Does it mention about 1B at all? Thanks for your help, I knew it could be answered quickly! What page do I need to head to to find Redhill's information?
Neither the table A or list of Platform lengths specifically mention 1B, no. I suspect '1A' in the Platform length lists should read '1', as the platform roads there are permissive not signalled into separate sections.
If I have understood this correctly, 1A counts then, as the whole length of Platform 1. But surely, as it shares an island with Platform 2, it should also be listed as 12 coaches? What is the page number sorry?
That is my interpretation, because the starting signal is in the same place for Platforms 0 and 1, so the full length of Platform 1 cannot be used as there is no signal to control departures. On Google Maps there appears to be a fence on the southern end of Platform 1, and if you measure the distance between the train that is visible in the southern end of P1 to the north end of the platform the distance tallies up with what is listed in the Sectional Appendix.
Page number 120, but page 176 of the PDF
Even when it is raining, those GWR trains still don't stop under there! Yesterday at Redhill, a GWR service stopped well outside the canopy on P0, and stopped quite far up, it was also raining.
As I mentioned, the distance from the signal to the top of the north ramp is c.180m, so no, it can't take 12 cars any more. The crossover to get to platform 0 forced the signal to move north, because it's on the same gantry as P0s (and it's good practice to align adjacent signals to reduce SPAD risks), and then the train needs to pull far enough back from the signal so the driver can see it when waiting to depart.
ineptitude seems a bit far but oversight does seem appropriate.
This news story: https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/redhills-platform-0-finally-open-14103613 shows that the canopy doesn't start until after the fence, but it is a very silly length. The fence is there because trains can't stop there due to the signal position.
They could, if the reason why they didn't in the first place was no longer a problem, and if everybody else agreed. Biggest problem would be finding somebody to fund the project. If you're dragging driver managers and signalling engineers off other work to review the board's positioning somebody will need to pay for it.
Tonbridge line passengers also have to walk in the rain to get to their trains. Nothing special about Reading line passengers.
Where is the TPWS grid placed? (Note that putting a sign 69 metres from the start of the passenger accessible part of the platform wouldn't have been appropriate for 769s (or 4-car 377s) reversing so it would have to be a bit further north.
Victoria passengers too on P0, however, the rapid move of these services to P2 seem to be rectifying this issue, but I am not sure how far up the platform they stop.
Before the 2017 remodelling, there used to be two down signals on platform #1 when it was a through platform. One, now abolished, was south of the crossover (renewed) to #0 (formerly a siding/goods loop), which allowed 12-car standage. The one north of the crossover was retained. As a bay, #1 doesn't need 12-car capacity anymore and was envisaged to handle North Downs trains 'stacked', with the stopper terminating at the buffer end and a Reading-Gatwick fast reverser called on behind during its layover.
The blame game and little kingdoms principle also massively got on my nerves when I worked for the railway.
I've never used it but do agree it looks like a rushed job all round.
It also got on my nerves, but if the P0 project was signed out then adding a new board would likely have needed a project number for the paperwork to be allocated to. Unless there's some larger programme it could be tagged onto.
It had to be managed down to a price such that there wasn't any significant track work at the south end (other than the direct link from the Reigate line to platform 0). Not so much rushed as limited by funding.
Indeed so, but with the p0 reversals there would be no need for it with an additional stopping mark, whereas on p1, the split into two sections makes a walk for one of the trains (Tonbridge route) inevitable. Also there is a waiting shelter further up p1/2 in which to await the Tonbridge trains.
Yes, but that's no excuse for the poor/wrong placement of the DMIs and the omission of helpful, passenger-orientated stopping marks. It would not have cost any more to get those things right (well, maybe around £100 more!). I don't think it was rushed; just poorly-planned.
Indeed, there is also a waiting shelter on platform 0, close to the stop marker for terminating trains.
indeed yet NR tells us its putting passengers first.............
Yes and the £80 million pound platform has now started to receive less services since more and more Victoria services are put back onto platform 2.
That is most sensible platform for interchange and facilities of course and with 3tph over NDL currently in abeyance even less reason for it.
Whenever I think of the Redhill redesign, it makes me chuckle. Glad I don't have to use it. Last time I stopped there the train went on platform 0 vice 2. I saw intending passengers sprinting like Usain Bolt towards the stairs because no one told them until the train was pulling in.
Platform alterations for Thameslink services are rather rare, they normally always depart from their set platforms. However, with the GWR reversers and the Victoria services, they hang in limbo between P0 and P2, so a platform change is often inevitable. It really isn’t that bad either, the station itself functions well.
The thing which generally gives rise to a Victoria service being switched from platform 2 to platform 0 is a Peterborough service running late. The Peterborough leaves at xx29/xx59. If that is five minutes late, it will delay the Victoria train, and therefore, in turn the Reading to Gatwick train behind that, so the signaller brings the Victoria train into the spare platform.
The first Thameslink train of the day usually runs from 2 but if there are any changes due to overnight engineering work the schedule seems to default to Platform 0, but often it ends up being signalled into 2 with no prior warning, so the regulars tend to hang around in the subway looking at the online signalling maps.
Stop boards are done by operators, not NR.
I used to use Redhill as an interchange in my commute from Betchworth and it had/has a reputation for poor information conveyance to passengers, with late announcements, crackling/inaudible p.a., unhelpful DMI messages and poor sign placement. The project to build p0 was a simple one in terms of passenger information provision but it was, to put it bluntly, shambolically-executed.
How come? For what service?
I don't really understand what the rebuild was supposed to achieve? Was it for the half hourly Reading to Gatwick trains? In reality it seems that platform 1 is mainly used as a bay platform for the Tonbridge trains. It's in the wrong place for that.
