Redhill Station - Extra Platform

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,945
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
I know there is a thread somewhere for this but my search using the forum tool for "Redhill" as a title key word failed to reveal it, so here is another one.

After two weeks' leave, I was at Redhill this morning and noticed the first physical signs of what I assume will be the works to provide an additional platform (platform 0). The long-disused (but still connected) up side, country end engineers' siding fan has been cordoned-off with blue temporary fencing, presumably to allow the start of the track removal as part of the construction programme.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
Wow, they're actually really going to go ahead with this? It seems to have been on the back boiler for ages.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,070
I wouldn't get your hopes up on what platform 0 is going to deliver, as it's what is going to be lost to achieve it, makes me wonder will it be worth it.
 
Last edited:

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
I think that's a spellchecker getting things a little addled. I expect he means achieve it.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,945
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Last evening, I noticed too that trees above the work site had been lopped and some new equipment cabinets with ID numbers identical to those also on the work site (track-side) had been installed on the island platform (1 and 2). Photo attached, showing the new (replacement) cabinets on the platform and the soon-to-be-defunct ones behind at track level. The lopped trees are also evident.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1345.JPG
    IMG_1345.JPG
    109.7 KB · Views: 223

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,206
Don't know anything about a Platform 0 (perhaps I should!) but the former engineer sidings and snowplough siding (?) adjacent to Platform 1 are being taken OOU according to the WON so maybe something is afoot!
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,945
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Don't know anything about a Platform 0 (perhaps I should!) but the former engineer sidings and snowplough siding (?) adjacent to Platform 1 are being taken OOU according to the WON so maybe something is afoot!

Platform 0 is to be built on the site of the (more or less disused) 'snowplough' loop and engineers' sidings, to provide an additional 12 car platform loop to provide increased operational flexibility, not least to allow the increase in Reading-Gatwick route services to 3tph from 2tph. Signs have been in place for several months indicating track access points to the site from the platforms, but now some more substantial works have taken place, as stated in my previous post.

While I have seen the odd freight/engineering train use the non-electrified loop in recent years, I can't recall the last time anything used the sidings. The sidings will be removed and the loop electrified (presumably after re-laying with new track, etc.). There will obviously be layout and signalling changes to permit the new passenger loop to operate.
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
25,421

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Platform 0 is to be built on the site of the (more or less disused) 'snowplough' loop and engineers' sidings, to provide an additional 12 car platform loop to provide increased operational flexibility, not least to allow the increase in Reading-Gatwick route services to 3tph from 2tph. Signs have been in place for several months indicating track access points to the site from the platforms, but now some more substantial works have taken place, as stated in my previous post.

While I have seen the odd freight/engineering train use the non-electrified loop in recent years, I can't recall the last time anything used the sidings. The sidings will be removed and the loop electrified (presumably after re-laying with new track, etc.). There will obviously be layout and signalling changes to permit the new passenger loop to operate.

It's a shame that the sidings will be removed, as that could be a retrograde step as they could be refurbished and used to berth stock there overnight.
 

Townsend Hook

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
509
Location
Here, or there
It's a shame that the sidings will be removed, as that could be a retrograde step as they could be refurbished and used to berth stock there overnight.

The site's being used for something, that's the main thing. In any case, GWR already use the old depot sidings in the V between the main line and the Tonbridge line to stable stock, and Southern use the Post Office dock.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,945
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
The site's being used for something, that's the main thing. In any case, GWR already use the old depot sidings in the V between the main line and the Tonbridge line to stable stock, and Southern use the Post Office dock.

Southern also uses the recently-electrified Tonbridge line up side loop for stock stabling/reversal (an example occurred this morning). I don't know what plans exist for the land where the fan of six sidings is at present (adjacent to the up Reigate line), but it's a large area and could be used for some stabling sidings. There is also the down side, London-end siding that has long been disused, plus the up side London end extension of the 'long siding' (as it is called, but it is actually a loop), so quite a bit of potential stabling capacity if needed.

BTW, there are also semi-disused sidings at Reigate that could easily be brought back into use - at present just a four-car section of a sixteen-car length of one of the two sidings is used for reversals, and the other is disused and the track overgrown.
 

Minstral25

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2009
Messages
1,357
Location
Surrey
That would be a separate project for modernising the public areas of the existing station I think. Platform 0 was already funded as a CP5 enhancement.

I hope you're right but timing is very close to creation of platform 0 so I suspect not - Work on rebuild was supposed to start last March but seems heavily delayed like most projects in Redhill currently
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wouldn't get your hopes up on what platform 0 is going to deliver, as it's what is going to be lost to achieve it, makes me wonder will it be worth it.

The works have been heavily revised.

Platform 0 will be a through platform but platform 1 will now be reduced to a bay from the south. So they don't have to do the work on the Northern approach throat.

So the queue of delayed southbound trains every other evening peak will not be going away.

There will also be pandemonium and severe crushes when a last minute change from platform 2 to platform 0 is announced and 250-500 peak customers try to get through the narrow subway to platform 0.

Makes you wonder why they don't make the new platform the terminating bay and keep the existing cross-platform arrangement.

[Note: Redhill morning peak is very congested so platform changes are common - doesn't happen in the evening as there is normally only one southbound platform hence queues back to Coulsdon of trains waiting for a platform which the original plan would have fixed by allowing platform 2 to be an additional Southbound platform without using the Northbound main line to access]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Platform 0 is to be built on the site of the (more or less disused) 'snowplough' loop and engineers' sidings, to provide an additional 12 car platform loop to provide increased operational flexibility, not least to allow the increase in Reading-Gatwick route services to 3tph from 2tph. Signs have been in place for several months indicating track access points to the site from the platforms, but now some more substantial works have taken place, as stated in my previous post.

While I have seen the odd freight/engineering train use the non-electrified loop in recent years, I can't recall the last time anything used the sidings. The sidings will be removed and the loop electrified (presumably after re-laying with new track, etc.). There will obviously be layout and signalling changes to permit the new passenger loop to operate.

It is purely used for turning freight trains off the Tonbridge lines. It's not suitable for storing stock as too easy for graffiti artists to get to.

I suspect you are one of the few users who actually want the additional Reading to Gatwick trains being from Betchworth. I don't think we want them at Redhill as it will make the station even more congested
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Southern also uses the recently-electrified Tonbridge line up side loop for stock stabling/reversal (an example occurred this morning). I don't know what plans exist for the land where the fan of six sidings is at present (adjacent to the up Reigate line), but it's a large area and could be used for some stabling sidings. There is also the down side, London-end siding that has long been disused, plus the up side London end extension of the 'long siding' (as it is called, but it is actually a loop), so quite a bit of potential stabling capacity if needed.

BTW, there are also semi-disused sidings at Reigate that could easily be brought back into use - at present just a four-car section of a sixteen-car length of one of the two sidings is used for reversals, and the other is disused and the track overgrown.

I don't think the fan siding are long enough for coaching stock beyond 4 coaches so unlikely to be used but I may be wrong. Curvature may prevent use too.

The Reigate siding is used by the Southern trains terminating at Reigate if they need to get out of the way of GWR trains. However the plan in CP6 is for a 12 coach terminating platform 3 to be put over the sidings
 
Last edited:

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
Platform 1 will be reduced to a bay.
Dear God what idiot(s) is/are in charge of the work? It's little wonder that Redhill passengers are always griping. First "they" reduce the amount of trains in the morning to London. Now "they" want to build the most lunatic stupid layout possible so that when things go wrong - which they do with monotonous frequency - it'll be even more chaotic. I'm so glad I'm not there anymore.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,070
Now it's out in the open I don't have to hide in the shadows.

The Redhill master plan.

Platform 3 will stay the same.
Platform 2 will stay the same.
Platform 1 will not be as it used to be.
Platform 0 will take over the function of platform 1.
Engineering train run round gone, but available via platform 0 for the loss of the platform to passenger traffic for 40-60 mins at a time.
 

Phil.

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
1,323
Location
Penzance
So all of that expense, all of that bother, all of that disruption to basically build a bay platform - just what the station needs.
Well, if platform 1 is going to be a bay and platform 0 is going to take over the function of platform 1 that is what's being done. How wondrous it will be when a London bound train can't get into platform 2 because of (insert problem here) and has to be switched to platform 0 or vice versa with a Gatwick/Reading bound train. I can just see the stampede now.
Would it have been so difficult to build the new platform 0 as another through platform connected to the up and down lines as well as the Guildford line and then use it semi-exclusively for GWR trains? You'd then never have the sight of a London bound train sitting at the signal by the old oil sidings whilst GWR trains occupied platforms 1 and 2.
Platforms 1 and 2 would then still be available for London bound trains and indeed would still be able to be used as a holding point following problems further up the line.
World's gone mad I tells you.
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,063
Location
Torbay
Platform 0 will be a through platform but platform 1 will now be reduced to a bay from the south. So they don't have to do the work on the Northern approach throat.

Limitations of the south junction layout mean the new platform can't start before the northern abutment of Station Road bridge. For 12 car standage plus adequate standback allowance for signal sighting, the platform will stretch some 280m north thereof, putting the new up starting signal actually out beyond the current scissors connection between platform 1 road and the goods loop (the new platform 0 road). That scissors must be removed therefore to make room and also probably the next trailing turnout from platfrom 1. If a north end connection to Up Redhill from #1 was retained, because of the simplifications required to fit in platform 0, the overlap would no longer be able to swing towards the goods loop with the result that every time a move was signalled in to #1 from the south (from Gatwick, Tonbridge or Dorking) it would likely lock out simultaneous moves in or out of #2 at the north end. Removing the north end connection removes that restriction, resulting in a more flexible layout. The significant reduction in the number of turnouts at the north end should give a reliability benefit as well as a maintenance cost reduction. I believe this job is being accomplished using the existing signalling interlocking. That will have limited designers freedom in what can be changed realistically - i.e the 'blank sheet' approach sometimes possible in a full resignalling would not be available. Generally, removing crossovers and other facilities is fairly easy in an old interlocking but significant remodelling of junctions is not.

So the queue of delayed southbound trains every other evening peak will not be going away.

With a dedicated reversing bay fewer Reading line trains will need to use #2 surely, which will leave that platform more likely to be free, along with #3 for down services.

There will also be pandemonium and severe crushes when a last minute change from platform 2 to platform 0 is announced and 250-500 peak customers try to get through the narrow subway to platform 0.

A powerful incentive for operators not to make last minute platform changes unless absolutely essential!

Makes you wonder why they don't make the new platform the terminating bay and keep the existing cross-platform arrangement.

That may have been an option looked at, and it could have made sense with the current south junction layout, but there are longer term aspirations to make further changes there that allow additional parallel moves for which placing the reversing platform 'in the middle' makes more sense. Those significant changes are best accomplished when resignalling of the area takes place.

[Note: Redhill morning peak is very congested so platform changes are common - doesn't happen in the evening as there is normally only one southbound platform hence queues back to Coulsdon of trains waiting for a platform which the original plan would have fixed by allowing platform 2 to be an additional Southbound platform without using the Northbound main line to access]

With more platforms available and reversing movements concentrated on #1, fewer short term changes should be neccesary. #2 can be used easily today for down trains. The only problem is overlap conflicts at the south end, although I think there is a warning route available that allows access to #2 simultaneous with a move across it's bow at the south end. That is heavily restricted by approach release from red at the down home though. Signallers have the choice of accepting this, or selecting the corresponding main route, whose overlap locks up the south junction solid preventing all other moves until the down movement has come to a stand in #2.

I suspect you are one of the few users who actually want the additional Reading to Gatwick trains being from Betchworth. I don't think we want them at Redhill as it will make the station even more congested

That seems an extraordinarily negative attitude! The new platform will help to spread the passenger load away from the congested island and subway with most London trains relocated to the suitably generously proportioned new platform with its own new access down to the ticket hall.
 
Last edited:

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,181
It's obviously important to reduce costs, but given the lay of the land could something more flexible not have been done? Unusually in these situations there's lots of space available (especially to the west), so it's a shame we're getting the least disruptive option rather than the most useful option....it's always disappointing when short-term pain-avoidance is valued over long-term gain.

Just musing here, but if the station as a whole was due a major overhaul, a new platform 4 could be put in by rebuilding the eastern-side buildings and widening the bridge if required? And/or, how intensively are the through lines used? If it's only light use then you could move platform 1/2 over and build another island platform (giving 6 through platforms) by taking the footprint of one or more of the western loops. You would still have two through roads per direction on the BML side, just they would all be platform roads.

...or you could give a platform to each of the Reigate and Tonbridge lines and still have 4 for the BML route...

...or even add in a spot of grade separation to the south (with the junctions to the north) to get something fancy, like double-faced BML roads (doors opening both sides) with branch platforms either side for cross-platform interchange, i.e.
#Reigate Northbound
[]Platform 1&2
#BML Northbound
[]Platform 2&3
#Tonbridge Northbound
#Reigate Southbound
[]Platform 4&5
#BML Southbound
[]Platform 5&6
#Tonbridge Southbound
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,070
Limitations of the south junction layout mean the new platform can't start before the northern abutment of Station Road bridge. For 12 car standage plus adequate standback allowance for signal sighting, the platform will stretch some 280m north thereof, putting the new up starting signal actually out beyond the current scissors connection between platform 1 road and the goods loop (the new platform 0 road). That scissors must be removed therefore to make room and also probably the next trailing turnout from platfrom 1. If a north end connection to Up Redhill from #1 was retained, because of the simplifications required to fit in platform 0, the overlap would no longer be able to swing towards the goods loop with the result that every time a move was signalled in to #1 from the south (from Gatwick, Tonbridge or Dorking) it would likely lock out simultaneous moves in or out of #2 at the north end. Removing the north end connection removes that restriction, resulting in a more flexible layout. The significant reduction in the number of turnouts at the north end should give a reliability benefit as well as a maintenance cost reduction. I believe this job is being accomplished using the existing signalling interlocking. That will have limited designers freedom in what can be changed realistically - i.e the 'blank sheet' approach sometimes possible in a full resignalling would not be available. Generally, removing crossovers and other facilities is fairly easy in an old interlocking but significant remodelling of junctions is not.



With a dedicated reversing bay fewer Reading line trains will need to use #2 surely, which will leave that platform more likely to be free, along with #3 for down services.



A powerful incentive for operators not to make last minute platform changes unless absolutely essential!



That may have been an option looked at, and it could have made sense with the current south junction layout, but there are longer term aspirations to make further changes there that allow additional parallel moves for which placing the reversing platform 'in the middle' makes more sense. Those significant changes are best accomplished when resignalling of the area takes place.



With more platforms available and reversing movements concentrated on #1, fewer short term changes should be neccesary. #2 can be used easily today for down trains. The only problem is overlap conflicts at the south end, although I think there is a warning route available that allows access to #2 simultaneous with a move across it's bow at the south end. That is heavily restricted by approach release from red at the down home though. Signallers have the choice of accepting this, or selecting the corresponding main route, whose overlap locks up the south junction solid preventing all other moves until the down movement has come to a stand in #2.



That seems an extraordinarily negative attitude! The new platform will help to spread the passenger load away from the congested island and subway with most London trains relocated to the suitably generously proportioned new platform with its own new access down to the ticket hall.

Of course that was one opinion, although it was not universally shared at the meeting I went to. Other options were tabled but both sides agreed to disagree in the end. This could end up something like Gatwick where although the PWay alterations were good, the S&T side ended up being less flexible than what was there before.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
4,945
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
I suspect you are one of the few users who actually want the additional Reading to Gatwick trains being from Betchworth. I don't think we want them at Redhill as it will make the station even more congested

No - they won't benefit me, as the additional trains will be semi-fast and won't serve Betchworth. Now that I know that there won't won't be additional loop, just a bay, I don't really know what I think. I suspect that the operational quagmire that is Redhill will continue, or worsen, as late platform changes will cause chaos in the near-useless subway. A second interchange route is desperately needed (convert the defunct Post office bridge?). The loss of cross-platform interchange in the London direction is going to be a serious problem for anything other than relaxed connections!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A powerful incentive for operators not to make last minute platform changes unless absolutely essential!

The operators don't make the changes - NR signallers do.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,063
Location
Torbay
No - they won't benefit me, as the additional trains will be semi-fast and won't serve Betchworth. Now that I know that there won't won't be additional loop, just a bay, I don't really know what I think. I suspect that the operational quagmire that is Redhill will continue, or worsen, as late platform changes will cause chaos in the near-useless subway. A second interchange route is desperately needed (convert the defunct Post office bridge?). The loss of cross-platform interchange in the London direction is going to be a serious problem for anything other than relaxed connections!

I'm still convinced the additional platform will make platform changes much less likely in the future, as a change is only usually neccessary if the booked platform is still occupied by a previous train running late (often a Reading reverser as these are booked to occupy for the most time). This should not happen so frequently. Assuming London bound trains attract the largest numbers of boarding passengers, these will all be handled at the new platform 0 with it's new access from the ticket hall, relieving the crowded island platform and the subway. I accept your point about interchange and that's a good idea to repurpose the old PO bridge for interchange and perhaps an additional emergency exit - the latter may be desirable anyway with rising passenger numbers.

The operators don't make the changes - NR signallers do.

I meant operators/operations in the broader sense including NR signallers.
 

Sunset route

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2015
Messages
1,070
You know it's going to happen, whether it's because of muscle memory, work overload, failure or not just being familiar with the new layout, but a 12 car (London or beyond train) will be signalled into platform 1 stump and the driver will take it and that will be goodbye morning peak. Signal exit buttons with flip over black hats might need supplying from day 1 :D :lol:
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,063
Location
Torbay
You know it's going to happen, whether it's because of muscle memory, work overload, failure or not just being familiar with the new layout, but a 12 car (London or beyond train) will be signalled into platform 1 stump and the driver will take it and that will be goodbye morning peak. Signal exit buttons with flip over black hats might need supplying from day 1 :D :lol:

It would make sense to keep the platform 1 at-12 car length (if it will fit and I see no reason why not) to cover that scenario without blocking the south junction. That could also allow two shorter reversing or terminating trains to stack on top of each other in normal operations. If a 12 car bay platform gets added at Reigate as well then your misroute could take a short unplanned excursion there and back to get out the way and reverse! Keeping the 12 car length unobstructed could also allow restoration of a north end connection at some time in the future when more comprehensive track and signalling renewala take place and NR are not so hamstrung by the capabilities of the existing signalling.
 

Minstral25

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2009
Messages
1,357
Location
Surrey
Now it's out in the open I don't have to hide in the shadows.

The Redhill master plan.

Platform 3 will stay the same.
Platform 2 will stay the same.
Platform 1 will not be as it used to be.
Platform 0 will take over the function of platform 1.
Engineering train run round gone, but available via platform 0 for the loss of the platform to passenger traffic for 40-60 mins at a time.

Why hide in shadows - this awful plan must be stopped - it just isn't going to work
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Limitations of the south junction layout mean the new platform can't start before the northern abutment of Station Road bridge. For 12 car standage plus adequate standback allowance for signal sighting, the platform will stretch some 280m north thereof, putting the new up starting signal actually out beyond the current scissors connection between platform 1 road and the goods loop (the new platform 0 road). That scissors must be removed therefore to make room and also probably the next trailing turnout from platfrom 1. If a north end connection to Up Redhill from #1 was retained, because of the simplifications required to fit in platform 0, the overlap would no longer be able to swing towards the goods loop with the result that every time a move was signalled in to #1 from the south (from Gatwick, Tonbridge or Dorking) it would likely lock out simultaneous moves in or out of #2 at the north end. Removing the north end connection removes that restriction, resulting in a more flexible layout. The significant reduction in the number of turnouts at the north end should give a reliability benefit as well as a maintenance cost reduction. I believe this job is being accomplished using the existing signalling interlocking. That will have limited designers freedom in what can be changed realistically - i.e the 'blank sheet' approach sometimes possible in a full resignalling would not be available. Generally, removing crossovers and other facilities is fairly easy in an old interlocking but significant remodelling of junctions is not..

As it will mainly ne used by terminating 4-car Reigate/Tonbridge trains and turning 2/3-car GWR why couldn't it be a 10/11 coach platform?

Any Thameslink 12-cars are not going to turn round there as they are approaching from the North



With a dedicated reversing bay fewer Reading line trains will need to use #2 surely, which will leave that platform more likely to be free, along with #3 for down services. ..

But if you don't change the Northern approach it means that platform 2 is virtually useless for Southbound trains as it is now.


That seems an extraordinarily negative attitude! The new platform will help to spread the passenger load away from the congested island and subway with most London trains relocated to the suitably generously proportioned new platform with its own new access down to the ticket hall.

The allegedly "generously proportion" platform with ZERO facilities on it!

Original plan was two waiting shelters - that will not be a lot of use when 500 passengers in their suits are waiting in the pouring rain for their train. (Don't forget Redhill station is on a tall embankment so is very exposed as well)

Platforms 1/2 has significant canopy (7 coaches long), waiting area with station staff help point, coffee shop and newspaper stand. Will all this be built on platform zero with the change of usage? I doubt it.

Makes so much more sense to make platform 0 the bay - then you do not need to build all those facilities if you seriously want to save money
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No - they won't benefit me, as the additional trains will be semi-fast and won't serve Betchworth. Now that I know that there won't won't be additional loop, just a bay, I don't really know what I think. I suspect that the operational quagmire that is Redhill will continue, or worsen, as late platform changes will cause chaos in the near-useless subway. A second interchange route is desperately needed (convert the defunct Post office bridge?). The loss of cross-platform interchange in the London direction is going to be a serious problem for anything other than relaxed connections!
.

Absolutely agree - this is a plan drawn up with no thought for actual passenger needs or with any awareness of the problems at Redhill station or at least with a "doesn't matter" attitude towards the users of the station to cut costs on something promised and unable to back out of now.
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
It seems that this plan has been designed by the same bunch of clowns who decided it was a good idea to put a platform in the middle of the layout at Woking which causes more conflicts than any war!
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,063
Location
Torbay
Why hide in shadows - this awful plan must be stopped - it just isn't going to work

It is being built, I don't see how you're going to stop it.

As it will mainly ne used by terminating 4-car Reigate/Tonbridge trains and turning 2/3-car GWR why couldn't it be a 10/11 coach platform?

Now that would be short sighted, deliberately making one platform unable to take a 12 car.

But if you don't change the Northern approach it means that platform 2 is virtually useless for Southbound trains as it is now.

I agree acceessing it conflicts with a northbound departure from #0. Ideally you need a parallel connection from the down Redhill so those moves can take place simultaneously, and better overlap arrangements at the south end to reduce conflict. That said greater use of #2 for down services is probably not required currently whilst the south junction still retains the long crossover to the Reigate line from #3. All southbounds can normally continue to use that. In the longer term I think NR wish to remove that long crossover with its multiple diamonds. Then improvements to southbound access to #2 would be essential as all Reigate trains would have to use that plattform



Original plan was two waiting shelters - that will not be a lot of use when 500 passengers in their suits are waiting in the pouring rain for their train. (Don't forget Redhill station is on a tall embankment so is very exposed as well). Platforms 1/2 has significant canopy (7 coaches long), waiting area with station staff help point, coffee shop and newspaper stand. Will all this be built on platform zero with the change of usage? I doubt it.

I know nothing of the proposed platform facilities, but if as you suggest this will become the busiest platform accomodating the most lucrative customers waiting in the morning peak it would be very shortsighted to skimp on the facilities. If there are so many customers, I'm sure a refreshment facility will be able to survive there.

Makes so much more sense to make platform 0 the bay - then you do not need to build all those facilities if you seriously want to save money

That would save money indeed, but I think NRs eyes are on the further developments possible when the south junction track and the signalling in the area next come up for renewal. These would incorporate removal of the long crossover from #3 to the Reigate line and additional parallel connections from #0 and #1 towards Brighton. That final aspiration favours Up trains running around the outside of the layout through #0 with reversers and Reigate down trains accomodated 'in the middle' on #1 and #2. There is a sketch of these ideas published in the NR Sussex Area Route Study (page 164) - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Sussex-Area-Route-Study-FINAL.pdf

I have also attached a screenshot of the page.

Note also that this shows #1 as a through platform. It is possible that the bay status is only a temporary feature forced by the limitations of the existing signalling; the cost, difficulty, risk and resource wastage of making very significant modiifications to the existing control systems that have only a fairly limited remaining life. In my opinion making #1 a bay (at least temporarily) has probably avoided some very significant engineering challenges.
 

Attachments

  • Sussex Area Route Study p164.jpg
    Sussex Area Route Study p164.jpg
    69.7 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top