Rochester station relocation and related issues

[Bungle73]

Network rail have a plan the re-siting of Rochester station:

Network Rail has unveiled plans for a new £26 million railway station in Rochester.

The new station, which is planned for land at Corporation Street, is part of a wider £135 million investment programme in the county by Network Rail as the number of passengers using the railway continues to grow.

A formal planning application is due to be submitted to Medway Council by Network Rail this spring.

Fiona Taylor, Network Rail’s route managing director for Kent, said: “The proposed new station will deliver a huge boost to Rochester and Medway. It will provide passengers with improved facilities and give better access to the town centre and surrounding area.

“The new station will be able to accommodate longer trains than the current station, helping boost capacity and providing more seats for passengers. An integrated transport hub will provide better links to other types of public transport.

Councillor Rodney Chambers, Medway Council leader and regeneration lead, said: “If this proposal gets the go ahead it will lead to a new, better train station for Rochester which will result in a quicker, more reliable service with more space for passengers.

“Rochester – like the rest of Medway – is benefitting from regeneration and more and more people are viewing it as a place to buy a family home and commute from.

“The number of rail passengers is forecast to grow significantly and freeing up this space for a new station will not only improve the service for commuters and other passengers, but also make sure it grows with future demand.”

The east Kent resignalling project will see £135 million invested in the railway by winter 2015, which is when the new Rochester station is due to open. It includes extending platforms at Strood station, an additional platform at Rainham station, renewing signalling equipment between Longfield and Sittingbourne and Beltring and Strood, upgrading seven level crossings, and reducing journey times between Rochester and Meopham.

The new station is due to be completed in winter 2015 when it will be operated as the current station is by Southeastern.

http://www.rail.co/2013/04/08/plans-announced-for-new-rochester-station/

However, I'm confused by these bits.

The new station will be able to accommodate longer trains than the current station, helping boost capacity and providing more seats for passengers.

But 12 coach trains already stop at Rochester during the peak, one just can't alight from the rear 2 coaches, so what's new?

If this proposal gets the go ahead it will lead to a new, better train station for Rochester which will result in a quicker, more reliable service with more space for passengers.

How does re-siting the station lead to a "quicker" and a "more reliable" service?

 

[swt_passenger]

Possibly best to just look at it as an integral part of an overall re-signalling scheme, that also allows for a higher numbers of trains etc etc.

Pages 73 and 74 of the NR CP5 HLOS overarching strategy flesh out the whole project, 'East Kent Resignalling phase 2' of which the new Rochester station forms only a part. It may be that the main aim is the third platform, and once that is decided, 12 car length is easier to do.

Scope of works
 Two additional signal sections to reduce headways between Rochester and Gillingham.
 Speed improvements between Longfield and Sittingbourne.
 Platform extension to accommodate 12-Car Class 465s at the following stations:
1) Strood
2) Rochester (delivered as part of new 3 platform station)
 Turnback facilities at Rainham and associated station infrastructure changes.
 Tunnel and junction lighting between Rochester Bridge Junction and Gillingham.
 Control Track Switches (CTS) and Lockout Devices between Rochester and Gillingham.
 Provision of lighting, cameras and monitoring equipment for driver only operation (DOO)
capability for 12-Car services at Strood, Rochester, Chatham, and CD/RA at Gillingham.
 Relocate Rochester station to Corporation Street, scope include a new 3 platform station
and new infrastructure including subway, track and signals.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...e plans/overarching cp5 enhancements plan.pdf

 

[Bungle73]

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Anyone know what the extra platform at Rainham is going to be used for? Hopefully not the termination of a service that currently runs straight through.

 

[12CSVT]

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Anyone know what the extra platform at Rainham is going to be used for? Hopefully not the termination of a service that currently runs straight through.

Some of the services which currently terminate at Gillingham, perhaps ?

 

[Mintona]

I believe the extra platform at Rainham will be used to relieve the pressure on Gillingham. The platform will be on the up side.

At Rochester, the platform layout will be similar to Gillingham, except the loop will be on the down side instead of the up. It will be possible to depart from all platforms in the up direction; the down main and down loop will both be bi-directional. The up main will be for up trains only.

I'm lead to believe that the current platforms at Rochester will remain in situ, and the loops will be used for stock stabling.

 

[Bungle73]

Thanks.

 

[Ironside]

Does anybody know how much time these improvements would make on a journey, say between London and whitstable?

 

[joeykins82]

Maybe the Longfield-Sittingbourne speed improvements could shave a couple of minutes off the journey but I doubt the other changes would make much difference. It certainly wouldn't make as much difference to the journey as converting the power supply from 3rd rail DC to OHLE AC could.

 

[cle]

It's such a slow route but Longfield to just before Strood is relatively straight and should be able to take higher speeds. Same with east of Gillingham. The Medway stretch is like a metro in the peaks, in terms of frequency and station closeness, I can't see much difference being made.

Knowing TOCs, they'll keep the savings for themselves in the form of timetable slack.

Still, it's good to see some improvement which will benefit the classic routes. Although of course it will also benefit the HS routes too, probably the main reason - as with the Ashford-Ramsgate speed improvements.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It fitted in nicely with resignalling , local urban development and of course positions the station very nicely for taxi / bus / heritage High Street etc .....access to the old station was pretty dire , no parking to speak of, and "unwelcoming" - a win !

Delighted it is happening , having had "something" in a previous job to make it happen.

 

[Mintona]

It's also a plus as there won't be 2 stations quite so close together! I'm sure non-regular passengers are bemused at having Rochester and Chatham stations either end of a tunnel.

I'm looking forward to the the new station, as well as the improved Strood which should be done at a similar time.

 

[cyclebytrain]

I'm a regular passenger and I'm still bemused by how close Strood, Rochester and Chatham are; despite knowing the history of why the various Medway stations exist where they do!

 

[Waddon]

If it were me planning improvements to the line round there, I would have the line out of the Strood tunnel straightened up, rising up and going straight across the Medway on a new bridge, joining onto the other lines somewhere around the existing Rochester station, then build a new Strood station on the new bridge with pedestrian entrances on either side of the river (keeping a low level platform at Strood for the Maidstone service, and a curved link line to the tunnel) An alignment like that would be practically straight and would, I imagine, save quite a bit of time over the current twisty curves... of course, it wouldn't be cheap, but then I wouldn't have to pay for it

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?m...0&ll=51.390637,0.508804&spn=0.023084,0.055189

 

[yorksrob]

I've always thought that a worthwhile change would have been to build a spur from the Maidstone line towards Rochester. The only reason that the route faces towards Strood is that it was built by the SER rather than the LCDR, but surely Maidstone trains would serve a better market if they went towards Chatham !

 

[Stats]

Anyone know what the extra platform at Rainham is going to be used for?

I see no mention of an extra platform at Rainham; only for the provision of turnback facilities.

 

[Bungle73]

I see no mention of an extra platform at Rainham; only for the provision of turnback facilities.

an additional platform at Rainham station

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And what would be the point of having turn back facilities without an extra platform to accommodate the train?

 

[Stats]

And what would be the point of having turn back facilities without an extra platform to accommodate the train?

I would be here all day if I listed all the stations on the UK rail network with turnback facilities that don't an extra platform.

 

[Bungle73]

I would be here all day if I listed all the stations on the UK rail network with turnback facilities that don't an extra platform.

I take it that those other stations either hardly use those facilities, or have a very infrequent train service then?

 

[Bald Rick]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And what would be the point of having turn back facilities without an extra platform to accommodate the train?

Perhaps the new turnback facilities are at an existing platform? #justsaying

 

[MichaelAMW]

I take it that those other stations either hardly use those facilities, or have a very infrequent train service then?

E.g. Willesden Green and Wembley Park on the Jubilee line have turnback facilities but no extra platform and these are used 4ish times an hour, all day long.

 

[brad465]

I hope this doesn't slow down my road cycling through the area on most weekends, given that the works may extend out towards the urban A2 next to the railway at Rochester.

 

[telstarbox]

I've always thought that a worthwhile change would have been to build a spur from the Maidstone line towards Rochester. The only reason that the route faces towards Strood is that it was built by the SER rather than the LCDR, but surely Maidstone trains would serve a better market if they went towards Chatham !

But would this be faster than the existing 101 bus, which runs non-stop up the A229 and has a 20-minute frequency?

 

[MarkyT]

I've always thought that a worthwhile change would have been to build a spur from the Maidstone line towards Rochester. The only reason that the route faces towards Strood is that it was built by the SER rather than the LCDR, but surely Maidstone trains would serve a better market if they went towards Chatham !

Agreed. With little or no demolition, a fairly steep hill could be built climbing up from Cuxton, under the HS1 & M2 bridges, then through 'Diggerland' (no shortage of earth moving plant there to grade the alignment!) to join the Sole Street line near Roman Way bridge. A new Strood West station around London Road then over the River to Rochester and beyond.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But would this be faster than the existing 101 bus, which runs non-stop up the A229 and has a 20-minute frequency?

BUS: Arriva Route 101, every 15 minutes, Maidstone Chequers Bus Station to Chatham Rail Station, typically 27 minutes, rising to 33 minutes for some peak journeys (note doesn't serve Rochester centre, bus carries on to terminate at Gillingham Duncan Rd).

TRAIN: Southeastern, every 30 minutes, Maidstone West to Strood typically 23 minutes now, and assuming an extra 10 minutes to get to Chatham via Strood West and Rochester, perhaps 33 minutes (note alternate trains start back from Tonbridge and future services could extend further east, e.g. to Rainham or beyond).

So very little in it, but rail serves more towns and villages on the way in the valley, although clearly misses out on the 'greater Chatham' area from Blue Bell Hill inwards.

There should be a market for both services and perhaps rail could be speeded up a little - don't know what current rolling stock is.

 

[eastwestdivide]

If it were me planning improvements to the line round there, I would have the line out of the Strood tunnel straightened up, rising up and going straight across the Medway on a new bridge, joining onto the other lines somewhere around the existing Rochester station, then build a new Strood station on the new bridge with pedestrian entrances on either side of the river (keeping a low level platform at Strood for the Maidstone service, and a curved link line to the tunnel) An alignment like that would be practically straight and would, I imagine, save quite a bit of time over the current twisty curves... of course, it wouldn't be cheap, but then I wouldn't have to pay for it

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?m...0&ll=51.390637,0.508804&spn=0.023084,0.055189

Well, under that proposal, if the trains continued to serve both Strood and Rochester, you'd hardly save any time, for massive expense. Also, you'd still have a curve with some speed restriction coming out of Strood tunnel, to avoid the housing on what used to be the canal basin (Cranmere Court).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed. With little or no demolition, a fairly steep hill could be built climbing up from Cuxton, under the HS1 & M2 bridges, then through 'Diggerland' (no shortage of earth moving plant there to grade the alignment!) to join the Sole Street line near Roman Way bridge. A new Strood West station around London Road then over the River to Rochester and beyond.
...

With some back of the envelope calculations, based on the given height of the viaduct (35m) you've got something like 25-30 metres in height to gain in a space of little more than 1km, giving a gradient somewhere round 1 in 30 to 1 in 40 (ish?). Again, a lot of expense for little gain over the alternatives. Also, in my experience, a substantial proportion of the passengers off the Maidstone line trains at Strood are heading towards London anyway.

 

[cle]

If connections were better, there would be no need for the trains to run to Strood. They could run to the Medway towns, and passengers could change at Rochester for a much better choice of London services, Bromley too!

Perhaps Rainham's turnback could be used for this service.

The peak Maidstone HS1 trains could still run via Strood directly, using that bit of track.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Better bang for the buck for connections would be platforms on the Rochester-Sole St line where it crosses the Strood-Maidstone line, linked to the existing Strood station.
For a while (late 1990s/early 2000s?), the Maidstone-Strood services reversed and ran through to Gillingham, I think when they continued to Tonbridge and Gatwick (could be wrong on that).
All pretty much pie in the sky anyway. The heavy traffic flows round there are all commuters to London.

 

[Bungle73]

Better bang for the buck for connections would be platforms on the Rochester-Sole St line where it crosses the Strood-Maidstone line, linked to the existing Strood station.

Except that is a long way from anywhere useful, and the whole point of moving Rochester station was to make it nearer the town centre.

 

[Rational Plan]

If you wanted to provide a fast service to Medway where closer to where commuters actually live, then I would build a flying junction from Hs1 just after the bridge with a new station near Hempstead Valley before rejoining after Rainham for faster services to the North coast.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Except that is a long way from anywhere useful, and the whole point of moving Rochester station was to make it nearer the town centre.

Yes, I didn't mean instead of moving Rochester station, just an easier way of achieving the connections (Maidstone direction to Sole St/Swanley direction) referred to in earlier posts, as well as providing a service towards Sole St/Swanley for inhabitants from the Strood side of the Medway.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . a gradient somewhere round 1 in 30 to 1 in 40 (ish?)

Not an great obstacle for modern electric rolling stock.

in my experience, a substantial proportion of the passengers off the Maidstone line trains at Strood are heading towards London anyway.

I'm sure that's true now but it doesn't prove there's little demand from the Medway valley going into the commercial centres of the towns, just that the train journey with an enforced change and wait at Strood competes poorly with other transport choices.