Redhill Station - Extra Platform

[Sunset route]

According to an item in the latest edition of the Southern Electric Group's journal 'Live Rail', Network Rail has released the final layout drawing for the station once platform 0 is in operation. There is to be an additional bi-directional track for some distance towards Earlswood, and it also appears to show that connections will be provided from the two centre (fast) roads to the Reigate line, which are not present now. Given the very low usage these connections would be likely to see, I wonder if this is an error on the track diagram provided by NR? Platform 0 becomes the up through loop platform, with platform 1 becoming a south-facing bay. Platform 4 (the short north-facing bay) is removed.

There is no third line coming in from the Gatwick end as shown on that diagram, none of the interlocking at the south end of the station is being altered.

 

[Deepgreen]

There is no third line coming in from the Gatwick end as shown on that diagram, none of the interlocking at the south end of the station is being altered.

As that diagram is said to have come from NR, the apparent major errors therein do not inspire confidence! BTW, will the alterations to the station 'throat' layout at the south end not affect the interlocking in any way?

 

[Sunset route]

As that diagram is said to have come from NR, the apparent major errors therein do not inspire confidence! BTW, will the alterations to the station 'throat' layout at the south end not affect the interlocking in any way?

There is no alteration to the south end of the station, they are using the existing layout. Just instead of going into the goods loop, it will be platform 0.

 

[Deepgreen]

There is no alteration to the southend of the station, they are using the existing layout. Just instead of going into the goods loop, it will be platform 0.

Many thanks. I have advised the SEG magazine editor of the error. Do you happen to have an accurate (scale) diagram of the final layout, by any chance?

 

[MarkyT]

Many thanks. I have advised the SEG magazine editor of the error. Do you happen to have an accurate (scale) diagram of the final layout, by any chance?

Here's my educated guess (not to scale):

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

The I think the NR diagram from the route study is a highly conceptual composite that tries also to reflect further changes possible when resignalling happens eventually.

 

[Minstral25]

Here's my educated guess (not to scale):

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

The I think the NR diagram from the route study is a highly conceptual composite that tries also to reflect further changes possible when resignalling happens eventually.

Good plan (as always) but that doesn't show the new access to Platform 2 from the Southbound main line - which is why platform 4 is going.

I have the plan somewhere but it is far too big to post here. South end is not changing but there are extra changes at the North End.

The plan is still "pants" (technical term I use) and dangerous because of the usage of platforms 0 and 2 as Northbound departures, because this will mean too many people being put through the subway for platform alterations at peak times causing a crush situation in the Subway and stairs. They are just not designed to cope with the instant numbers boarding trains at Redhill during the peak

 

[Deepgreen]

Good plan (as always) but that doesn't show the new access to Platform 2 from the Southbound main line - which is why platform 4 is going.

I have the plan somewhere but it is far too big to post here. South end is not changing but there are extra changes at the North End.

The plan is still "pants" (technical term I use) and dangerous because of the usage of platforms 0 and 2 as Northbound departures, because this will mean too many people being put through the subway for platform alterations at peak times causing a crush situation in the Subway and stairs. They are just not designed to cope with the instant numbers boarding trains at Redhill during the peak

OK, but the plan does show the existing access (facing crossover to the north of the station environs) from the southbound main to the northbound main, which would give access to platforms 2 and 0. Are you saying that an additional crossover is to be installed? This would seem simply to duplicate an existing facility, unless it can be squeezed in to allow a NB train to leave 0 while a SB one arrives at 2? If so, will the existing crossover be retained as well? Incidentally I assume that the plan also sees the so-called 'long siding' north of the station being electrified and cleared for passenger service to the crossover to the NB main?

I fully agree with the concern over the potential danger of the subway becoming overcrowded, and would have expected a risk analysis to have covered this aspect. A second platform interchange is desperately needed to the north end of the platforms, which will become even more important with the new layout and surely would not be cripplingly expensive in the form of a simple bridge - the platforms are wide enough to accommodate this without alterations (especially with platform 4 removed and the bridge thus able to sit back to the old platform edge) and the step-free access is already there in the form of the lifts feeding into the subway. This would also usefully re-distribute passenger flows to where they are needed, and make connections easier and quicker from a southbound train at platform 3 to a train at platform 2A or 0A. It would help ease the 'front-heavy' loading of southbound trains of passengers wanting either East Croydon or Redhill.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here's my educated guess (not to scale):

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

The I think the NR diagram from the route study is a highly conceptual composite that tries also to reflect further changes possible when resignalling happens eventually.

Thanks, Mark - your plan shows the present facing crossover immediately east of the junction for the Tonbridge route replaced by a trailing one - what's the reasoning behind this? It won't permit access to the electrified siding from the down line.

 

[MarkyT]

Good plan (as always) but that doesn't show the new access to Platform 2 from the Southbound main line - which is why platform 4 is going.

I have the plan somewhere but it is far too big to post here. South end is not changing but there are extra changes at the North End.

It's always been possible to get from London to platform #2 (and #1 currently) via the existing 'outer crossover', but there's benefit in putting in a second crossover closer to the station, allowing the Down move to #2 to be made at the same time as an Up train is leaving #0. The route study sketch shows additional pointwork to allow this parallel move.

I have shown an extra crossover on a tentative v2 of my sketch. Does this agree with what you've seen?

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks, Mark - your plan shows the present facing crossover immediately east of the junction for the Tonbridge route replaced by a trailing one - what's the reasoning behind this? It won't permit access to the electrified siding from the down line.

Definitely a trailing crossover between the Down and Up Tonbridge lines, as shown on latest Google Earth aerial views and all previous versions available. That agrees with the latest sectional appendix. I'm not clear as to what is the 'electrified siding'. Is that a former 'Down Goods Loop' next to the Down Tonbridge with the Tonbridge end points out of use? that would certainly work as a reversing siding, but if this facility is active, it is completely missing from the current sectional appendix! (current download snapshot version but may not be completely in sync with the 'live' online version to which I have no access) http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...dix/kent sussex wessex sectional appendix.pdf

(pdf page 395)

 

[Deepgreen]

It's always been possible to get from London to platform #2 (and #1 currently) via the existing 'outer crossover', but there's benefit in putting in a second crossover closer to the station, allowing the Down move to #2 to be made at the same time as an Up train is leaving #0. The route study sketch shows additional pointwork to allow this parallel move.

I have shown an extra crossover on a tentative v2 of my sketch. Does this agree with what you've seen?

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Definitely a trailing crossover between the Down and Up Tonbridge lines, as shown on latest Google Earth aerial views and all previous versions available. That agrees with the latest sectional appendix. I'm not clear as to what is the 'electrified siding'. Is that a former 'Down Goods Loop' next to the Down Tonbridge with the Tonbridge end points out of use? that would certainly work as a reversing siding, but if this facility is active, it is completely missing from the current sectional appendix! (current download snapshot version but may not be completely in sync with the 'live' online version to which I have no access) http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...dix/kent sussex wessex sectional appendix.pdf

(pdf page 395)

I think that's my mistake in assuming it was a facing crossover now. Yes, I did mean the loop rather than a siding. It will be interesting to see if the additional crossover is installed at the north end - with the removal of the existing 'second' crossover to platform 3 from the down line, that would give no extra infrastructure (apart from a new route indicator, etc., on the down home signal), simply effectively a re-positioned set. It has been a source of frustration that, with the current layout, once a train has come to a stand at the down home signal, it is already past the facing crossover and so cannot gain access to platforms 1 and 2 to by-pass any problem in platform 3.

As an additional piece of 'armchair' planning, perhaps it would be good to electrify the full lengths of both the up side 'long siding' (i.e. beyond the crossover) and the down side siding to provide 'escape' berths for failures to clear the running lines. I won't hold my breath though.

Thanks again for the detail provided.

 

[Minstral25]

It's always been possible to get from London to platform #2 (and #1 currently) via the existing 'outer crossover', but there's benefit in putting in a second crossover closer to the station, allowing the Down move to #2 to be made at the same time as an Up train is leaving #0. The route study sketch shows additional pointwork to allow this parallel move.

I have shown an extra crossover on a tentative v2 of my sketch. Does this agree with what you've seen?

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

Yes much more like what I have got (Network Rail layout plan for works March 2016).

The only comments I'd add is that the outer Crossover is much further out than it appears on your diagram and the trailing terminating line back towards London from platform 3 will be removed.

Detail additional items - the point from platform 1 to platform 0 is actually part way along platform 1 (hence it can no longer take through 12-car trains which is why it has been abandoned as a through platform) and there is also a new line from platform 0 to the Guildford lines joining just before the crossover from up to down. There is also no connection to the down Tonbridge siding in the plan I have and lastly the end of the terminating line on platform 1 does not curve - it is straight on the network Rail plan as it stops short of the current end of platform

The reason for the extra crossover is that the outer crossover is 2 train lengths beyond the last signal before the platforms and when a train breaks down on platform 3, it means the following train can no longer access a platform in Redhill. This extra crossover will now allow access to platform 2

Last I heard the work is to be done over Easter 2018

 

[Deepgreen]

Yes much more like what I have got (Network Rail layout plan for works March 2016).

The only comments I'd add is that the outer Crossover is much further out than it appears on your diagram and the trailing terminating line back towards London from platform 3 will be removed.

Detail additional items - the point from platform 1 to platform 0 is actually part way along platform 1 (hence it can no longer take through 12-car trains which is why it has been abandoned as a through platform) and there is also a new line from platform 0 to the Guildford lines joining just before the crossover from up to down. There is also no connection to the down Tonbridge siding in the plan I have and lastly the end of the terminating line on platform 1 does not curve - it is straight on the network Rail plan as it stops short of the current end of platform

The reason for the extra crossover is that the outer crossover is 2 train lengths beyond the last signal before the platforms and when a train breaks down on platform 3, it means the following train can no longer access a platform in Redhill. This extra crossover will now allow access to platform 2

Last I heard the work is to be done over Easter 2018

Well, that sits nicely with the December 2017 date I've seen being used for the introduction of the new platform! Oh well, 'twas ever thus. Thanks for the update. Do you believe the existing facing, London-end crossover will be retained to allow southbound trains to use platform 0, or will it be replaced by the new one, with platform 0 being usable in the up direction only?

 

[Sunset route]

I take it by calling it platform 4 you are referring to the GPO dock, which is just a siding as far as operations are concerned and the only trains allowed in there these days are class 455s when berthing.

 

[MarkyT]

Everyone - thanks for all information received

the outer Crossover is much further out than it appears on your diagram and the trailing terminating line back towards London from platform 3 will be removed.

I measured the position of the crossover on aerial photography and adjusted it in the diagram to be more in proportion with platform length.

Down Siding [kickback from platforms #3 / #4 (Post Office Dock)] now shown removed.

Detail additional items - the point from platform 1 to platform 0 is actually part way along platform 1 (hence it can no longer take through 12-car trains which is why it has been abandoned as a through platform) and there is also a new line from platform 0 to the Guildford lines joining just before the crossover from up to down.

I was aware of the length limitation in #1 and understand that is why it has two signals at the south end. Points from #1 to #0 are thus already shown starting 'inside' the end of platform to convey this. I wonder whether the platform edge alongside the turnout will now be taken out of use permanently along with the 'outer' signal or will it be left in situ so that in an emergancy a longer train could still be turned back? (albeit blocking access to #0 whilst doing so). The diagram tries to reflect geometry of the existing track shown in aerial photography but cannot be perfect as it's a 'straight line sketch' and not to scale.

The additional connection from #0 to Guildford line is now shown, presumably partially adapted from the former goods loop turnout.

There is also no connection to the down Tonbridge siding in the plan I have and lastly the end of the terminating line on platform 1 does not curve - it is straight on the network Rail plan as it stops short of the current end of platform

All connections to loops / sidings on Tonbridge line shown removed apart from 'Loco Siding'

Platform #1 shortened a little more.

The reason for the extra crossover is that the outer crossover is 2 train lengths beyond the last signal before the platforms and when a train breaks down on platform 3, it means the following train can no longer access a platform in Redhill. This extra crossover will now allow access to platform 2

Can you tell from your information whether the left hand ladder at the north end is being renewed, perhaps in a slightly more southerly position as part of the simplifications, as it seem unlikely from aerial photography that the new right hand crossover will fit between the existing turnouts and the innermost down home signal gantry structure, which I expect NR would not wish to have to renew in a more northerly position if not neccessary, as that would degrade the tight standage clear of the 'outer crossover' and could trigger wholesale recalculation of signal spacing, sighting etc all to modern new build standards etc. (i.e. unseal multifarious containers of cylindrical invertebrates). Hence I've shown the left hand ladder renewed, but am I right?

v3? tentative
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

 

[Deepgreen]

Everyone - thanks for all information received



I measured the position of the crossover on aerial photography and adjusted it in the diagram to be more in proportion with platform length.

Down Siding [kickback from platforms #3 / #4 (Post Office Dock)] now shown removed.



I was aware of the length limitation in #1 and understand that is why it has two signals at the south end. Points from #1 to #0 are thus already shown starting 'inside' the end of platform to convey this. I wonder whether the platform edge alongside the turnout will now be taken out of use permanently along with the 'outer' signal or will it be left in situ so that in an emergancy a longer train could still be turned back? (albeit blocking access to #0 whilst doing so). The diagram tries to reflect geometry of the existing track shown in aerial photography but cannot be perfect as it's a 'straight line sketch' and not to scale.

The additional connection from #0 to Guildford line is now shown, presumably partially adapted from the former goods loop turnout.



All connections to loops / sidings on Tonbridge line shown removed apart from 'Loco Siding'

Platform #1 shortened a little more.



Can you tell from your information whether the left hand ladder at the north end is being renewed, perhaps in a slightly more southerly position as part of the simplifications, as it seem unlikely from aerial photography that the new right hand crossover will fit between the existing turnouts and the innermost down home signal gantry structure, which I expect NR would not wish to have to renew in a more northerly position if not neccessary, as that would degrade the tight standage clear of the 'outer crossover' and could trigger wholesale recalculation of signal spacing, sighting etc all to modern new build standards etc. (i.e. unseal multifarious containers of cylindrical invertebrates). Hence I've shown the left hand ladder renewed, but am I right?

v3? tentative
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

I'm probably being stupid/unobservant, but this looks the same as the previous version(s) to me.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm probably being stupid/unobservant, but this looks the same as the previous version(s) to me.

Refresh your cache?

The new one is definitely uploaded. I just checked again.

 

[Sunset route]

Everyone - thanks for all information received



I measured the position of the crossover on aerial photography and adjusted it in the diagram to be more in proportion with platform length.

Down Siding [kickback from platforms #3 / #4 (Post Office Dock)] now shown removed.



I was aware of the length limitation in #1 and understand that is why it has two signals at the south end. Points from #1 to #0 are thus already shown starting 'inside' the end of platform to convey this. I wonder whether the platform edge alongside the turnout will now be taken out of use permanently along with the 'outer' signal or will it be left in situ so that in an emergancy a longer train could still be turned back? (albeit blocking access to #0 whilst doing so). The diagram tries to reflect geometry of the existing track shown in aerial photography but cannot be perfect as it's a 'straight line sketch' and not to scale.

The additional connection from #0 to Guildford line is now shown, presumably partially adapted from the former goods loop turnout.



All connections to loops / sidings on Tonbridge line shown removed apart from 'Loco Siding'

Platform #1 shortened a little more.



Can you tell from your information whether the left hand ladder at the north end is being renewed, perhaps in a slightly more southerly position as part of the simplifications, as it seem unlikely from aerial photography that the new right hand crossover will fit between the existing turnouts and the innermost down home signal gantry structure, which I expect NR would not wish to have to renew in a more northerly position if not neccessary, as that would degrade the tight standage clear of the 'outer crossover' and could trigger wholesale recalculation of signal spacing, sighting etc all to modern new build standards etc. (i.e. unseal multifarious containers of cylindrical invertebrates). Hence I've shown the left hand ladder renewed, but am I right?

v3? tentative
http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf

The last briefing I had on Redhill, platform 1 was still to be the full 12 coaches but only practical for 8 coach trains because anything longer would block the access to and from platform 0 from the main/Tonbridge direction. Not saying that's the case now, but the last time I spoke with the project team.

 

[Deepgreen]

The last briefing I had on Redhill, platform 1 was still to be the full 12 coaches but only practical for 8 coach trains because anything longer would block the access to and from platform 0 from the main/Tonbridge direction. Not saying that's the case now, but the last time I spoke with the project team.

At least that would give a little more flexibility in one sense, despite blocking platform 0, it would at least allow a 12 car to be de-trained and sent back again, for example, if platform 0 was already occupied.

 

[Minstral25]

The last briefing I had on Redhill, platform 1 was still to be the full 12 coaches but only practical for 8 coach trains because anything longer would block the access to and from platform 0 from the main/Tonbridge direction. Not saying that's the case now, but the last time I spoke with the project team.

That is exactly what they told me as well. We asked for 0 and 1 to be swapped as through platforms but that was the reason they couldn't. Funds prevented them from doing the sensible safe solution as they cannot afford to change any of the South End layout.

 

[Sunset route]

That is exactly what they told me as well. We asked for 0 and 1 to be swapped as through platforms but that was the reason they couldn't. Funds prevented them from doing the sensible safe solution as they cannot afford to change any of the South End layout.

The project was literately just about adding platform 0 and no scope for any other works. Having said that they decided to take out the GPO dock, not sure why as they haven't said what is to happen with the unit that stables there over night or the service that it forms in the morning. Maybe it will stable in platform 0 with an early morning shunt or down at Gatwick sidings. But it runs down from Catreham at the moment as a crew taxi as that service to Caterham is currently worked by a Redhill driver.

 

[mr_jrt]

Would it be feasible to project the dock road along to create another full through platform? That would seem to me to be quite useful?

 

[tsr]

Would it be feasible to project the dock road along to create another full through platform? That would seem to me to be quite useful?

I don't think so, sadly. There's a myriad of features of the station buildings which would make it pretty hard to construct, including the structure and machinery of the old postal bridge, the Platform 3 lift, an access passageway used by Network Rail and station maintenance staff, a very large stairwell and the rear entrance (to be modernised, tentatively starting in 2018) - not to mention the back of the Sorting Office and getting the line to cross over Tonbridge Lines Junction at the South of the station.

 

[Minstral25]

The project was literately just about adding platform 0 and no scope for any other works. Having said that they decided to take out the GPO dock, not sure why as they haven't said what is to happen with the unit that stables there over night or the service that it forms in the morning. Maybe it will stable in platform 0 with an early morning shunt or down at Gatwick sidings. But it runs down from Catreham at the moment as a crew taxi as that service to Caterham is currently worked by a Redhill driver.

Which is a shame because mobilising for other works much of which would create great benefit, will cost a lot of money and make the schemes less positive.

There was talk about 4 years ago about electrifying the stabling sidings but I suspect that went when an accountant looked at it. I suspect the Caterham turn will change in 2018 anyway as the recast for 2018 timetable will change a lot of turns and historical patterns.

 

[mr_jrt]

I don't think so, sadly. There's a myriad of features of the station buildings which would make it pretty hard to construct, including the structure and machinery of the old postal bridge, the Platform 3 lift, an access passageway used by Network Rail and station maintenance staff, a very large stairwell and the rear entrance (to be modernised, tentatively starting in 2018) - not to mention the back of the Sorting Office and getting the line to cross over Tonbridge Lines Junction at the South of the station.

Thanks for the info. The bridge looked quite open and roomy when I last passed by (on a rail replacement bus!), so got me wondering.

I'd imagine with the removal of the dock the removal of all the former postal infrastructure should be a non-issue, a staff access passageway doesn't strike me as a show-stopper, but the lift does. I guess I'll have to re-visit once the rear entrance is modernised and see what's left.

As for the Tonbridge lines, if the curves required to join the existing loop would be too tight, you could always route the Tonbridge-bound line through it, moving that junction north of the station.

 

[Phil.]

There is the matter of the A25 bridge. A perfect(ish) world would see a facing crossover from the up to the down Tonbridge just before a new connection into the extended downside bay forming a new (P5?) loop platform as well as extending the "run off" from platform 3 in the down direction into a new connection into the Tonbridge line.
If only it wasn't for the lift, the construction of a new bridge over the A25, the squillions that it would cost, the three years to construct it all the.............
This is the stuff that pipedreams are made of.

 

[Deepgreen]

I noticed a few days ago that the first track-work associated with the new layout has been done - the up side 'long siding' and its crossover to the up main has been renewed in readiness for it becoming a passenger-carrying line. Not electrified yet as far as I could see as I passed.

 

[Deepgreen]

I also noticed yesterday afternoon while approaching Redhill that a new facing crossover has been installed about 300 metres north of the present one, in preparation for the new layout. I hadn't realised a new (additional?) crossover would be provided, as I had assumed that the present one, which already allows access to the long siding from the down main (although never used as such that I have known), would remain/be re-laid.

 

[Deepgreen]

An odd piece of work has just been done - a week or so ago a channel was cut into the platform surface parallel to the edge along 90% of the ex-GPO bay. At the time I assumed this was in preparation for erecting a fence to allow the bay's removal (which is planned as part of the platform 0 project). However, last evening I noticed that most of the block paving surface had been cut out and replaced with a strip of tarmac, in much the same way as was done to the operational platforms a few months ago to remove a series of trip hazards along the nosing stones.

Any ideas why this work has been done to a platform edge which is about to be removed (and which doesn't see passenger use)?!

 

[Townsend Hook]

An odd piece of work has just been done - a week or so ago a channel was cut into the platform surface parallel to the edge along 90% of the ex-GPO bay. At the time I assumed this was in preparation for erecting a fence to allow the bay's removal (which is planned as part of the platform 0 project). However, last evening I noticed that most of the block paving surface had been cut out and replaced with a strip of tarmac, in much the same way as was done to the operational platforms a few months ago to remove a series of trip hazards along the nosing stones.

Any ideas why this work has been done to a platform edge which is about to be removed (and which doesn't see passenger use)?!

Because joined up thinking doesn't happen on the railway.

 

[Phil.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What on earth was going through N.R's planner's minds to create something so complicated?
All that had to be done was to put in a connection off the up Reading with an associated up to down crossover into siding number one in the disused yard and have it lead into the proposed platform 0. At the other (London) end it would lead out using the existing crossovers on to the up main. The result would be a platform of at least nine coached long, -plenty for terminating and reversing RDG - RDH - GTW and vice-versa trains. A train off the new platform 0 going to GTW would simply use the existing crossover/turn outs as presently installed in the siding adjacent to platform 1 which would now be platform 0.

 

[MarkyT]

I think I've got to the bottom of what is being built at Redhill and I have updated my layout sketch accordingly. It is not entirely finished yet. While I've included all the turnout speeds I've got to add speeds for the plain track between.

http://www.townend.me/files/redhill.pdf