Curved platforms and stock where the doors aren't over the bogies will inevitably create a gap, and in the current climate of reducing PTI incidents, constructing platforms where there is a larger than necessary gap to the train is a bit taboo. There may be other issues at play such as signal sighting and location that could also affect the decision, but not being local to the area, I can't say!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Uckfield Line Platforms extended to hold 10 cars...
- Thread starter physics34
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tsr
Established Member
Dispatch can be a little tricky even now - with 5 coaches on the platform, you have to step right over to the platform fence or walk down the platform a little from the 5th coach in order to see the whole train. Whatever is added to the platform will not particularly improve the situation. However it does seem that whatever is added will at least be straight-ish, which will help.
It may well be easier to build extensions at the Country end of the station as part of the old station goods yard is holding a site/materials compound.
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 876
I'm interested in Eridge, can only extend London End and so it will be interesting to see what happens to the old signalbox.
tsr
Established Member
I'm also wondering if an extra half coach length or so will be squeezed in next to the old (and rather interesting) luggage chute behind the stairs.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
How come the platform there can't be extended towards Uckfield?
yeh i guess as well access will be harder london end because of embankments either side.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
there is a overbridge bridge and on the other side of that there is a steepish embankment.
The signalbox has been derelict for many a year is in a right old state. it dosnt look like its even been embarked for restoration and i guess it may be structually in a poor state
Last edited:
tsr
Established Member
It would be very narrow under the station building and it would also be extremely difficult for a conductor to monitor boarding & alighting (worse than what Selhurst conductors face at the worst few stations they sign, namely Hurst Green, Crystal Palace, Norbury, West Brompton etc., most of which would probably then look easy!
).Anyone know why such a major foundation is being built for the down platform at Edenbridge. Appears to be about a foot of reinforced concrete across the whole length. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to pile it underneath some uprights and build a frame to place a platform deck on?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyone know why they are building such a major foundation for the down platform at Edenbridge? Looks like a foot of reinforced concrete over the entire width and length. Sure pile driving and building a frame with a deck would be cheaper?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Anyone know why they are building such a major foundation for the down platform at Edenbridge? Looks like a foot of reinforced concrete over the entire width and length. Sure pile driving and building a frame with a deck would be cheaper?
MatthewParker
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 10
That is an interesting question. I was speaking with one of the on site engineers who also said "It's been over engineered" and he didn't know why ether, maybe Network Rail have got their calculations wrong?
Exactly. Was wondering why the cheaper and quicker option as mentioned above wasn't implemented, as it has been at Oxted, upper warlingham, gipsy hill, carshalton amongst others .Maybe it's because it's basically doubling the length of the platforms.
asylumxl
Established Member
Perhaps it's something to do with the quality of ground underneath the extension?
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 876
They seem to be adopting the same solution at Cowden as well. Might be related to the ground underneath it but would still think piling it would be an easier solution.
The composite slats on metal beams were also used to extend Clapham Junction's P17 from 4 cars to 8 cars, on a curve as well. That is in addition to extending stations until Shepherd's Bush by the same amount, although with less of a curve. They remind me of the 1940s and 1950s platforms that used concrete slabs on concrete stilts, mainly used to extend platforms, but also for some complete platforms, like at Upper Halliford.
Looking at the recent extensions on the Windsor Lines of the SWT network, while the composite slats were used at most stations, at some stations the entire extensions were done wholly in a combination of brick, breezeblock and poured concrete, such as Putney, North Sheen, Twickenham, and Staines.
So it probably does depend on the stability of the ground, as the last thing that anyone would want is to have subsidence cause the base for the slats to sink and the slats to come apart.
Last edited:
steamybrian
Established Member
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 876
21 years & 2 days after the Cowden crash.
Unfortunate timing really.
Unfortunate timing really.
I thought I noticed that they appear to be doing a lot of work on bridges on the line today. Seems that a roadbridge over the track between Edenbridge and Hurst Green is being replaced, and possibly more works just short of the junction where the tracks split between East Grinstead and Uckfield. Also seemed to be some works on the bridge where the track goes over Groombridge Road or whatever it's called between Eridge and Ashurst.
Not sure what they are doing, guess the drivers get a better view!
Not sure what they are doing, guess the drivers get a better view!
tsr
Established Member
In the notices for train crew it just says "Structures Maintenance" as far as I can see, and I'm not sure of any more detail. A number of bridges, both over and under the railway, seem to have a lot of fresh scaffolding round them and suchlike. I guess it makes sense to do any repairs and rebuilds now, with extended blocks due to the platform extensions. I've been trying to tell people just exactly how much is going on during the overnight blocks, and anecdotally I can say it seems to be appreciated more than just saying "the train is now a bus due to engineering". The closures last week affecting the last 2 Down trains were due to no less than 7 individual projects and/or general maintenance tasks; possibly more, depending on if you count any routine patrols or checks not included. There are also possessions at various times overnight this week. However, Southern are only publicising the platform extensions and Crowborough Tunnel drainage works.
The people writing status updates for the Tube went through a phase a couple of months ago where they explained the purpose of engineering closures in a brief way within online service update boards (eg. "District Line suspended between x and y due to planned replacement of old track at z"). I found this fantastic as it meant you could tell people why services were disrupted and how worthwhile it should be. Sadly it does not quite appear to yet be completely ingrained within the overall culture at Southern or the local area of Network Rail to explain things in such ways; even the Twitter people, who have a great opportunity to write pithy and succinct summaries like that, so often just say that engineering works may affect journeys... with no line mentioned, no specific services and just a link to the National Rail journey planner. We can but dream...
What you describe sounds really good. Perhaps one day in the future it will arrive..
Journey Check seems to be a good system that allows TOCs to write about what's going on. Of course Southern don't use it.
However their Web Site surely could offer a page, if it's not to expensive to set up another page with more details.
The Southern tweeter feed is of course useless these days. Its not the fault of the guys and gals on the team but is the fault of management who have merged the Southern and Thameslink teams and have 2 people operating 4 accounts during the day and 1 at night.
Must admit I think more information about what the engineering works are would be better. I am on the last Uckfield train on Thursday which is a bus from Oxted, so would like to know what is adding an hour to my journey home!
Must admit I think more information about what the engineering works are would be better. I am on the last Uckfield train on Thursday which is a bus from Oxted, so would like to know what is adding an hour to my journey home!
just an update:
Edenbridge Town and Cowden look nearly finished....
Ashurst, Eridge, Crowborough and Uckfield, work has barely started
Hever has had a bit of work done including movement of the signal and Buxted looks about halfway through.
Crowborough to Uckfield closed from 4th January for 6 weeks.
Edenbridge Town and Cowden look nearly finished....
Ashurst, Eridge, Crowborough and Uckfield, work has barely started
Hever has had a bit of work done including movement of the signal and Buxted looks about halfway through.
Crowborough to Uckfield closed from 4th January for 6 weeks.
I was considering this earlier, they have done a lot of work on a number of the raod bridges that the railway crosses, and those that cross the railway. Some of those crossing they have replaced the deck. Have they lifted them at the same time to allow for any possible overhead electrification?
Southern Dvr
Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 876
Nope. I believe it's a requirement now that work like this is done to allow for the possibility at some point some time for OHLE. Not specifically for Uckfield.
Think I badly worded my post as I didn't mean Uckfield was planned for electrification, but wondered if the works would allow for it should it ever be planned, which it sounds as if they will.
On the subject of the progress of the works Yesterday I did have a look for the works timetable poster which had been on display at Crowborough to see if all was progressing on time but couldn't find it. Christmas works posters being more important at the moment apparently
However Cowden and Edenbridge appear nearly finished, Crowborough hasn't started, Eridge, and Hever have both seen some clearance works, and Ashurst some builders bags of materials have appeared. No idea what's happening at Buxted as not been that way!
tsr
Established Member
Think I badly worded my post as I didn't mean Uckfield was planned for electrification, but wondered if the works would allow for it should it ever be planned, which it sounds as if they will.
On the subject of the progress of the works Yesterday I did have a look for the works timetable poster which had been on display at Crowborough to see if all was progressing on time but couldn't find it. Christmas works posters being more important at the moment apparently
However Cowden and Edenbridge appear nearly finished, Crowborough hasn't started, Eridge, and Hever have both seen some clearance works, and Ashurst some builders bags of materials have appeared. No idea what's happening at Buxted as not been that way!
The work on the new platform at Buxted is progressing well, with lots having been done on the foundations. The platform is due to go back to 5-coach length on Sunday, though whether it will is anyone's guess at the moment - it's just what the internal noticeboards say as the ETA for that bit to be completed. There's virtually no evidence of anything happening at Uckfield, though I'm sure there will be after the blockade in January/February.
Isn't it immaterial if Buxted goes back to 5 carriages on Sunday as the line is shut from Crowborough anyway? Or is it not Monday that the closure starts? Doesn't particularly affect me other than an anticipated shortage of parking at and around Crowborough station when the closure starts.
The need for the longer platforms was demonstrated today, unfortunately I missed what must of been fun as I was on the 15:08 from London Bridge to Crowborough (Replacement bust to Uckfield from there at present).
As many will know the stock from the 15:08 also forms the 18:05 which is the busiest down train and is 8 cars. I get to London Bridge and the train appears to be 8 cars however it has two 2 cars at the rear. This is an issue because the units do not interconnect so south of Hurst Green passengers cannot get out the rear unit.
In the meantime someone tweets Southern asking if the 18:05 is 8 carriages, and Southern respond with a link to their website which doesn't list it. I therefore tweet that its 8 but actually only 6 are usuable. This puzzles the tweet team so I have to explain. After a while the 18:05 appears as a short form.
It must have caused confusion at London Bridge where the train would be advertised as 6 units, so people would be standing where 6 would usually be closest to the barriers. But it would come in as 8 with the 2 carriages nearest the barrier locked out! So a great shuffle would ensue!
I dont know if the problem could have been solved at Crowborough or the signals wouldnt permit it. But it could have come in to Platform 2 as 8, then split and the 4 rear taken up towards Eridge past the points, they could then come back in to Platform 1. The exercise could then have been repeated with the front and the two units joined back up. However the signals might not have permitted such a move.
As many will know the stock from the 15:08 also forms the 18:05 which is the busiest down train and is 8 cars. I get to London Bridge and the train appears to be 8 cars however it has two 2 cars at the rear. This is an issue because the units do not interconnect so south of Hurst Green passengers cannot get out the rear unit.
In the meantime someone tweets Southern asking if the 18:05 is 8 carriages, and Southern respond with a link to their website which doesn't list it. I therefore tweet that its 8 but actually only 6 are usuable. This puzzles the tweet team so I have to explain. After a while the 18:05 appears as a short form.
It must have caused confusion at London Bridge where the train would be advertised as 6 units, so people would be standing where 6 would usually be closest to the barriers. But it would come in as 8 with the 2 carriages nearest the barrier locked out! So a great shuffle would ensue!
I dont know if the problem could have been solved at Crowborough or the signals wouldnt permit it. But it could have come in to Platform 2 as 8, then split and the 4 rear taken up towards Eridge past the points, they could then come back in to Platform 1. The exercise could then have been repeated with the front and the two units joined back up. However the signals might not have permitted such a move.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If 8 are usable part of the way can they not use all 8 then the driver
walk along and lock the back 2 out?
walk along and lock the back 2 out?
tsr
Established Member
It'll be the guard locking the doors out. All operations relating to the doors on 171s on the Uckfield Line (in normal service) are down to the guard.
With 8-car formations including a 2-car unit on the rear going Southbound, the rear 2 coaches will not have access to platforms after Hurst Green (except of course Uckfield when it is open) and therefore passengers in these coaches will be asked to leave and they will be locked out at Hurst Green. The reverse applies if there is a 2-car unit at the front on arrival at Crowborough (or Uckfield, etc. etc.) - that would be locked out and then reopened at Hurst Green.
Or at least, that's how the theory goes.
Dwell times at Hurst Green are often problematic on longer formations anyway; trains invariably arrive at Hurst Green at least a minute or two late, and then there are dispatch sighting issues for longer trains. Add the process of unlocking or locking a 2-car unit at the rear of the train, and you rapidly start running out of time. Trains are not always regularly spaced at Hurst Green and run on a section of line with three-aspect signalling and 6tph frequency in the peaks (this is the busiest section of the Oxted routes) and so any delays from faffing around with a t-key in the internal door control switches will inevitably lead to everyone else being late there, and at Ashurst, and at Crowborough. So, really, trains may as well have no more than 6 coaches in use to start with, if there's a 171/7 2-car on the back.
It's all ultimately down to Control though. They may decide they want the rear 2 split from the train, or to leave them in service to Oxted or Hurst Green. Or they may just advise, as above, to leave them empty. If they don't say anything, then the guard will decide when they get taken out of use en-route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This would have been a case of 2 171/7s (the 2-car ones) coupling up with a 171/8 (the 4-car one) at London Bridge before forming the 1508 down. When the guard walked down the platform they would have inevitably noticed the problem, maybe also once the doors were released. It is then a case of working out, as I have said above, when to lock out the rear 2 coaches. In this case I believe they must have been instructed that the whole formation would only run with the front 6 coaches in service at any one time. It would have been ideal to just detach the rear 171/2 and send it to Selhurst, but I don't think the driver diagramming at that point quite allows it.
It's not quite as bad as a similar problem I had the other day, which was a 12 coach 377 on the East Grinstead line with the London-end 4-car unit locked out of service as you couldn't walk through it. That did involve a mighty amount of platform shuffling!
As for the signalling at Crowborough, in theory I'm sure you could physically do this, but it would not be within the scope of normal operations, and therefore each movement of each train would involve lengthy communications with the signaller, and in some cases they would also have to manually reset several items of signalling equipment which would have the potential to become very unhappy. Thus it would take a long time and block both platforms (each needed in tandem at the moment in the peak due to timetabling). It is also not now permitted to berth trains at Crowborough, IIRC, so you need to have a driver to remain with each separate train. If you wanted to then couple them up again, you couldn't do it anyway, as permissive working is not allowed between Hurst Green and Uckfield. Lastly, guards are not trained to uncouple 171s any more, so you'd need somebody else resourced to go through the detachment procedure with the driver. So... sorry, but no!
Last edited:
- Status