Redhill - Reading

[rf_ioliver]

As for the long term future, I think the line has to continue as a diesel island until either the Waterloo - Reading and Redhill - Gatwick stretches have been converted to OHE or battery technology becomes proven and cost-effective. Whichever way, I cannot see the current situation changing anytime soon.

At risk of accidentally merging this with another thread, third rail the line and run the 442s on it?

(half jokingly)

Ian

 

[JonathanH]

I live a 5 minute walk from Blackwater station and have read this thread with interest.

The North Downs is an unusual line and, whilst the Gatwick flow is important, it is not a consideration for most users.

In addition to normal local traffic, Reading, especially, and Guildford are prime commuter destinations in their own right.

There are London commuters from Blackwater, Sandhurst, Crowthorne and Shalford as the journey times are competitive when compared with stations having direct links.

The line cuts across several London lines and so opens up a huge number of journey opportunities across southern England without having to go near London - via the interchanges at Reading, Wokingham, Farnborough North, North Camp, Guildford, Dorking Deepdene and Redhill.

There are significant numbers who use the North Downs to access the Reading hub for longer distance journeys to the west and north, with the benefits of avoiding London and, in many cases, faster end to end journey times. It's noticeable that my local station Blackwater, which has a prime, accessible location at the north end of the Blackwater Valley conurbation, is well used as a gateway for this purpose by people living in Camberley, Frimley, north Farnborough (Farnborough North station should really be called Farnborough East!) and Yateley.

The current service pattern, unchanged pretty much for years, is about right. Given the current impossibility of a more frequent direct Gatwick service the only tweaks I would make are:-

• An earlier first stopping train to Reading (taking the path held by XC?)
• Address the mid-evening service gap from Reading between 20:04 and 21:34 (the 20:34 is a semi-fast, so passengers for Crowthorne, Farnborough North etc have a long wait)
• Restore the 3tp2h Sunday service for stations between Reading and Guildford between 10:00 and 17:00, as the combination of Reading and Guildford shoppers and Gatwick passengers can result in third world-style overcrowding on current services.

As for the long term future, I think the line has to continue as a diesel island until either the Waterloo - Reading and Redhill - Gatwick stretches have been converted to OHE or battery technology becomes proven and cost-effective. Whichever way, I cannot see the current situation changing anytime soon.

Thoughts of Oxford - Gatwick directs etc, even if desirable (which I would question) are not practical propositions, and Oxford passengers already have perfectly good direct services to Birmingham and Southampton airports.

Strangely the 2034 stops on the Redhill side of Guildford which is a little odd since there is a stopping service 20 minutes earlier and demand from these stations is not great. It might be better if it had the calling pattern of the 2134 and stopped on the Reading side of Guildford.

Running Reading to Guildford services on Sundays may be a good idea but you would need two extra trains and traincrew to make it meaningful (hourly)and the current franchise specification clearly only requires a 1tph service. It would be interesting to consider whether they could save one unit on the Reading to Gatwick service by skip stopping between Guildford and Redhill and only stopping in the semi-fast pattern between Reading and Guildford.

I think that, at one point, it was suggested that the Oxford stoppers would work through to the Gatwick line post Crossrail instead of going to Paddington.

 

[infobleep]

Strangely the 2034 stops on the Redhill side of Guildford which is a little odd since there is a stopping service 20 minutes earlier and demand from these stations is not great. It might be better if it had the calling pattern of the 2134 and stopped on the Reading side of Guildford.

Running Reading to Guildford services on Sundays may be a good idea but you would need two extra trains and traincrew to make it meaningful (hourly)and the current franchise specification clearly only requires a 1tph service. It would be interesting to consider whether they could save one unit on the Reading to Gatwick service by skip stopping between Guildford and Redhill and only stopping in the semi-fast pattern between Reading and Guildford.

I think that, at one point, it was suggested that the Oxford stoppers would work through to the Gatwick line post Crossrail instead of going to Paddington.

Well they use to have the train crew to do it. So either they cut staff number of they redeployed them elsewhere.

 

[al.currie93]

Wow that is cheap. How come the such cheap price? Is it because Deepdene is managed by FGW?

I do confess, it was with a YP discount and was quite a late service :P but it was still incredibly cheap!

Mind you, I regularly manage to get first class on that journey in the early evening for under £20 (£13.75 was the usual), so you can get some very good prices! I really don't know why

 

[anme]

An appalling and inhuman way to treat people. Especially when one thinks that if we were in Schengen, Gatwick has the ability to segregate arrivals so that no immigration checks would be needed. I wonder if this problem will be solved with electronic checks. My exits from Gatwick take literally no more than 20 minutes from exiting the aircraft to stepping onto the station platform. This is because we have machine readable passports. Perhaps well worth 'losing' your old one and getting a new one.

Recently I've found the queues for the electronic checks at Gatwick to be longer than the queues for the manual checks. Sadly they are no longer any quicker. Maybe the situation is less dire for holiday flights, where people are less aware of their existence.

 

[infobleep]

I do confess, it was with a YP discount and was quite a late service :P but it was still incredibly cheap!

Mind you, I regularly manage to get first class on that journey in the early evening for under £20 (£13.75 was the usual), so you can get some very good prices! I really don't know why

In future I will be checking Dorking prices as well as Guildford.

 

[SussexMan]

Thoughts of Oxford - Gatwick directs etc, even if desirable (which I would question) are not practical propositions, and Oxford passengers already have perfectly good direct services to Birmingham and Southampton airports.

Gatwick Airport firmly believe that Gatwick-Oxford through trains will happen by 2019 according to their documents (page 44) released yesterday.

Gatwick already offers direct rail services to 129 stations and, by 2019, rail services will be extended to serve 175 stations directly, including Oxford, Cambridge and Peterborough and more than 1,000 stations with one change.

 

[FenMan]

Gatwick Airport firmly believe that Gatwick-Oxford through trains will happen by 2019 according to their documents (page 44) released yesterday.

That's interesting. Given we are told there is no chance of additional Gatwick directs from Reading for the foreseeable future this looks like an extension of the existing hourly semi-fast utilising one of the existing stopper patterns to Oxford (which would free up a slot for a Reading Crossrail service).

We know the timings at the Gatwick end are pretty fixed due to pathing issues and I'd have thought the same would apply to Oxford, so, looking at the current timetable pattern, these services could be joined up to make one through train using the restored underbridge at Reading:-

xx:37 d. Oxford
x1:28 a. Reading
x1:34 d. Reading
x2:50 a. Gatwick

2h13m end to end.

For the return:-

xx:03 d. Gatwick
x1:18 a. Reading
x1:23 d. Reading
x2:14 a. Oxford

2h11m end to end.

Not very exciting, as this would result in Oxford-Gatwick through journeys being 10 to 25 minutes slower than is currently possible (the fastest current timing is 1h49m). A time penalty that might be worth paying to avoid hauling luggage around Reading station?

 

[cle]

Would there be no turbos spare after the Thames Valley is wired? Perhaps they could add an additional faster train per hour: Gatwick - Redhill - Guildford -Wokingham - Reading - Didcot - Oxford

 

[JamesRowden]

Gatwick Airport firmly believe that Gatwick-Oxford through trains will happen by 2019 according to their documents (page 44) released yesterday.

That's interesting. Given we are told there is no chance of additional Gatwick directs from Reading for the foreseeable future this looks like an extension of the existing hourly semi-fast utilising one of the existing stopper patterns to Oxford (which would free up a slot for a Reading Crossrail service).

We know the timings at the Gatwick end are pretty fixed due to pathing issues and I'd have thought the same would apply to Oxford, so, looking at the current timetable pattern, these services could be joined up to make one through train using the restored underbridge at Reading:-

xx:37 d. Oxford
x1:28 a. Reading
x1:34 d. Reading
x2:50 a. Gatwick

2h13m end to end.

For the return:-

xx:03 d. Gatwick
x1:18 a. Reading
x1:23 d. Reading
x2:14 a. Oxford

2h11m end to end.

Not very exciting, as this would result in Oxford-Gatwick through journeys being 10 to 25 minutes slower than is currently possible (the fastest current timing is 1h49m). A time penalty that might be worth paying to avoid hauling luggage around Reading station?

Networks Rail's Western Route Specifications document predicts a 3tph Cross Country service between Oxford and Reading in 2019 (with I believe the extra service hoped to run via Milton Keynes). I expect that it is one of the potential 3tph that those at Gatwick have their eyes on.

 

[FenMan]

Would there be no turbos spare after the Thames Valley is wired? Perhaps they could add an additional faster train per hour: Gatwick - Redhill - Guildford -Wokingham - Reading - Didcot - Oxford

Network Rail say this:-

2. Reading to Gatwick Airport
This route was designated as having congested infrastructure as a result of Network Rail being unable to path a second First Great Western (FGW) Reading – Redhill service through to Gatwick.
Key constraints identified were platform capacity at Redhill for reversing services, slow line capacity from Redhill to Gatwick and platform capacity at Gatwick.
Network Rail is addressing each of these sites as follows:

• Redhill platform capacity: the CP5 Enhancement Plan contains a scheme for an additional platform (on the Western side) of Redhill station. Network Rail is presently developing the scheme to GRIP3 Stage by June 2014. The benefits case for the scheme is based on wider outputs than just the FGW services.
• Slow line capacity Redhill – Gatwick: no enhancements are planned. The planned works at Redhill and the completed works at Gatwick Airport will allow pathing of a second service from Reading to Gatwick in most hours where an hourly service currently terminates at Redhill.
• Gatwick platform capacity: has been increased by the introduction of a new platform 7 which in turn released capacity at Platforms 1 and 2 for a second FGW service from Reading to be operated at this location.

See p44 of this document, published earlier this year (opens a PDF)

So, the plan is to extend the existing hourly Reading-Redhill stopper service to form a second direct service to Gatwick. Presumably Gatwick Airport's owners have an understanding that at least one of the new twice-hourly services will be extended to Oxford.

I can see three options once the additional capacity is available.

Perhaps DfT has had the bright idea of introducing a Mondays to Saturdays skip-stop service pattern on the North Downs, essentially doubling up the model currently used on Sundays, however this would result in slower through journey times to Gatwick from North Camp, Blackwater, Wokingham and Reading while some intermediate journeys would no longer be practicable.

An hourly fast from Reading, only stopping at Wokingham, Guildford and Redhill. This would relegate Blackwater, North Camp, Dorking Deepdene and Reigate to the hourly stopper service (and, I suspect, would cause a major riot and a significant loss of business on the flows into Reading, Wokingham and Guildford from these stations).

Keep the service pattern "as is" and accept that the second direct service will be slower end to end. This would still be a useful improvement, especially for Gatwick-bound users of North Downs stations currently with an hourly service or worse.

 

[cle]

How about an additional hourly stopper from Reading to Guildford/Shalford (as used to be?) which could remove many of those stops from both Gatwick services?

There could then be a more stopping one (stops along the Redhill - Guildford stretch, then semi-fast to Reading) and then a proper fast service.

 

[infobleep]

Network Rail say this:-


See p44 of this document, published earlier this year (opens a PDF)

So, the plan is to extend the existing hourly Reading-Redhill stopper service to form a second direct service to Gatwick. Presumably Gatwick Airport's owners have an understanding that at least one of the new twice-hourly services will be extended to Oxford.

I can see three options once the additional capacity is available.

Perhaps DfT has had the bright idea of introducing a Mondays to Saturdays skip-stop service pattern on the North Downs, essentially doubling up the model currently used on Sundays, however this would result in slower through journey times to Gatwick from North Camp, Blackwater, Wokingham and Reading while some intermediate journeys would no longer be practicable.

An hourly fast from Reading, only stopping at Wokingham, Guildford and Redhill. This would relegate Blackwater, North Camp, Dorking Deepdene and Reigate to the hourly stopper service (and, I suspect, would cause a major riot and a significant loss of business on the flows into Reading, Wokingham and Guildford from these stations).

Keep the service pattern "as is" and accept that the second direct service will be slower end to end. This would still be a useful improvement, especially for Gatwick-bound users of North Downs stations currently with an hourly service or worse.

Perhaps they could introduce that for Sundays too. Currently it's not good of you want to go from Sandhurst to Gomshall. They don't even allow doubling back I believe. Not that that saves much time but enough for National Rail Enquiries to list it.

 

[infobleep]

I wonder which hours they won't be able to extend the trains from Redhill to Gatwick.

 

[MarkyT]

I was under the impression the proposed extra west side platform at Redhill, together with the extra platform and revised usage of the existing ones at Gatwick could permit extra Reading trains to run.

 

[Hophead]

We know the timings at the Gatwick end are pretty fixed due to pathing issues and I'd have thought the same would apply to Oxford,

The Brighton Main Line timetable will have to be entirely recast as a result of the the new Thameslink routes.

The Reading area timetables will need to be completely changed when Crossrail and electrification arrives.

 

[JonathanH]

The Brighton Main Line timetable will have to be entirely recast as a result of the the new Thameslink routes.

The Reading area timetables will need to be completely changed when Crossrail and electrification arrives.

Maybe but I can't see there being a big recast on South West Trains services so you are stuck with the current paths from Reading to Wokingham and from Ash to Guildford so perhaps there won't be as significant change as you imply.

 

[The Ham]

Maybe but I can't see there being a big recast on South West Trains services so you are stuck with the current paths from Reading to Wokingham and from Ash to Guildford so perhaps there won't be as significant change as you imply.

Both those lengths only have two trains per hour (other than the FGW services), so not really an issue (even aproaching Guildford it is basicly a seperate line). The Issue is more south of Guildford when the three lines which arive from the north all merge into one to go though the tunnel.

It is likely that there could be other paths which could be used as it looks like about 8 paths (including the 2 FGW services) and hour each way are used south of Guildford. (that's not to say that it would be possible to find an alternitive apropriate paths, just that it maybe possible)

 

[HowardGWR]

Hmm. I see there is a series of issues for the next ten years, but what happens if (when) Gatwick gets its second runway post 2019 and becomes the London airport of choice for many? Has a GSJ at Redhill (chord from Reading direction) ever been mooted? It looks like there is room for such, but I admit I don't know the Redhill area intimately.

I could see high speed services from Brum to Brighton stopping at NEC, Oxford, Reading and GTW only, being introduced, or other variations on this theme. Is that far-fetched?

 

[MarkyT]

Has a GSJ at Redhill (chord from Reading direction) ever been mooted? It looks like there is room for such, but I admit I don't know the Redhill area intimately. I could see high speed services from Brum to Brighton stopping at NEC, Oxford, Reading and GTW only, being introduced, or other variations on this theme. Is that far-fetched?

You'd probably want to stop at Coventry as you can't go fast through the Leamington line junction anyway, and perhaps the same reasoning makes Leamington a candidate stop. Guildford would be a strange one to miss out too given its wide area interchange opportunities. Gatwick would make an excellent alternative destination for alternate Cross Country Voyagers beyond Reading.

I don't think an additional hourly fast service alone would justify a W-S chord at Redhill. Redhill is a significant interchange and destination in its own right in my experience, so an operator would not want to avoid it for the hourly or half hourly Reading local or semi fast services, which would only leave the notional XC express to use it. One thing working against ANY more intensive use of the line is the Reigate level crossing problem.

 

[The Ham]

You'd probably want to stop at Coventry as you can't go fast through the Leamington line junction anyway, and perhaps the same reasoning makes Leamington a candidate stop. Guildford would be a strange one to miss out too given its wide area interchange opportunities. Gatwick would make an excellent alternative destination for alternate Cross Country Voyagers beyond Reading.

I don't think an additional hourly fast service alone would justify a W-S chord at Redhill. Redhill is a significant interchange and destination in its own right in my experience, so an operator would not want to avoid it for the hourly or half hourly Reading local or semi fast services, which would only leave the notional XC express to use it. One thing working against ANY more intensive use of the line is the Reigate level crossing problem.

In the short term, as there is a shortage for 22x's it's unlikely to happen anyway.

Given that it is only the GW services which cross the level crossing, that works out at 6 closures an hour (four for the 2tph for the GW services and upto 2 for the arrival of the Southern trains as there should be no need to clsoe the gates as they depart as they only go to the east).

If it were possible to time the arrival of one of the Southern trains with a XC train then to run an hourly service would only require the closure of the level crossing one extra time. Even if that is not possible, then it should be possible to timetable so at least one (idealy more) service so that it meets a service going the other way at the station (thus only requiring one closure for two services).

Longer term having a XC service would strengthen the case for electricification as not only would there be more services but it would require a lot of under wire running for the XC service to get there (being the only route south east of Birmingham that a dual voltage train would not be able to run).

 

[JonathanH]

In the short term, as there is a shortage for 22x's it's unlikely to happen anyway.

Given that it is only the GW services which cross the level crossing, that works out at 6 closures an hour (four for the 2tph for the GW services and upto 2 for the arrival of the Southern trains as there should be no need to clsoe the gates as they depart as they only go to the east).

The level crossing gates at Reigate don't close for the arrival of Southern trains as there is sufficient overlap beyond the signal on platform 2. The only circumstance where electric trains force closure of the gates is if a four car needs rescuing by another unit. In this instance, one unit is pushed across the crossing to allow the pair to clear the starter signal.

If it were possible to time the arrival of one of the Southern trains with a XC train then to run an hourly service would only require the closure of the level crossing one extra time. Even if that is not possible, then it should be possible to timetable so at least one (idealy more) service so that it meets a service going the other way at the station (thus only requiring one closure for two services).

It is terrible when the presence of a level crossing on a line is seen as a constraint on improvements in the timetable. The timetable does already almost pair up the crossing closures at Wokingham and Reigate for much of the day although slight delays often cause the barriers to be down a little longer than would be perfect.

Longer term having a XC service would strengthen the case for electricification as not only would there be more services but it would require a lot of under wire running for the XC service to get there (being the only route south east of Birmingham that a dual voltage train would not be able to run).

 

[Deepgreen]

As a resident of Betchworth and a daily user of the NDL, the main issue is that the 165/166 design is not suitable for the nature of the traffic and potential traffic - namely bikes and luggage. The only place for bikes is in the very small door vestibules and the luggage space is also constricted. Given that the area through which the line passes is ripe for leisure traffic (inc. cycling) there is a large potential market which cannot be accommodated on the three car trains, which are essentially to a commuter-orientated design. When bikes (including my own at times) do appear on the trains they unfortunately cause some chaos and irritation by having no option but to block the vestibules.

Another serious problem with the 165/166s is adhesion - the line is very wooded and fairly hilly, and the 'Turbos' suffer badly in autumn/winter.

Electrification with third rail would be relatively quick and inexpensive (as would platform lengthening now that modular extensions are the norm), but may fly in the face of any long-term 25kv policy. The other thing with third rail, of course, is its lack of visual intrusion, given the special nature of the route through areas of outstanding natural beauty.

 

[The Ham]

There is always the option to use battery power for the gaps if the trails show it is viable. As none of the gaps are very long.

To get a good level of seating it would be sensible to go for five coach units (23m coaches), which could be fitted out so as to be similar to the 444's, which would enable them to be converted to 2+3 seating if passenger growth required it.

Not all the stations which would be too short would need to be lengthened if automatic selective door opening was provided. As even if only 3 of the coaches where alongside the platform that wouldn't be a problem at the lighter used stations.

 

[JamesRowden]

There is always the option to use battery power for the gaps if the trails show it is viable. As none of the gaps are very long.

To get a good level of seating it would be sensible to go for five coach units (23m coaches), which could be fitted out so as to be similar to the 444's, which would enable them to be converted to 2+3 seating if passenger growth required it.

Not all the stations which would be too short would need to be lengthened if automatic selective door opening was provided. As even if only 3 of the coaches where alongside the platform that wouldn't be a problem at the lighter used stations.

I don't think that a high enough proportion of the route is electrified for battery operation to be viable unless there is a major breakthrough in battery technology in the the next decade.

The problem is that batteries suffer damage if they are charged too quickly. It currently typically takes about 10 hours to completely recharge an electric car. This means that if the train used the same type of batteries as the typical electric car: the train would require large batteries for the reason of requiring to recharge at a high enough rate rather than requiring the energy capacity for the greatest gap. The total number of batteries needed for a service (including all diagrams) would be independent of the size of the electrified sections added on at either side or spent recharging at a terminus. For example, I think that a Newbury-Reading-Redhill-Victoria service (once Newbury-Reading is electrified) would require less than half the batteries per train that a Reading-Gatwick service would require.

 

[Deepgreen]

Battery power is clearly not an option - the risk of stranding owing to drained batteries is way too high to allow it to be approved, I imagine.

Reigate crossing is operated very, very risk-aversely, such that it is usually closed to road traffic way too early for trains heading west, all of which stop at the platform first. It is frequently closed even before the train comes into view from Redhill, when it still has a quarter of a mile to run to the platform, stop, pick up and set down and then depart, all protected by the platform starting signal. Terminating electric trains do not require the crossing to be closed, but the risk of over-run is the same, so closing the crossing so early is not only pointless, but actually dangerous, as I have seen at least three occasions when emergency vehicles with blue lights on waiting to proceed while the leisurely railway business unfolds (and this is with the signaller actually on site in the 'box next to the crossing!). A similar situation exists with eastbound stopping trains at Betchworth station, where the crossing is closed ridiculously early, despite again being protected by the platform starter.
The cumulative effect of this over-cautious/slack crossing operation is to make road users more and more frustrated and therefore try to 'jump the lights' more often - again reducing overall safety.
Apologies if I have drifted a little off-topic, but the crossings do have a direct impact on the operation of the line..

 

[MarkyT]

Reigate crossing is operated very, very risk-aversely...

That's quite common at busy crossings, although clearly not enforced by the locking at Reigate if the Southern trains can approach a red with barriers open.

A crossing open to road traffic need not constitute a blocked overlap as long as the distance from the signal to the crossing edge is at least 50 yards or metres (depending on date of the installation), or 25 if the signal is a platform starter, and Reigate seems to comply with the latter. Many FGW trains are timed to pass at Reigate, presumably an attempt to limit road closure time. For an eastbound clearly the route needs to be set up in good time for a train to arrive into the platform with no delay, so the westbound route might as well be clear at the same time over the closed crossing. That may lead to the signaller always clearing up for a westbound early by habit, even on the occasions there is no simultaneous eastbound, so it may be more routine than a specific box instruction to do so.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Battery power is clearly not an option - the risk of stranding owing to drained batteries is way too high to allow it to be approved, I imagine.

Reigate crossing is operated very, very risk-aversely, such that it is usually closed to road traffic way too early for trains heading west, all of which stop at the platform first. It is frequently closed even before the train comes into view from Redhill, when it still has a quarter of a mile to run to the platform, stop, pick up and set down and then depart, all protected by the platform starting signal. Terminating electric trains do not require the crossing to be closed, but the risk of over-run is the same, so closing the crossing so early is not only pointless, but actually dangerous, as I have seen at least three occasions when emergency vehicles with blue lights on waiting to proceed while the leisurely railway business unfolds (and this is with the signaller actually on site in the 'box next to the crossing!). A similar situation exists with eastbound stopping trains at Betchworth station, where the crossing is closed ridiculously early, despite again being protected by the platform starter.
The cumulative effect of this over-cautious/slack crossing operation is to make road users more and more frustrated and therefore try to 'jump the lights' more often - again reducing overall safety.
Apologies if I have drifted a little off-topic, but the crossings do have a direct impact on the operation of the line..

Funny I thought it was all about ensuring the train driver got the distant and to me that sounds like correct operating practice by the signaller.

 

[Tomnick]

I don't think it does our cause (in terms of level crossing safety) much good if we're needlessly - in my opinion - lowering barriers for an extended period* just to ensure that the distant's off, when the train will be stopping at or before the protecting signal anyway! Yes, I accept that the approach to the station will be more cautious, that drivers would no doubt prefer to approach under clear signals and that there might be some overrun mitigation at play anyway - but I also consider it a bit of an insult to our driving colleagues that we go to such great lengths to avoid them coming up against a signal legitimately at danger, as though we don't trust them to be able to stop at it.

* - often well in excess of five minutes for one crossing around here, if the distant is to be cleared in time for a stopper

 

[Yabbadabba]

You wait until you get your MCB-OD in your area! the striking in point is the same for both stopping and non stopping trains and the barriers go down regardless once the striking point has been activated. Designed so there is always a green aspect on the approach signals.

As for an insult to train drivers, the whole concept of our signalling from overlaps beyond signals to AWS, ATP, TPWS moving on to ETRMS is based around ensuring a train stops at a red and if a driver fails do so then there is mitigation in place to reduce the risk.