stretches of steel sleepers from the days when network electrification was very firmly off the agenda.

Pretty certain this will never see third rail. It is the perfect route for battery trains.

 

[JamesRowden]

I've found a reference:

The major drawback with this route is that trains need to reverse at Redhill, as well as cross the Brighton lines. As we explored back in 2009, this could be resolved by building a flyover crossing the mainline south of Redhill station, which would allow this to become a key freight route avoiding London. However, apart from the expense, you’d then be up against that most mighty of retailing behemoths also vying for this space, in the shape of Tesco. No doubt a solution could be engineered that accommodated both uses, if there was the will, but the RUS declares that this is a track it does not wish to go down. It cites various reasons:

• the longer distance – although a glance at the map shows the route to be very direct for freight to the West Midlands and the Northwest
• the high cost of a Redhill flyover and new tunnels that would be required in the Guildford area
• addressing level crossings, particularly the one at the west end of Reigate station
• large sections of the route are not electrified
• the lack of capacity beyond Reading, which is also the main freight route north from Southampton

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/london-freight-part-2-the-freight-must-flow/

 

[ExRes]

I've found a reference:


http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/london-freight-part-2-the-freight-must-flow/

Thanks for the reference, I must say that they seem to be a lot of wet weekend excuses to me, all these years later and there isn't even a Tesco in Redhill. I assume that there was just a lack of leadership and will to move non London traffic away from London, perhaps the positioning of Wembley and Acton depots also played a part. Another wasted opportunity IMHO

 

[21C101]

I can't help thinking that closing the Didcot Newbury and Southampton was very short sighted and it should have been kept on as a freight route. A flyover at Didcot would have completely segregate the north to south freight route from the London to Swindon main line.

 

[Minstral25]

Thanks for the reference, I must say that they seem to be a lot of wet weekend excuses to me, all these years later and there isn't even a Tesco in Redhill. I assume that there was just a lack of leadership and will to move non London traffic away from London, perhaps the positioning of Wembley and Acton depots also played a part. Another wasted opportunity IMHO

Tesco were never really in the game it was just spoiler because Sainsbury and Asda had locked up the best plots in town with now planning permissions. The town council was totally opposed at it wasn't in the space the town expansion is happening so against planning guidance in the local plan.

The biggest issue other than costs is the Reigate Level crossing and Guildford tunnels. The Reigate level crossing is the main diversion for both the M25 towards Sevenoaks and M23 towards Gatwick.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Its been many a year since I last travelled that line and I'm blowed if I can think of any tunnels other than leading into Guildford from Shalford direction, is my memory letting me down or are they the ones you're referring to ?

If we're talking about a Redhill flyover for through freight to/from the channel tunnel, maybe the tunnels referred to are the Tonbridge side of Redhill.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Its been many a year since I last travelled that line and I'm blowed if I can think of any tunnels other than leading into Guildford from Shalford direction, is my memory letting me down or are they the ones you're referring to ?

There are two tunnels at the entrance to Guildford station from the south. Other than that there's nothing else on the line AFAIR

Ian

 

[ExRes]

If we're talking about a Redhill flyover for through freight to/from the channel tunnel, maybe the tunnels referred to are the Tonbridge side of Redhill.

I'm sure that's not the case, when the Redhill to Tonbridge line was electrified the main reason, given to us at the time, was for Tunnel freight and all bridges were rebuilt, at the second attempt, to take freight trains, diesel hauled freight(liners) were using the route at that time, early 90s, already

Although it never really took off, the way we were told it would operate, is a great disappointment, but at least we got loads of dosh from the weekend engineering work

 

[Tirov]

Recently Colas ran Tata steel trains from Llanwern to the Channel Tunnel through Guildford with a reverse at Redhill onto the Tonbridge line.

I have also seen an article recently that said that there is a plan in the Network Rail offices to electrify the missing third rail bits of the Reading Redhill line for a very modest sum.

 

[21C101]

Recently Colas ran Tata steel trains from Llanwern to the Channel Tunnel through Guildford with a reverse at Redhill onto the Tonbridge line.

I have also seen an article recently that said that there is a plan in the Network Rail offices to electrify the missing third rail bits of the Reading Redhill line for a very modest sum.

With the completion of the Reading underpass giving direct access from the GWML Slow/Goods lines to the Redhill line this is, I suspect, going to become more common.

 

[Tirov]

I agree. Surely any Welsh freight train should take this route as opposed to going to Willesden and then through South London!

 

[Yabbadabba]

I'm sure that's not the case, when the Redhill to Tonbridge line was electrified the main reason, given to us at the time, was for Tunnel freight and all bridges were rebuilt, at the second attempt, to take freight trains, diesel hauled freight(liners) were using the route at that time, early 90s, already

Although it never really took off, the way we were told it would operate, is a great disappointment, but at least we got loads of dosh from the weekend engineering work

Class 455 and 319 going to and from Ashford Chart Leacon had to be signalled as a out of gauge load through Bletchingly tunnel as OPPOS. Then about the same time as the 377 arrived on mass, there were alterations made to the infrastructure either to accommodate them or just in general on the Redhill to Tonbridge line. As a result of the alterations all current Southern and South Eastern emu's are good to pass through it without any restrictions even if being dragged by a loco as far as I'm aware.

When the last 465 or 466 came back from works north of the river via Redhill to Tonbridge as a out of gauge load, the instruction showed no restriction through Bletchingly Tunnel.

There have been no freights either channel tunnel or other that have been signalled through Bletchingly tunnel in the last 13 years that have had any restrictions placed on them even the ones that were out of gauge load somewhere on there route.

 

[ExRes]

Class 455 and 319 going to and from Ashford Chart Leacon had to be signalled as a out of gauge load through Bletchingly tunnel as OPPOS. Then about the same time as the 377 arrived on mass, there were alterations made to the infrastructure either to accommodate them or just in general on the Redhill to Tonbridge line. As a result of the alterations all current Southern and South Eastern emu's are good to pass through it without any restrictions even if being dragged by a loco as far as I'm aware.

When the last 465 or 466 came back from works north of the river via Redhill to Tonbridge as a out of gauge load, the instruction showed no restriction through Bletchingly Tunnel.

There have been no freights either channel tunnel or other that have been signalled through Bletchingly tunnel in the last 13 years that have had any restrictions placed on them even the ones that were out of gauge load somewhere on there route.

Yes, I remember that out of gauge was a problem, I've not driven the route since the late 90s but do recall taking a 47 light to Ashford and having to stop and wait for a sandite to pass in the opposite direction, earlier than that I worked as a Trainman D on 33s, 37s and 73s between Redhill and Tonbridge Yard and don't remember anything like that happening, assume the sandite was the problem rather than my 47

 

[Yabbadabba]

Yes, I remember that out of gauge was a problem, I've not driven the route since the late 90s but do recall taking a 47 light to Ashford and having to stop and wait for a sandite to pass in the opposite direction, earlier than that I worked as a Trainman D on 33s, 37s and 73s between Redhill and Tonbridge Yard and don't remember anything like that happening, assume the sandite was the problem rather than my 47

Oh yeah, I forgot that the old sandite/de-icers formed from the old slammers were also out of gauge through the tunnel, how times have changed with the MPVs.