Salisbury Platform 5 for passenger use

[DaChezePufz]

I have noticed that SWR has put out the orange floor carriage indication at Salisbury for Platform 5, and on the Signalling Panel is it listed as Platform 5. However there is no passenger information displays for trains, and has a shunt signal leading out of it.
I have seen in other threads that usually passenger trains cannot be signalled out of "sidings" with shunt signals as they usually contain no TPWS protection or overlaps, however as can be seen on the image below there is TPWS indicated. Another point was a lack of a FPL (Facing Point Lock) however all the points are motor operated and I have read that these all contain built-in FPLs.
The only facing points before the main line is the SY134 catch points.
There is also no track circuit indications for the platform, however I am under the impression that this shouldn't matter for a Bay Platform? (Platform 6, the East Bay, however is track circuited.)

Is there any reason that passenger trains can/ cannot use Platform 5/ the West Bay?

http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/3091/category/2418-2010_may

 

[Towers]

I wonder has the same been done at Southampton Central? Like Salisbury, it also has a down direction bay which now sees only stabling use. In both cases
there can’t be much demand for a platform which only serves to terminate trains arriving from the ‘country’ direction these days, so standard economy measures dictate their withdrawal from passenger use and the associated downgrades in signalling and upkeep. That being said, applying the platform markings ‘just in case’ isn’t a huge additional expense I suppose. Does Salisbury P5 have CIS screens fitted?

 

[DaChezePufz]

I wonder has the same been done at Southampton Central? Like Salisbury, it also has a down direction bay which now sees only stabling use. In both cases
there can’t be much demand for a platform which only serves to terminate trains arriving from the ‘country’ direction these days, so standard economy measures dictate their withdrawal from passenger use and the associated downgrades in signalling and upkeep. That being said, applying the platform markings ‘just in case’ isn’t a huge additional expense I suppose. Does Salisbury P5 have CIS screens fitted?

I believe Southampton Centrals bay will be back in use when/ if the Marchwood/ Fawley line reopens.
Regarding the Salisbury PIS screens, no.

 

[Trainman40083]

I wonder has the same been done at Southampton Central? Like Salisbury, it also has a down direction bay which now sees only stabling use. In both cases
there can’t be much demand for a platform which only serves to terminate trains arriving from the ‘country’ direction these days, so standard economy measures dictate their withdrawal from passenger use and the associated downgrades in signalling and upkeep. That being said, applying the platform markings ‘just in case’ isn’t a huge additional expense I suppose. Does Salisbury P5 have CIS screens fitted?

I seem to recall the platform at Southampton was used by such as Hampshire units, on terminators from Romsey...Over time they created the circular service via Chandler's Ford. I only remember the platform at Salisbury used to park Class 33s

 

[DaChezePufz]

I have noticed that SWR has put out the orange floor carriage indication at Salisbury for Platform 5, and on the Signalling Panel is it listed as Platform 5. However there is no passenger information displays for trains, and has a shunt signal leading out of it.
I have seen in other threads that usually passenger trains cannot be signalled out of "sidings" with shunt signals as they usually contain no TPWS protection or overlaps, however as can be seen on the image below there is TPWS indicated. Another point was a lack of a FPL (Facing Point Lock) however all the points are motor operated and I have read that these all contain built-in FPLs.
The only facing points before the main line is the SY134 catch points.
There is also no track circuit indications for the platform, however I am under the impression that this shouldn't matter for a Bay Platform? (Platform 6, the East Bay, however is track circuited.)

Is there any reason that passenger trains can/ cannot use Platform 5/ the West Bay?

http://photos.signalling.org/picture?/3091/category/2418-2010_may

00000045 | Signalling Photos

00000045 - 00000045.JPG

photos.signalling.org

A different yet equally poor photo of the panel, you can however see the SY235, a shunt signal is in place.

I seem to recall the platform at Southampton was used by such as Hampshire units, on terminators from Romsey...Over time they created the circular service via Chandler's Ford. I only remember the platform at Salisbury used to park Class 33s

I have seen photos, although from the 60s/ 70s where first gen dmus used it. Also from looking at old signalling diagrams you can see that it was once a bay platform like no6. Platform 1 (now the recep sdg out of the depot) was changed into a sliding in 1980 I believe alongside the resignalling of the area

 

[Towers]

The platform at So’ton is electrified, a quick Google finds a mention of “Brockenhurst stoppers” terminating in there at some stage.

 

[DaChezePufz]

The platform at So’ton is electrified, a quick Google finds a mention of “Brockenhurst stoppers” terminating in there at some stage.

Only partially electrified, the country end is, however the other ⅓ to the buffers are not I believe.

Only partially electrified, the country end is, however the other ⅓ to the buffers are not I believe.

IMG 3616 | Signalling Photos

IMG 3616 - IMG_3616.JPG

photos.signalling.org

You can also see that it is labelled as "down bay siding" and has a shunt signal

 

[Towers]

Only partially electrified, the country end is, however the other ⅓ to the buffers are not I believe.

That’s interesting! Slight hint of penny pinching about it, but it makes sense I suppose if the intended use is to run EMUs in there.

*Is that a common thing elsewhere in stabling sidings or bay platforms? I’d never thought about it before but it’s entirely logical I suppose!

 

[DaChezePufz]

That’s interesting! Slight hint of penny pinching about it, but it makes sense I suppose if the intended use is to run EMUs in there.

*Is that a common thing elsewhere in stabling sidings or bay platforms? I’d never thought about it before but it’s entirely logical I suppose!

I have only ever seen some 68s stabled in it, although I don't visit Southampton particularly often. And maybe one 387 during disruption.

 

[zwk500]

There is also no track circuit indications for the platform, however I am under the impression that this shouldn't matter for a Bay Platform? (Platform 6, the East Bay, however is track circuited.)

Is there any reason that passenger trains can/ cannot use Platform 5/ the West Bay?

Lack of a track circuit means there is less protection against something being accidentally routed towards an occupied platform (as there is no track circuit to prevent the route clearing in the interlocking). Although plenty of lines don't, as there's little need to use 5 this may be why it's avoided.

The platform at So’ton is electrified, a quick Google finds a mention of “Brockenhurst stoppers” terminating in there at some stage.

the Bay at Southampton has been used with special authority, mostly for tours down the Fawley branch. If the Restoring Your Railways proposal to reopen that line had done so, I believe the platform would have been upgraded to full passenger standard.

 

[aliceh]

I wonder has the same been done at Southampton Central? Like Salisbury, it also has a down direction bay which now sees only stabling use.

The bay at Southampton (platform 5) does indeed have these floor markings too. And like Salisbury, I think they're the only mention of a platform 5 anywhere on the station

 

[DaChezePufz]

Lack of a track circuit means there is less protection against something being accidentally routed towards an occupied platform (as there is no track circuit to prevent the route clearing in the interlocking). Although plenty of lines don't, as there's little need to use 5 this may be why it's avoided.

That would make perfect sense,
I am also aware that to get into the platform SY52 only clears its subsidiary aspect, which therefore should mean that no passenger trains can use it. Maybe it could only be used, in specific circumstances, for departing passenger trains instead of arriving?

The bay at Southampton (platform 5) does indeed have these floor markings too. And like Salisbury, I think they're the only mention of a platform 5 anywhere on the station

I believe that the reception siding at Salisbury (old platform 1) also does, which amused me as I don't see it returning to passenger use in the near future.

 

[zwk500]

That would make perfect sense,
I am also aware that to get into the platform SY52 only clears its subsidiary aspect, which therefore should mean that no passenger trains can use it.

Trains can enter occupied platforms under subsidiary aspects but I suspect the lack of the track circuit means it's a shunt-only route as there's nothing proving the platform occupied or otherwise. Trains would only be able to enter it as an empty shunt.

Maybe it could only be used, in specific circumstances, for departing passenger trains instead of arriving?

That may well depend on the local instructions. I don't know if other platforms only accessible by shunting have track circuits to protect trains, or if the lack of a signalled move into the platform is considered sufficient protection for the passenger unit (Wolverhampton, Huntingdon and Taunton have platforms only accessible via shunts, I think)

I should mention I'm not a signalling engineer or expert on signalling regulation and standards by any means so if I've got things wrong I will happily be corrected.

 

[takno]

I believe that the reception siding at Salisbury (old platform 1) also does, which amused me as I don't see it returning to passenger use in the near future.

Platform 1 is marked on some diagrams I have as "special instructions required for passenger trains to use reception line". I don't think it's a massive blocker to talk a passenger train through a shunt signal if local procedures are in place to do so, but it would be a lot of effort for no obvious benefit.

 

[DaChezePufz]

Platform 1 is marked on some diagrams I have as "special instructions required for passenger trains to use reception line". I don't think it's a massive blocker to talk a passenger train through a shunt signal if local procedures are in place to do so, but it would be a lot of effort for no obvious benefit.

Oh interesting, I would be interested as to what circumstances would cause it to be used? Possibly a flooding of the subway? As there is a street level exit (only used by staff normally). It is only accessable from the country direction without reversing, so in the eventuality of a flood platform 4 could be used for down traffic with platform 1 for up? Then bays 5 and 6 for the terminating gwr from somewhere and the Romsey rounders respectively?

 

[takno]

Oh interesting, I would be interested as to what circumstances would cause it to be used? Possibly a flooding of the subway? As there is a street level exit (only used by staff normally). It is only accessable from the country direction without reversing, so in the eventuality of a flood platform 4 could be used for down traffic with platform 1 for up? Then bays 5 and 6 for the terminating gwr from somewhere and the Romsey rounders respectively?

To be honest I'd guess it's probably something like it's track which is requested on railtours, or it was used in a possession once 15 years ago, rather than anything that's in contingency plans for normal user operations.

 

[swt_passenger]

That’s interesting! Slight hint of penny pinching about it, but it makes sense I suppose if the intended use is to run EMUs in there.

*Is that a common thing elsewhere in stabling sidings or bay platforms? I’d never thought about it before but it’s entirely logical I suppose!

About the last carriage length of P5 at Southampton has platform both sides, I think because it was used as a parcels dock. Perhaps having no third rail was an intentional safety feature.

 

[sh24]

To be honest I'd guess it's probably something like it's track which is requested on railtours, or it was used in a possession once 15 years ago, rather than anything that's in contingency plans for normal user operations.

I recall Salisbury P1 was used during engineering works back in the late 80's.

 

[swt_passenger]

I have only ever seen some 68s stabled in it, although I don't visit Southampton particularly often. And maybe one 387 during disruption.

The WTT shows P5 has a 444 stabled in it for about 5 hours during the night Mon-Fr, but you’d have to be there between 0014 and 0550 to see it. On RTT it seems to come up as DBS for dates in the future for some reason.

 

[DaChezePufz]

The WTT shows P5 has a 444 stabled in it for about 5 hours during the night Mon-Fr, but you’d have to be there between 0014 and 0550 to see it. On RTT it seems to come up as DBS for dates in the future for some reason.

Having never been there during those times, that'll probably be why I haven't seen it

 

[paul1609]

Ive once arrived on a passenger train in Platform 5 at Southampton from Westbury it was a class 158. There had unfortunately been a fatality in Platform 1 and the station was otherwise closed. We were shepparded out through the Docks side for a bus to Fareham.

 

[Kite159]

Regarding Southampton P5, I've seen a 377 being stabled in there on a route learner from Littlehampton via Eastleigh (middle of the day).

As for Salisbury P5 bay, if it was done up to the correct passenger standards signalling wise, it would be useful for the GWR services from Bristol to terminate, just so they don't block up P2, 3 or 4. Especially on the services which have a longer turnaround in Salisbury (on a Sunday where I've seen a 166 being put on P6 to get it out of the way)

 

[DaChezePufz]

Regarding Southampton P5, I've seen a 377 being stabled in there on a route learner from Littlehampton via Eastleigh (middle of the day).

As for Salisbury P5 bay, if it was done up to the correct passenger standards signalling wise, it would be useful for the GWR services from Bristol to terminate, just so they don't block up P2, 3 or 4. Especially on the services which have a longer turnaround in Salisbury (on a Sunday where I've seen a 166 being put on P6 to get it out of the way)

Yes, I believe there is quite often a timetabled move from platform 4 to 5 as an ecs working for about 25 minutes for the turn around.
From all else that has been said on this thread, I'm assuming what would need to be done to change it to be compliant is:
- Add track circuiting
- Change the starting signal to a full one (the correct terminology escapes me)
- Change SY52 to have a route with normal aspects to bay 5.
- Add CIS displays

 

[swt_passenger]

Regarding Southampton P5, I've seen a 377 being stabled in there on a route learner from Littlehampton via Eastleigh (middle of the day).

I think that was a new feature from this June.. I recall we both mentioned it in the West Coastway new timetable thread. I believe as it also covers the up and down goods loops, it consolidates all the possible moves west of Central, and also the diversions in both directions via Eastleigh into one trip, rather than having the diversions in passenger service but only in one direction. Probably means if there’s no candidate for route learning on a particular day it might not run?

 

[zwk500]

Yes, I believe there is quite often a timetabled move from platform 4 to 5 as an ecs working for about 25 minutes for the turn around.
From all else that has been said on this thread, I'm assuming what would need to be done to change it to be compliant is:
- Add track circuiting
- Change the starting signal to a full one (the correct terminology escapes me)
- Change SY52 to have a route with normal aspects to bay 5.
- Add CIS displays

In addition to those alterations above (main aspect is the specific term but it's not particularly important here) you'd also need
- Check stock clearance for loaded trains (this does vary although should be fairly quick work)
- Platform edge brought up to code if needed. Yellow Line and Tactile surface minimum, also stepping distances.
- TPWS/buffer stop protection reviewed (it may not meet a main aspect route requirements).
- Trap points 134 may need removing or additional interlocking. Sufficient protection from the siding next door is probably provided by the existing crossover, although it may need a small change to be set normal unless required.

Of these, everything except SY52 signal would be relatively simple in railway terms, however it still involves a full block of the country end of Salisbury station to make the changes to the panel and test it. It's probably not something that can be done overnight either, although I could be wrong. In addition you have to consider the Salisbury box is now quite old and a change of this nature could require parts that are harder to get hold of or particular staff with the necessary skills. It might also be fine. Adding the route to SY52 is also something that might be fine but might also be a particular pain if it means a new Junction Indication has to be added in and associated controls and proving.

I'd expect bringing the bay back into service to cost well over £1m (and then some) which means there's going to need to be a good reason for it to do it now. However, if Salisbury is being resignalled anyway (which it will at some point to go into the ROC) then adding in the functionality in for Platform 5 to be restored would be a very modest increase in the project costs and therefore is likely to be done anyway.

 

[DaChezePufz]

- Trap points 134 may need removing or additional interlocking. Sufficient protection from the siding next door is probably provided by the existing crossover, although it may need a small change to be set normal unless required.

Am I correct in assuming that the trap points pose a risk to passenger workings incase of them being incorrectly set/ detected that could then lead to a derailed passenger train? If so, would the use of TPWS mean that should a SPAD occur there is far less risk of a collision between trains?
Holding Siding wise, (the siding adjacent to platform 5, and providing the only entry to the West Carriage Sidings (Now tamp siding with gate)), I assume you are referring to points SY133 (top end) being altered so that the normal state is set for the siding and not the platform?

Of these, everything except SY52 signal would be relatively simple in railway terms, however it still involves a full block of the country end of Salisbury station to make the changes to the panel and test it. It's probably not something that can be done overnight either, although I could be wrong. In addition you have to consider the Salisbury box is now quite old and a change of this nature could require parts that are harder to get hold of or particular staff with the necessary skills. It might also be fine. Adding the route to SY52 is also something that might be fine but might also be a particular pain if it means a new Junction Indication has to be added in and associated controls and proving.

I believe SY52 has the light bar style position route indications. It's primary route is into Platform 2, with the first diverging route on the right being platform 3, 2nd being 4. There is then a subsidiary shunt signal attached which then provides authority to move into the reception siding, and platforms 5 and HS.

I'd expect bringing the bay back into service to cost well over £1m (and then some) which means there's going to need to be a good reason for it to do it now. However, if Salisbury is being resignalled anyway (which it will at some point to go into the ROC) then adding in the functionality in for Platform 5 to be restored would be a very modest increase in the project costs and therefore is likely to be done anyway.

My understanding is that at some point it will be included into Basingstoke ROC as it controls the fringe at Grateley on the mainline panel, the fringe with Gillingham on it's West of England panel. The fringe at Romsey is currently controlled by Eastleigh, however it will also eventually be included into Basingstoke ROC. When this does happen I imagine it would make sense to convert it to standards like you mentioned, as well as adding a set of facing points between SY43 and the Up Main, before points SY128. This would allow for more flexibility, especially in and out of the depot. Maybe platform 2 could be made bidirectional as well, presumably all this would need is the addition of a main signal? As it is already platform standard.

 

[zwk500]

Am I correct in assuming that the trap points pose a risk to passenger workings incase of them being incorrectly set/ detected that could then lead to a derailed passenger train? If so, would the use of TPWS mean that should a SPAD occur there is far less risk of a collision between trains?

There are a number of risks, including many I am not aware of! My primary thought was that at the moment 134 traps protect the Platform 4 line from a runway from either siding, however platform 5 would be unprotected by a runaway from the holding siding. However, this comes back to the point (sorry for the pun) below:

Holding Siding wise, (the siding adjacent to platform 5, and providing the only entry to the West Carriage Sidings (Now tamp siding with gate)), I assume you are referring to points SY133 (top end) being altered so that the normal state is set for the siding and not the platform?

Yes. Their 'normal' position is already to point towards the west siding (as shown on the photo of the panel) however it may need some additional alterations as they would no longer be able to rely on 134pts to protect a passenger movement. On the other hand, it may not. I don't know without talking to a signalling engineer. This protection may be enough to avoid needing to do much with 133pts.

I believe SY52 has the light bar style position route indications. It's primary route is into Platform 2, with the first diverging route on the right being platform 3, 2nd being 4. There is then a subsidiary shunt signal attached which then provides authority to move into the reception siding, and platforms 5 and HS.

SY52 would then need an additional JI/Feather fitting (or the existing being replaced with a Route Indicator box) and the Subsidiary indications amended to reflect the changes (assuming the shunt route was still provided to 5). It's been a long time since I looked at a detailed signalling diagram for Salisbury.

My understanding is that at some point it will be included into Basingstoke ROC as it controls the fringe at Grateley on the mainline panel, the fringe with Gillingham on it's West of England panel. The fringe at Romsey is currently controlled by Eastleigh, however it will also eventually be included into Basingstoke ROC. When this does happen I imagine it would make sense to convert it to standards like you mentioned, as well as adding a set of facing points between SY43 and the Up Main, before points SY128. This would allow for more flexibility, especially in and out of the depot. Maybe platform 2 could be made bidirectional as well, presumably all this would need is the addition of a main signal? As it is already platform standard.

Yes, eventually both Salisbury and Eastleigh PSBs will move into BROC. Probably not for a while yet, as it'll cost a fair bit to do. Provision of additional crossovers (which I agree would be helpful) will depend on the curves either side of Salisbury, the geometry there for a crossing move could get quite tight, from what I recall of it's location.

 

[fgwrich]

The bay at Southampton (platform 5) does indeed have these floor markings too. And like Salisbury, I think they're the only mention of a platform 5 anywhere on the station

A few photos over the last few weeks. Bay in use as stabling and bay not in use with the newly painted lines.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was just wondering though, unless you fence off an unused platform face, the hazard for people who can’t see too well is the same whether there are public train services or not. So the fitting of tactiles doesn’t necessarily mean the early return to use for passengers? Isn’t it Kings Cross where they took a platform & track out of use in the suburban shed, but still fitted tactiles down both sides of the extended platform?

 

[Towers]

I was just wondering though, unless you fence off an unused platform face, the hazard for people who can’t see too well is the same whether there are public train services or not. So the fitting of tactiles doesn’t necessarily mean the early return to use for passengers? Isn’t it Kings Cross where they took a platform & track out of use in the suburban shed, but still fitted tactiles down both sides of the extended platform?

Absolutely. I don’t know what the standards say, but presumably the aim is eventually for all publicly accessible platform surfaces to have tactile, regardless of the use or volume of traffic.