Redhill Station - Extra Platform

[Minstral25]

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

Now who'd being negative!

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

Why a 12-car train will never use it? Unless there is a new Three Bridges to Redhill 12-car service being gestated?

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.

I'm guessing you don't use Redhill but the long queue of trains in the evening peak waiting to access Platform 3 is not something you have experience. If you are in the last train you can often be 20 or 30 minutes late into Redhill just for waiting to access Platform 3

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. .

Yes it would be short sighted but that was the plan

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.

This plan shows what was planned after the platform 0 rebuild. The crossover from the Southbound main line to platform 2 does not exist currently but was part of the original Platform 0 plan (currently that crossover is about a mile North of Redhill) that included rebuilding the Northern station throat.

If they don't do it then flexibility is lost and the capacity problems at Redhill will not be improved.

Redhill is so congested it needs solving now, platform 0 in its original form was a compromise but would have helped. This plan just creates more serious problems and loses some of the flexibility of the current situation.

 

[sarahj]

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

Slightly OT, but could be worse. Last night the signaller at Southampton, put part 1 of an attaching train in 3, and part 2 in 1. (or perhaps the other way around). Some shunting was needed, with the train in 1 being reversed back towards Totton, then forward into 3. As a result my 22.33 to Littlehampton, left way before the 22.30 to Waterloo.

 

[JamesRowden]

Is it possible that the plans involve allowing down Reigate services to access Platform 0 and an end to the joining and splitting of Reigate and Tonbridge services during the peak. Platform 0 would serve both up and down Reigate services. Platform 1 would serve GWR services. Platform 2 would serve the remaining up services, and Platform 3 the remaining down services.

 

[Sunset route]

Slightly OT, but could be worse. Last night the signaller at Southampton, put part 1 of an attaching train in 3, and part 2 in 1. (or perhaps the other way around). Some shunting was needed, with the train in 1 being reversed back towards Totton, then forward into 3. As a result my 22.33 to Littlehampton, left way before the 22.30 to Waterloo.

Done that got the t-shirt and joined the elastic coupling club
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

The plans have changed since then, as you probably know and the south junction remains unchanged, CBI has been dropped in favour of keeping the Westpac RRI as we have passed the point in which the order needed to be placed.

 

[MarkyT]

Is it possible that the plans involve allowing down Reigate services to access Platform 0 and an end to the joining and splitting of Reigate and Tonbridge services during the peak. Platform 0 would serve both up and down Reigate services. Platform 1 would serve GWR services. Platform 2 would serve the remaining up services, and Platform 3 the remaining down services.

I think that would work with the (interim?) layout being built instead of running the up Gatwicks through #0, even if when the south junction works and resignallling are done later it might all switch over to a different usage pattern again. Some of the Reading line trains could also use #0 as there are not that many Reigate trains currently (2 movements per hour cover both up and down off peak). Obvioulsy the down Reigates arriving would have to cross the up flow to the north of the station, but I believe that can be done without fouling up starter overlaps, so can happen simultaneously with an up arrival into #2 from Gatwick or Tonbridge, and your idea also reduces conflict at the south junction so the corresponding movement between #0 and Reigate could take place at the same time as an up arrival from Gatwick or Tonbridge into #2. An additional connecting chord between #0 and Reigate could allow down movements in and out o #0 to occur at the same time as parallel movements into #1. that would also give another place for the #0 down overlap to swing to, further reducing conflict.

 

[Deepgreen]

Why a 12-car train will never use it? Unless there is a new Three Bridges to Redhill 12-car service being gestated?

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there will always remain the possibility of a signaller error, routeing a 12 car train into the bay platform and the driver accepting the route (especially early on in the new layout's life when inexperience increases the chance of errors), plus any possible need to reverse trains north to south at Redhill in times of disruption.

Having a platform 1 car shorter than the standard maximum of 12 (especially when there is no need to shorten the existing 12 car length of platform 1) would be very peverse.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I assume a mis-routed 12 car reversal would be possible even without the Reigate bay by running ECS, taking the Reigate line and shunting back across the trailing crossover just outside Redhill as long as the Redhill 'advance starter' was cleared to provide the 12 car length clearance required?

 

[Barn]

Whenever I'm at Redhill I always imagine that it must feel quite galling to know that the Quarry line exists to bypass you and then still to see those two through tracks through the middle of your station!

Are they a diversionary route when the Quarry line is closed, or do they receive regular traffic?

 

[Phil.]

Whenever I'm at Redhill I always imagine that it must feel quite galling to know that the Quarry line exists to bypass you and then still to see those two through tracks through the middle of your station!

Are they a diversionary route when the Quarry line is closed, or do they receive regular traffic?

Yes and yes.

 

[Deepgreen]

Whenever I'm at Redhill I always imagine that it must feel quite galling to know that the Quarry line exists to bypass you and then still to see those two through tracks through the middle of your station!

Are they a diversionary route when the Quarry line is closed, or do they receive regular traffic?

As a regular user, I don't find it galling, any more than I would at a station where fast through lines exist without the extra fast lines provided by the Quarry route. What I would find galling would be the removal of Redhill's through roads as its operation would then be even more chaotic! Given that there are two stations (Merstham and Coulsdon South), plus two routes that are served by the Redhill line and not accessible from the Quarry line, I tend to think of it as a route in its own right rather than just the 'slow lines' of the BML.

At Redhill, the through roads are mainly used by ECS and freight workings, plus diverted Quarry trains in times of disruption.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Last night provided the perfect example of the need for an additional platform road at Redhill, when disruption (unknown cause - no announcements or other information as usual!) meant that a four car 377 was sat (ECS) at the London end of platform 1, with a six car 377 rake alongside in platform 2, at about 1725. Passengers knew nothing of what was going on, then the train in platform 1 departed northbound. It stopped outside the station and the driver changed ends (red lights changed to white). After an age, the six car train in 2 eased southwards to allow the four car unit the necessary space to couple. After yet further inexplicable delay, the four car train entered and coupled. In the meantime, a Thameslink train (shown as cancelled on the screen, but very definitely running!) arrived at platform 1 at about 1740. All this time the 1741 and 1743 GWR departures to Gatwick and Reading respectively were being held outside between Redhill and Reigate as there was no platform available for either of them.
Then the now-ten car train finally left platform 2 towards London, followed by the Thameslink train and the 1743 Reading train arrived the south end of the same platform - all this with not a single announcement! The 1741 Gatwick arrived at platform 1 (south end) as well.

An additional platform would have prevented this jam from occurring, notwithstanding the usual slack performance of the staff at Redhill - no apparent communication between them with trains being 'flagged' (actually 'batoned') away at the cab end while no-one was further along the train to receive the indication! The big delays between train moves and the resultant signal clearance/driver reaction seemed bizarre too, especially the reversing 4 car unit outside the London end which took about ten minutes to reverse, blocking the line in the meantime.

 

[tsr]

Last night provided the perfect example of the need for an additional platform road at Redhill, when disruption (unknown cause - no announcements or other information as usual!) meant that a four car 377 was sat (ECS) at the London end of platform 1, with a six car 377 rake alongside in platform 2, at about 1725. Passengers knew nothing of what was going on, then the train in platform 1 departed northbound. It stopped outside the station and the driver changed ends (red lights changed to white). After an age, the six car train in 2 eased southwards to allow the four car unit the necessary space to couple. After yet further inexplicable delay, the four car train entered and coupled. In the meantime, a Thameslink train (shown as cancelled on the screen, but very definitely running!) arrived at platform 1 at about 1740. All this time the 1741 and 1743 GWR departures to Gatwick and Reading respectively were being held outside between Redhill and Reigate as there was no platform available for either of them.
Then the now-ten car train finally left platform 2 towards London, followed by the Thameslink train and the 1743 Reading train arrived the south end of the same platform - all this with not a single announcement! The 1741 Gatwick arrived at platform 1 (south end) as well.

An additional platform would have prevented this jam from occurring, notwithstanding the usual slack performance of the staff at Redhill - no apparent communication between them with trains being 'flagged' (actually 'batoned') away at the cab end while no-one was further along the train to receive the indication! The big delays between train moves and the resultant signal clearance/driver reaction seemed bizarre too, especially the reversing 4 car unit outside the London end which took about ten minutes to reverse, blocking the line in the meantime.

AIUI, the two portions of the train which eventually coupled were placed in separate platforms rather than the same one, in error... thereby blocking two platforms with the arrangements to sort it all out. If more parallel moves were available North of the station, this mess would have been easier to sort out.

 

[AJ1982]

AIUI, the two portions of the train which eventually coupled were placed in separate platforms rather than the same one, in error... thereby blocking two platforms with the arrangements to sort it all out. If more parallel moves were available North of the station, this mess would have been easier to sort out.

Correct, the two portions of the 1725 (London Victoria) service arrived on two separate platforms.

As the trains for this service normally arrive early to make the join, this then kept the 1719 (Bedford) service stuck outside the station, which moved in as the split service was moved onto the same platform.

Quite entertaining to watch the fun for a change, staff still getting flack for the fault of a signaller No real idea of whats going on, but I doubt there was any feedback from Signal/Operations etc

Finally, the 1719 set off for East Croydon at 1737.

 

[Deepgreen]

AIUI, the two portions of the train which eventually coupled were placed in separate platforms rather than the same one, in error... thereby blocking two platforms with the arrangements to sort it all out. If more parallel moves were available North of the station, this mess would have been easier to sort out.

Interesting; I mentioned only yesterday on this thread that signaller errors can occur, which is why the additional platform needs to be a 12 car length to avoid potentially mis-routeing a 12 car train into a 10/11 car platform. BTW - there was parallel running north of the station - the re-positioning four car unit ran in alongside a working from London. I still don't understand why it took so long to move the train in platform 2 such that the four car unit could attach and why the reversal of the latter also took so long after the driver had changed ends and the other train was ready to receive it.

Strangely, RTT appears to have no accurate data for the time concerned.

 

[AJ1982]

Strangely, RTT appears to have no accurate data for the time concerned.

NationalRail website said the 1719 was delayed due to an operating incident and the 1725 was delayed due to congestion.

Ironic, it was the 1725 which caused the congestion

 

[Deepgreen]

Trees now completely cut down to stumps adjacent to the new platform work site - a few still remain further south, but they are presumably due to go shortly.

 

[Minstral25]

Platform 0 will be the main northbound platform and will have no passenger facilities but will have a 90m canopy (will be interesting to see if matches other platforms).

Platform 1 will become a bay - however will only take 8 coach trains or 2x4 coach, unlike what others have said there will be no turning round of 12 coach trains.

No additional crossing so subway which is already very congested will become even worse.

 

[Phil.]

That is just about the most stupid thing imaginable. Apart from the lack of facilities on the platform it means the timetable will have to be padded because negotiating the crossovers and turn-outs will take that much longer.
All that had to be done was to build platform 0 as an eight car platform with the ends equidistant from the ends of platforms 1and 2. Install crossovers to allow access and egress from the Reading line and up and down mains from the Brighton end (hence the foreshortened platforms to allow room) and access and egress from the main lines at the London end.
Now you still have three reversible - sorry, bi-directional - 12 car platforms plus one dedicated to GWR train also accessible for up and down Reigate/Londons.

 

[Minstral25]

That is just about the most stupid thing imaginable. Apart from the lack of facilities on the platform it means the timetable will have to be padded because negotiating the crossovers and turn-outs will take that much longer.
All that had to be done was to build platform 0 as an eight car platform with the ends equidistant from the ends of platforms 1and 2. Install crossovers to allow access and egress from the Reading line and up and down mains from the Brighton end (hence the foreshortened platforms to allow room) and access and egress from the main lines at the London end.
Now you still have three reversible - sorry, bi-directional - 12 car platforms plus one dedicated to GWR train also accessible for up and down Reigate/Londons.

Basically I agree.

However there isn't room for two 12-coach platforms unless you rebuild the entire Southern end throat to the station. If you look at the site it tapers in at the Northern end which reduces space for two extended platforms and thus it's not possible to fit from the current Southern end points to make two 12 coach platforms from 1 & 0.

I think that platform 1 should be the through platform rather than platform 0 for passenger facilities etc. However this would reduce platform 0 I think to just 6 coaches which is not enough.

 

[MarkyT]

Platform #1 is currently capable of taking a 12 car but you can only get 8 cars clear of the existing turnout at the south end that will in future give access to the new #0. That is why #1 has an extra intermediate southbound signal part way along the platform and hanging from the canopy as well as the one at the southern extremity. It is possible a 12 car may still be able to reverse in #1 but it will block access to and from #0 until it has departed. You can just see the canopy signal in this National rail accessibility image (top right):
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/SME/html/NRE_RDH/images/photos/800/o2854-0000593.jpg

The layout is a dogs breakfast at Redhill. This is largely because in the early 1980s BR(S) had a scheme to completely renew it in a modern form as part of the Three Bridges resignalling. Unfortunately in one of BRs regular cash crises of the period, the permanent way renewal funds for the job suddenly disappeared, forcing the resignalling to adopt the old 'steam age' layout which is still there today. Compared to modern layouts there are a very large number of turnouts and crossings for the functionality achieved. See the old Redhill B signabox diagram here:
http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=498 - Hardly any difference to what is there today, because the new signalling configuration then 'locked in' the old layout at subsequent junction track renewals.

Now with no immediate prospect for widescale signalling and junction renewal, the new platform project is limited in what it can achieve. Whilst the new layout isn't perfect, it does provide an additional platform, adding capacity and flexibility in both planning and real time operations, albeit at the cost of convenient cross platform interchange for some customers. On the other hand with a greater number of platforms available, short notice re-platforming should become a much less frequent phenomenon. Passengers from Redhill towards London will normally use the new platform for which a separate access from the ticket hall will apply. This should help to remove some of the crowding from the narrow subway.

 

[JamesRowden]

Platform 0 will be the main northbound platform and will have no passenger facilities but will have a 90m canopy (will be interesting to see if matches other platforms).

Platform 1 will become a bay - however will only take 8 coach trains or 2x4 coach, unlike what others have said there will be no turning round of 12 coach trains.

No additional crossing so subway which is already very congested will become even worse.

Can you provide a reference showing Platform 0 as the confirmed main northbound platform. All common sense suggests that services to London from Gatwick and Tonbridge will primarily use Platform 2.

 

[MarkyT]

Can you provide a reference showing Platform 0 as the confirmed main northbound platform. All common sense suggests that services to London from Gatwick and Tonbridge will primarily use Platform 2.

That MIGHT be possible depending on the extent of the signalling alterations being carried out. The up goods loop (to become the new #0 road) currently only has a ground shunt signal at it's south end, which unless converted would not be suitable for reversing Reading line trains or accepting down trains from London (for Reigate). If #0 couldn't be used for that yet all London bound trains continued to use #2, then the new platfrom would be essentially useless. Because the platfrom project is not renewing the interlocking and wishes to make minimal alterations to it (changes can be risky with older equipment and wiring) options may have been severly limited. Usage may be able to change again at a later date when more comprehensive track and signalling changes are finally undertaken.

 

[JamesRowden]

That MIGHT be possible depending on the extent of the signalling alterations being carried out. The up goods loop (to become the new #0 road) currently only has a ground shunt signal at it's south end, which unless converted would not be suitable for reversing Reading line trains or accepting down trains from London (for Reigate). If #0 couldn't be used for that yet all London bound trains continued to use #2, then the new platfrom would be essentially useless. Because the platfrom project is not renewing the interlocking and wishes to make minimal alterations to it (changes can be risky with older equipment and wiring) options may have been severly limited. Usage may be able to change again at a later date when more comprehensive track and signalling changes are finally undertaken.

All services to London from Tonbridge would use Platform 2 (unless joining up with a Reigate service). Services to London from Gatwick would use Platform 0 when a Gatwick service is leaving Platform 1.

 

[Phil.]

Basically I agree.

However there isn't room for two 12-coach platforms unless you rebuild the entire Southern end throat to the station. If you look at the site it tapers in at the Northern end which reduces space for two extended platforms and thus it's not possible to fit from the current Southern end points to make two 12 coach platforms from 1 & 0.

I think that platform 1 should be the through platform rather than platform 0 for passenger facilities etc. However this would reduce platform 0 I think to just 6 coaches which is not enough.

That's why I suggested platform 0 as an 8 car platform. For the GWRs and the Reigates that's all that's needed. In fact, as there's more room at the north end for the turnouts push the new platform that way a little to create more space at the peculiar south end.

Whatever happens it's going to be a dog's breakfast and I'm only sorry that I don't live there anymore and see the whole sorry spectacle unfold. I don't suppose the coffee stall guys are very happy at losing a lump of their customers to the new platform either.

 

[JamesRowden]

That's why I suggested platform 0 as an 8 car platform. For the GWRs and the Reigates that's all that's needed. In fact, as there's more room at the north end for the turnouts push the new platform that way a little to create more space at the peculiar south end.

Whatever happens it's going to be a dog's breakfast and I'm only sorry that I don't live there anymore and see the whole sorry spectacle unfold. I don't suppose the coffee stall guys are very happy at losing a lump of their customers to the new platform either.

Your idea would create additional conflicts at the south of the station when every GWR service departs.

 

[Minstral25]

The layout is a dogs breakfast at Redhill.

Totally - which is why this opportunity to spend money to fix should happen

Passengers from Redhill towards London will normally use the new platform for which a separate access from the ticket hall will apply. This should help to remove some of the crowding from the narrow subway.

I do not think that will be right, passengers will be swapping from 2 & 0 for trains swapping round and 1 & 0 to get to/from Reigate services. Plus people going to the customer offices or coffee shop on platform 1/2 then back to 0 for their trains.

Station will become very passenger unfriendly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Your idea would create additional conflicts at the south of the station when every GWR service departs.

Platform 0 will have a direct line to the Reigate branch that will not cross access to any other platform. Platform 1 will only cross platform 0. You will actually be able to arrive in platform 0 from Reigate at same time train departs from 1, 2 or 3. (but not vice versa)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's why I suggested platform 0 as an 8 car platform. For the GWRs and the Reigates that's all that's needed. In fact, as there's more room at the north end for the turnouts push the new platform that way a little to create more space at the peculiar south end.

Whatever happens it's going to be a dog's breakfast and I'm only sorry that I don't live there anymore and see the whole sorry spectacle unfold. I don't suppose the coffee stall guys are very happy at losing a lump of their customers to the new platform either.

8 car won't fit in the layout as you will need to extend platform 1/2 to get 12 coach trains into platform 1 without fouling the points for platform 0, which means platform 0 is limited to either 5 or 6 coaches. (Unless you can buy land off the car park which is owned by Network Rail but allocated to the Waitrose development)

 

[Sunset route]

All services to London from Tonbridge would use Platform 2 (unless joining up with a Reigate service). Services to London from Gatwick would use Platform 0 when a Gatwick service is leaving Platform 1.

That's no different to a train trying to arrive in plat 2 as one trying to depart plat 1 southbound, there is still a conflict which ever platform is used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you provide a reference showing Platform 0 as the confirmed main northbound platform. All common sense suggests that services to London from Gatwick and Tonbridge will primarily use Platform 2.

Deleted

 

[Minstral25]

Most signallers I know will still biased platform 2 northbound even when platform 0 is commissioned if the tt stays largely as it is now (apart from the Up Reigate's) unless we get our knuckles wrapped and get Told to use it.

I've been told most trains will be timetabled through platform 0 by GTR. So hopefully as all the passengers will be standing on platform 0 you won't signal to platform 2 [cue chaos as 4-500 passengers try to squeeze through the subway to change platforms]

 

[Deepgreen]

Station will become very passenger unfriendly
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Redhill is already very passenger-unfriendly! This proposed "improvement" will make it diabolical. The subway at the moment is a horrible bottleneck and will worsen greatly. Every change forced into the existing basic layout of the station (track and passenger infrastructure) will make a proper solution ever harder to implement.

 

[swt_passenger]

Redhill is already very passenger-unfriendly! This proposed "improvement" will make it diabolical. The subway at the moment is a horrible bottleneck and will worsen greatly. Every change forced into the existing basic layout of the station (track and passenger infrastructure) will make a proper solution ever harder to implement.

Isn't the £millions of funding announced in the budget supposed to sort out the passenger facilities, which could be done in parallel to the track work?

 

[Deepgreen]

Isn't the £millions of funding announced in the budget supposed to sort out the passenger facilities, which could be done in parallel to the track work?

I didn't see any specific reference to Redhill in the budget and the only two spend streams I am aware of for the station are the extra platform (being squeezed into the existing basic layout and thereby not addressing the fundamental problems), and the possible commercial development by the 'Solum Partnership', which will be heavily tilted towards the provision of commercial development at/above the station and no significant station facility layout changes (such as, for example, conversion of the defunct GPO bridge for passenger use).

 

[swt_passenger]

I didn't see any specific reference to Redhill in the budget...

It was mentioned in the budget document, in a list of 8 stations, as linked in post #9. No details of what a share of £16m gives you, but it cant be nothing...

Modernising rail stations – The government is announcing the allocation of £16 million funding to improve rail station facilities at Market Harborough, St Albans, Redhill, Newbury, High Wycombe, Exeter St Davids, Weston-Super-Mare, and Cheltenham Spa.