Guildford Station

[cjmillsnun]

Rebuilt @ 1988/89.
i don't know why you describe it as 'In a State' it is no better or worse than any other large SWT station.
I think it is important to emphasise that the 'Rebuild' being discussed here is really (As per Epsom) primarily a property development by a Property developer linked to Network Rail, which consists mostly of a large number of 'dwelling units' being built on the 'town side' of the station.
As part of the package (Cynics might say a 'sweetener') the developer is promising a new bigger booking hall, new approachs with 'tasteful landscaping' etc etc.
Actual changes to the Railway part of the station are minimal.
There have been proposals kicking around for an extra platform at some time in the future (Gfd has 8 platforms but in reality only 7, as platforms 6 & 7 share a single track and 7 is never used) but as far as I am aware these are not linked to the current proposal.

I'm aware of where the rebuild is, and IMO it is in the wrong place. The platforms need the attention. The station is dirty in comparison with other SWT stations. It seems like because it was rebuilt recently, it hasn't had the TLC that some of the others have had. Another example of this is Portsmouth and Southsea high level, which again feels rough around the edges (it perhaps is worse than Guildford because the metal superstructure is in faded NSE red), which is in contrast to the low level as well as the Harbour and Fratton.

I suppose I said it was in a state, because SWT generally keep their stations in good order, compared with GTR (Southern) stations, it isn't too bad, but compared to others on the Portsmouth Direct, it needs attention.

 

[Paul180]

You should go to Godalming and try out the subway now that is in a state I am surprised you can pass through it without catching something.

Ok there are currently replacing it but it is no excuse I am sure it has not bean cleaned for nearly two years I have not been there for about a month so it may have been cleaned recently

I really don't think Guildford is currently in a bad state compared to other stations.

I find the gruber the station the gruber the area it is in it helps it we look after the stations as well by not using the track as a litter bin and it is a lot better since the smoking ban.

 

[RichardN]

Is the right answer, Southern operate/operated a couple of services in the morning and evening peaks, some were 455s and some were 377s.

There was a 5 car 377 on test at Guildford a few weeks back too...

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Nothing special about that they regularly appear on the Victoria/Sutton/London Bridge services, that's when they run.

 

[RepTCTC]

Nearer 30 years ago, and it is in a state.

Guildford station is not, by any reasonable measure, in a state.

 

[DerekC]

Solum is Network Rail + Kier.

It's very clearly just a property development scheme with a tart up for the rest of the station. Since it's on the east side of the railway I presume the scheme for new platforms 9 & 10 on the west side plus the new footbridge is being safeguarded.

 

[FenMan]

Guildford station is not, by any reasonable measure, in a state.

Agreed.

 

[Ironside]

Whilst their is a discussion about Guildford station I would like to ask whether the tunnel just outside the station is a limitation on capacity or is it likely to become so in the future?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Whilst their is a discussion about Guildford station I would like to ask whether the tunnel just outside the station is a limitation on capacity or is it likely to become so in the future?

It's a limitation, especially in the morning & evening peaks, due to the frequency of the services that pass through it.

The up line is reversible, the down line isn't, it would be exceptionally useful if it were as it would make things easier for late notice diversions and shunts.

However that would mean that it would essentially have to be reversible from Shalford/Shalford (Peasmarsh) Junction, all the way in to Guildford to make it beneficial, which I think would be expensive. Unfortunately it's all to easy to offload delay minutes to NR, rather than improve the layouts and the flexibility of them.

If you can find a picture of Guildford's track layout in the 60's/70's you'll see how flexible it was. It's a shame that they reinstated the North Box sidings as that formation could have been used to put trains straight into Platforms 1,2 much quicker and platform 3 without a slow 20 mph conflicting move over the UM (Pl.5) to get in there.

 

[Ironside]

Thanks. I thought it might get a bit difficult in the rush hour. I guess eventually they will have to dig out enough space for an extra couple of tracks.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst their is a discussion about Guildford station I would like to ask whether the tunnel just outside the station is a limitation on capacity or is it likely to become so in the future?

No limitation at all. Realistically, it is never likely to see more than 10tph each way, and if we can't manage that on a two track railway, we may as well give up.

 

[ASharpe]

Guildford station is not, by any reasonable measure, in a state.

I agree in general, but the other day I was waiting for a family member in the booking hall and looked up - it could do with a good clean.

 

[The Ham]

No limitation at all. Realistically, it is never likely to see more than 10tph each way, and if we can't manage that on a two track railway, we may as well give up.

4tph running between Reading and Gatwick/Redhill due before 2020
4tph/5tph (when some services split at Guildford) running between Waterloo and Portsmouth currently, which other than metro services is the highest number of services to one destination.

That only means a further 2tph to reach your 10tph "limit", which if most services on SWT's services are to look to increase frequency by 50% then that would result in 6tph between Waterloo and Portsmouth.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

No limitation at all. Realistically, it is never likely to see more than 10tph each way, and if we can't manage that on a two track railway, we may as well give up.

Do you sign the route? Do you know the services? As a local I do.

There's a significant number of conflicts which prevent the use of the up line being used in the down direction.

There a few occasions when it is used and that's if the first Reading - Gatwick is late and they want to get the first Portsmouth away RT too, the Gatwick goes down the main, the Portsmouth goes down the up.

There's often a bunching of services heading south in the morning & evening peaks and that could use it, but there's also a conflicting set northbound, so it can't be used. Also signallers are generally scared of using it, unless pushed as there's the chance that the points at Shalford could lock up and screw the service and then they'll get code O'd.

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you sign the route? Do you know the services? As a local I do.

Guildford born and bred, with a 20 year career in rail operations and capacity planning.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

4tph running between Reading and Gatwick/Redhill due before 2020
4tph/5tph (when some services split at Guildford) running between Waterloo and Portsmouth currently, which other than metro services is the highest number of services to one destination.

That only means a further 2tph to reach your 10tph "limit", which if most services on SWT's services are to look to increase frequency by 50% then that would result in 6tph between Waterloo and Portsmouth.

It's 3tph to Redhill. And much as I'm sure the good folk of Haslemere etc would like a 6tph service, it's unlikely they will get it any time soon; it's an awful lot of work required to signalling, level crossings, and particularly power.

Even then, it's not 10tph. Which isn't a limit at all, more is possible.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

But that's just typical just fill everything to capacity and have no leeway. No wonder the railway's in a mess with that way and kind of thinking.

 

[The Ham]

It's 3tph to Redhill. And much as I'm sure the good folk of Haslemere etc would like a 6tph service, it's unlikely they will get it any time soon; it's an awful lot of work required to signalling, level crossings, and particularly power.

Even then, it's not 10tph. Which isn't a limit at all, more is possible.

Sorry, 4tph is an aspiration. As to the extra 2tph towards Portsmouth, they would probably only happen post Crossrail 2 and Woking junction being grade separated. However there is a lot of pressure for more passenger capacity on the SWT's network and adding it Via Guildford at least means that Basingstoke can be done later.

 

[DerekC]

But that's just typical just fill everything to capacity and have no leeway. No wonder the railway's in a mess with that way and kind of thinking.

Don't know what the fuss is about. 10 tph really shouldn't be a problem for the layout between the south end of Guildford and Shalford Junction. One thing's for sure - you aren't going to get any more tracks!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

You don't need that many! You don't flood the system with trains which in a lot of cases are carrying loads of fresh air!

We've seen several times and just a couple of days ago, what happens when you load the system to over 100% capacity and you get a couple of incidents, the system simply implodes!

Stop wasting capacity for the sake of it, use it only when you really need to.

 

[The Ham]

You don't need that many! You don't flood the system with trains which in a lot of cases are carrying loads of fresh air!

We've seen several times and just a couple of days ago, what happens when you load the system to over 100% capacity and you get a couple of incidents, the system simply implodes!

Stop wasting capacity for the sake of it, use it only when you really need to.

You are right we don't need that many services now, but by 2030 (Crossrail 2 opening date) you could (with 2.5% per year passenger growth) you could see passenger growth of over 40% more than at present. Of course you could keep 4tph off peak and have 6tph during the peaks which would make the network more robust.

 

[Tirov]

According to the latest edition of Rail Magazine Electrification of the North Downs Line and the Ashford-Redhill-Guildford-Reading-Oxford route as a strategic corridor is one of 5 missing links identified as priorities for transport investment.
It is one of 2 rail projects highlighted in a report by a consortium comprising South East Councils, South East Strategic Leaders and South East Directors of Environment.

‘Economy, Planning and Transport-Missing Links-how better South east transport links can improve UK economic potential’

Seems a bit daft to rebuild Guildford Station when the Farnham Road bridge will have to be rebuild let alone all the other infrastructure needs that go with overhead wires!

 

[HarleyDavidson]

According to the latest edition of Rail Magazine Electrification of the North Downs Line and the Ashford-Redhill-Guildford-Reading-Oxford route as a strategic corridor is one of 5 missing links identified as priorities for transport investment.
It is one of 2 rail projects highlighted in a report by a consortium comprising South East Councils, South East Strategic Leaders and South East Directors of Environment.

‘Economy, Planning and Transport-Missing Links-how better South east transport links can improve UK economic potential’

Seems a bit daft to rebuild Guildford Station when the Farnham Road bridge will have to be rebuild let alone all the other infrastructure needs that go with overhead wires!

As I've said before, we've been waiting for the Reading - Redhill Line to be juiced up for over 40 years, we're nearer to putting humans on Mars than we are to the line being electrified.

It doesn't serve London so like many lines in the SW, NW & NE, it's not important enough. :roll:

And don't forget it needs to be completely resignalled as well.

 

[The Ham]

According to the latest edition of Rail Magazine Electrification of the North Downs Line and the Ashford-Redhill-Guildford-Reading-Oxford route as a strategic corridor is one of 5 missing links identified as priorities for transport investment.
It is one of 2 rail projects highlighted in a report by a consortium comprising South East Councils, South East Strategic Leaders and South East Directors of Environment.

‘Economy, Planning and Transport-Missing Links-how better South east transport links can improve UK economic potential’

Seems a bit daft to rebuild Guildford Station when the Farnham Road bridge will have to be rebuild let alone all the other infrastructure needs that go with overhead wires!

That's the point the platforms, bridges, etc. aren't being touched (yet) as they are aware that there would, at the very least, changes to the total number of platforms. Once NR has a fixed plan for what operationally they are doing with the station there is likely to be more development on the other side of the station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I've said before, we've been waiting for the Reading - Redhill Line to be juiced up for over 40 years, we're nearer to putting humans on Mars than we are to the line being electrified.

It doesn't serve London so like many lines in the SW, NW & NE, it's not important enough. :roll:

And don't forget it needs to be completely resignalled as well.

However the line is going to 3tph with aspirations to go to 4tph. Given the ease to build dual voltage trains there is no need to convert any of the existing 3rd rail if that causes operational issues (I.e. at Guildford, Redhill and Wokingham).

Yes there is a lot of work to do (infant I would add platform lengthening and/or ASDO to your list) however replacing the signals will need doing at some point and so that cost may just be in having a shorter life to the existing signals than they could cope with.

They don't serve London, but they do serve some fairly important settlements and Gatwick Airport (which if that is the airport that gets an extra runway will be looking to getting even more people to it by train and this line is fairly easy to increase capacity on compared to the BML). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it upgraded so that we saw 4tph on electrified route capable of taking 5*23m trains at most stations with some more of the key stations being able to take longer if needed by the late 2020's or early 2030's (if for no other reason that passenger numbers could have gone up by a reasonable margin by then).

 

[HarleyDavidson]

That's the point the platforms, bridges, etc. aren't being touched (yet) as they are aware that there would, at the very least, changes to the total number of platforms. Once NR has a fixed plan for what operationally they are doing with the station there is likely to be more development on the other side of the station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


However the line is going to 3tph with aspirations to go to 4tph. Given the ease to build dual voltage trains there is no need to convert any of the existing 3rd rail if that causes operational issues (I.e. at Guildford, Redhill and Wokingham).

Yes there is a lot of work to do (infant I would add platform lengthening and/or ASDO to your list) however replacing the signals will need doing at some point and so that cost may just be in having a shorter life to the existing signals than they could cope with.

They don't serve London, but they do serve some fairly important settlements and Gatwick Airport (which if that is the airport that gets an extra runway will be looking to getting even more people to it by train and this line is fairly easy to increase capacity on compared to the BML). I wouldn't be surprised if we saw it upgraded so that we saw 4tph on electrified route capable of taking 5*23m trains at most stations with some more of the key stations being able to take longer if needed by the late 2020's or early 2030's (if for no other reason that passenger numbers could have gone up by a reasonable margin by then).

A couple of points.

Guildford isn't going to be a part of Crossrail 2, there's only a small chance that the Woking Bay terminators will be, but still unlikely.

North Downs goes 3tph, next year. Yeah right, GWR can't even get the existing 2tph to run right time now, so doing 3tph, is a joke and just asking for an Operation Princess type disaster to happen and it only runs during the week, not at weekends.

 

[The Ham]

A couple of points.

Guildford isn't going to be a part of Crossrail 2, there's only a small chance that the Woking Bay terminators will be, but still unlikely.

North Downs goes 3tph, next year. Yeah right, GWR can't even get the existing 2tph to run right time now, so doing 3tph, is a joke and just asking for an Operation Princess type disaster to happen and it only runs during the week, not at weekends.

I know Guildford isn't part of Crossrail 2 (directly), but Crossrail 2 will (hopeful if TfL don't nick them all) provide new long distance paths into Waterloo for other services.

My experience is that the services tend to run reasonably well with delays being caused due to overcrowding of services (watch what happens when the 17:44 arrives at Guildford or some of the morning services arrive at Farnborough North and all the students get off).

Of course by having rolling stock and staff for 3tph it could also mean that there could more slack at each end so if there are delays on a few services there is greater scope to recover back to timetable.

 

[swt_passenger]

I know Guildford isn't part of Crossrail 2 (directly), but Crossrail 2 will (hopeful if TfL don't nick them all) provide new long distance paths into Waterloo for other services.

All HarleyDavidson needs do is read the Wessex route study, but as he is staff he probably won't. But here's an extract:

5.4.62 Increased platform capacity is not required to run the
level of service required in CP6 on the Main Line south of Guildford
but it can be seen as an early step towards providing greater Main
Line capacity in CP7 or beyond once one of the “inner” solutions has
been implemented, such as Crossrail 2, or the implementation of
ETCS. Equally this could mean that delivery of a solution at
Guildford could be postponed until CP7 due to funding and
efficiency considerations. If delivered in CP6 it will allow for the
provision, at a later date, of additional services to meet demand
growth into London Waterloo from the Guildford, Haslemere and
Portsmouth areas. It should also be noted that the layout at
Guildford would allow for improved regulation of services and
provide overtaking opportunities to manage the mix of fast and
stopping services that operate on all routes through Guildford

 

[HarleyDavidson]

All smoke, mirrors and general clap trap. We've heard it all before and unless they do some serious track mods at Haslemere to allow full bi-di working and the same at Petersfield, it'll never work, because if you let a stopping service go from Haslemere, you won't get past it anywhere. Even Havant because SN just clutters the place up with air laden services.

So unless you make Petersfield fully bi-di too, so you can loop there any future aspirations will come to nowt.

 

[The Ham]

All smoke, mirrors and general clap trap. We've heard it all before and unless they do some serious track mods at Haslemere to allow full bi-di working and the same at Petersfield, it'll never work, because if you let a stopping service go from Haslemere, you won't get past it anywhere. Even Havant because SN just clutters the place up with air laden services.

So unless you make Petersfield fully bi-di too, so you can loop there any future aspirations will come to nowt.

I don't know when those signal will need renewing, but we do have a bit of time for them to be done given Crossrail 2 is expected to open in 2030.

Also depending on what passenger growth looks like those SN services may not be quite so full of air by then.

 

[Deepgreen]

A couple of points.

Guildford isn't going to be a part of Crossrail 2, there's only a small chance that the Woking Bay terminators will be, but still unlikely.

North Downs goes 3tph, next year. Yeah right, GWR can't even get the existing 2tph to run right time now, so doing 3tph, is a joke and just asking for an Operation Princess type disaster to happen and it only runs during the week, not at weekends.

The continuing lack of works (or even an advertised start date that I have seen) to build the additional platform (Zero) at Redhill won't help, either.

I also idly wonder if the provision of a replacement station at Dorking Deepdene would be helpful - to include a third (island) platform to allow reversing/overtaking from either direction, and step-free access. For the size of town served, the existing station is pretty dire. A difficult site to work at, I know, but at least the embankment would lend itself to retaining wall provision to accommodate the extra loop track without significant land encroachment.

Almost certainly not justified, just a pipe dream from someone who is fed up with service abandonment all the way from Reigate to Guildford in times of disruption!

 

[Bald Rick]

All smoke, mirrors and general clap trap. We've heard it all before and unless they do some serious track mods at Haslemere to allow full bi-di working and the same at Petersfield, it'll never work, because if you let a stopping service go from Haslemere, you won't get past it anywhere. Even Havant because SN just clutters the place up with air laden services.

So unless you make Petersfield fully bi-di too, so you can loop there any future aspirations will come to nowt.

That all assumes the existing stopping patterns will prevail. Which isn't necessarily the case.