Redhill Station - Extra Platform

[DelW]

Does https://traksy.uk/live/M+5+REDHILL accurately represent the trackwork that's in place right now?

Sorry, I can't open the map at that link - probably a browser issue at my end.

I'll try to get a better resolution photo in the next few days, to show the trackwork more clearly. That will only be for the northern end of the station, though, there's no convenient footbridge at the southern end.

 

[takno]

Sorry, I can't open the map at that link - probably a browser issue at my end.

I'll try to get a better resolution photo in the next few days, to show the trackwork more clearly. That will only be for the northern end of the station, though, there's no convenient footbridge at the southern end.

Are you on Internet Explorer? It's difficult to use new features and keep anything running on the older versions. If it's a newer browser please let me know and I'll try to look into it. Here's a screengrab:

 

[DelW]

I'm using IE11, but with limited access to non-work-related sites

I think the north end is correct, except for the little triangle drawn below 1927 and 1926, which should be light grey. In the higher-res photo in my earlier post, there seem to be the remains of an old scissors crossover there but all out of use. It's still there in today's photo no 172, but it's harder to see clearly. I think only the straight route from platform 1 to the up main via the switched diamond (I hope that's correct terminology) is still in use.

 

[takno]

I'm using IE11, but with limited access to non-work-related sites

I think the north end is correct, except for the little triangle drawn below 1927 and 1926, which should be light grey. In the higher-res photo in my earlier post, there seem to be the remains of an old scissors crossover there but all out of use. It's still there in today's photo no 172, but it's harder to see clearly. I think only the straight route from platform 1 to the up main via the switched diamond (I hope that's correct terminology) is still in use.

Ahh, fair enough - IE should be fine but I can't necessarily do a lot about filtering policies . The way they are drawn at the moment sets of points are all either all light or all dark - at some point I'll change it so they can reflect that the attached line is in light grey, and whether they are C&P.

Weirdly the switched diamond is represented as a pair of points in the sectional appendix. Given that it's clearly only being used for platform 1 I decided it was cleaner to just ignore it being switched. If nothing else this does make the set routes go down the correct lines so that a down route into platform 2 doesn't appear to crash into an up route out of platform 1.

 

[Deepgreen]

Sorry, I can't open the map at that link - probably a browser issue at my end.

I'll try to get a better resolution photo in the next few days, to show the trackwork more clearly. That will only be for the northern end of the station, though, there's no convenient footbridge at the southern end.

I can't open it in Firefox either.

Large numbers of orange men at site yesterday morning, mainly on the down side (ex-Post Office bay) and a few on the up side around the footbridge.

 

[DelW]

I took advantage of the sun today to take some photos at a slightly better resolution. Some raised steel ductwork has appeared since yesterday on the up side north of the footbridge I use.

There is also a new concrete structure at the back of the car park, presumably for a building that's too wide to fit on the platform itself.

 

[Deepgreen]

I took advantage of the sun today to take some photos at a slightly better resolution. Some raised steel ductwork has appeared since yesterday on the up side north of the footbridge I use.

There is also a new concrete structure at the back of the car park, presumably for a building that's too wide to fit on the platform itself.

It's hard to tell exactly how far along the platform the new structure is, but it may be to permit the installation of a footbridge at some future point (we hope!), or for a shelter.

 

[DelW]

It's hard to tell exactly how far along the platform the new structure is, but it may be to permit the installation of a footbridge at some future point (we hope!), or for a shelter.

It's about 50 yards north of the Post Office footbridge, so well beyond the existing station buildings. On the current Google satellite photo, there's an 8 car train in platform 2, and the new slab is about opposite the northernmost coach. There's no further sign of anything being built on it as yet.

The raised steel ductwork on the up side now extends as far as the signal gantry, where it ramps down to ground level. At the station end it ramps down to meet the existing concrete ducts just north of the footbridge.

 

[Minstral25]

It's about 50 yards north of the Post Office footbridge, so well beyond the existing station buildings. On the current Google satellite photo, there's an 8 car train in platform 2, and the new slab is about opposite the northernmost coach. There's no further sign of anything being built on it as yet.

The raised steel ductwork on the up side now extends as far as the signal gantry, where it ramps down to ground level. At the station end it ramps down to meet the existing concrete ducts just north of the footbridge.

Don't forget the new platform 0 only starts around the third coach from rear of the 8 car set in the platform - so the structure is about mid-platform. I expect it will be a small waiting room plus a space for staff to sit between movements on the platform.

 

[DelW]

Don't forget the new platform 0 only starts around the third coach from rear of the 8 car set in the platform - so the structure is about mid-platform. I expect it will be a small waiting room plus a space for staff to sit between movements on the platform.

If the new platform is that far north, do you know how will it be connected to the existing subway? I'm assuming it would need to be connected within the current gate line rather than having its own stairs (and lift) from car park level, to allow for interchange between platforms.

I'm assuming also that the new platform will be brought into use before the intended rebuilding of the ticket hall, which seems to have gone quiet for the moment (unless I've just missed hearing about it).

 

[Minstral25]

If the new platform is that far north, do you know how will it be connected to the existing subway? I'm assuming it would need to be connected within the current gate line rather than having its own stairs (and lift) from car park level, to allow for interchange between platforms.

I'm assuming also that the new platform will be brought into use before the intended rebuilding of the ticket hall, which seems to have gone quiet for the moment (unless I've just missed hearing about it).

My understanding is that the existing lift from the ticket office will be used and go up an extra floor. There will be a small footbridge from this to the start of the platform.

The platform will extend until almost the footbridge at the north of the station.

The concrete structure in the car park will also have stairs for emergency access and another set will be at the end of the platform into Ladbroke Grove (that's the name of the local road and not a short cut to Paddington).

The Solum plans have gone quiet as the Supermarket has pulled out. Expect action in around 2043 after promises to start 32 times before then. This is Redhill, the part of the railway everyone pretends doesn't exist.

 

[DelW]

Some more progress: no. 1 up siding has been relaid with new track, not yet fully aligned or ballasted, and platform coping units are being stockpiled at the north end of the new platform. Presumably the structure just north of those is the emergency access mentioned by Mistral25 as going down to Ladbroke Grove, which is just in front of the houses.
The small slab built out over the car park can just be seen in the zoomed-in shot, behind the yellow telehandler, and surrounded by blue temporary rails, though unfortunately the focus quality isn't great.

 

[RobinW]

Let's be frank and honest the adding of a platform at Redhill is a good thing but why not give us another full length through platform of is the plan to have a dedicated FGW platform for Redding to Gatwick which should have been platform 0 allowing easier changing between Northbound services at Redhill. Is this design going to limit the possibility of developing a better rail service for Redhill, should there be also platform extensions for those stations to Redding allowing for longer trains to operate cross country between Gatwick to Reading via Redhill, Reigate, Dorking, Guildford and the Aldershot area?

 

[DelW]

I think that lengthening trains on the North Downs line is problematic because of the number of level crossings at stations - which would mean a lot of signalling alterations would be needed, since platforms could only be lengthened in one direction.

The franchise agreement required 3 trains per hour from May this year, but (as mentioned in another thread) this has apparently stalled because of concerns over the effects of longer road closure times at Betchworth and )particularly) Reigate.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I think that lengthening trains on the North Downs line is problematic because of the number of level crossings at stations - which would mean a lot of signalling alterations would be needed, since platforms could only be lengthened in one direction.

The franchise agreement required 3 trains per hour from May this year, but (as mentioned in another thread) this has apparently stalled because of concerns over the effects of longer road closure times at Betchworth and )particularly) Reigate.

As Lloyd Grossman used to say... Let's look at the evidence.

Shalford, Chilworth, Gomshall, Dorking West, Deepdene - All easily extendable towards Redhill.

Betchworth - Extendable towards Guildford because of the level crossing.

Wanborough. Ash - Easily extendable towards Reading (although they can already accommodate 4 car trains)

North Camp - Shouldn't need extending.

Farnborough North, Blackwater - Easily extendable towards Reading.

Sandhurst, Crowthorne - Easily extendable towards Guildford (Bridge Reading end).

There's only one way to avoid extended crossing waits at Betchworth & Chilworth and that's to install some extra signalling sections 1 between Deepdene & Betchworth and at least 2 in each direction between Gomshall & Chilworth and move the signal between Tangley AHB & Chilworth station crossing (I wish I knew which numpty thought that was a good place to put it!) to the end of the station platform, that would avoid the crossing waits there.

 

[Deepgreen]

As Lloyd Grossman used to say... Let's look at the evidence.

Shalford, Chilworth, Gomshall, Dorking West, Deepdene - All easily extendable towards Redhill.

Betchworth - Extendable towards Guildford because of the level crossing.

Wanborough. Ash - Easily extendable towards Reading (although they can already accommodate 4 car trains)

North Camp - Shouldn't need extending.

Farnborough North, Blackwater - Easily extendable towards Reading.

Sandhurst, Crowthorne - Easily extendable towards Guildford (Bridge Reading end).

There's only one way to avoid extended crossing waits at Betchworth & Chilworth and that's to install some extra signalling sections 1 between Deepdene & Betchworth and at least 2 in each direction between Gomshall & Chilworth and move the signal between Tangley AHB & Chilworth station crossing (I wish I knew which numpty thought that was a good place to put it!) to the end of the station platform, that would avoid the crossing waits there.

Betchworth WB is already six cars long. Dorking Deepdene is alleged to be able to accommodate 4 cars already, although I find that difficult to believe from my frequent use of the station! My 'fantasy' development of Dorking Deepdene would be to rebuild it on a widened embankment formation with a third platform (a reversible middle platform road) to permit greater flexibility for stopping and semi-fast workings. Better access for this significant stop would also be provided.

The most significant crossing on the route is Reigate, and signalling changes are not going to alter that location's problems (there's already a WB starter and an EB home). Betchworth is the second busiest, and that also has an EB starter and a WB home of sorts (only about 500m from the crossing). The added complication here is the Buckland AHB crossing, interlocked with Betchworth.

Detailed discussion can be found on the North Downs Line Electrification thread.

 

[Deepgreen]

A couple from yesterday evening. It appears that a temporary connection is to be provided from platform 1 to the new passenger line until the final layout is in operation. As platform 1 is to become a bay road, obviously this connection will be removed then.

The bases for the new gantry spanning the tracks have been installed immediately to the north of the under-bridge in the distance.

 

[talldave]

A couple from yesterday evening. It appears that a temporary connection is to be provided from platform 1 to the new passenger line until the final layout is in operation. As platform 1 is to become a bay road, obviously this connection will be removed then.

The bases for the new gantry spanning the tracks have been installed immediately to the north of the under-bridge in the distance.

For want of a better word, some of the tracks in your pics look very wonky?!

 

[Minstral25]

For want of a better word, some of the tracks in your pics look very wonky?!

Is it even safe to leave platform 1 currently to the main line or has it been taken out of use?

 

[Deepgreen]

Is it even safe to leave platform 1 currently to the main line or has it been taken out of use?

Platform 1 is in normal use. The points to the new track-work are locked, and the remainder of the track-work and signalling remains unchanged and in use.

I assume the next elements will be to complete the laying of the new line and electrify it. Then the new signal gantry to the north end can be installed. Signalling to platform 0 will be required before it is used, and the existing facing crossover between the two new facing crossovers will have to be removed, along with the existing gantry to the north of the new one's site. The new, nearer facing crossover has the juice rail already down, but I'm not sure about the northern one. The provision of the two new facing crossovers (replacing one) is to permit an up train to leave platform 0 (via the new third track) while a down train enters platform 2, and a down train to cross to platform 0 (via the new northern crossover).

 

[Deepgreen]

For want of a better word, some of the tracks in your pics look very wonky?!

Indeed, but remember that the track on the left is unfinished and the telephoto lens exaggerates any minor unevenesses on the lines that are in use.

 

[MarkyT]

A couple from yesterday evening. It appears that a temporary connection is to be provided from platform 1 to the new passenger line until the final layout is in operation. As platform 1 is to become a bay road, obviously this connection will be removed then.

Looks that way. Should be fairly easy to reintroduce that connection temporarily before the final interlocking changes are undertaken. It will probably help most with swinging overlaps as I suspect there are a number of simultaneous movements previously available that are currently impossible.

 

[Deepgreen]

Looks that way. Should be fairly easy to reintroduce that connection temporarily before the final interlocking changes are undertaken. It will probably help most with swinging overlaps as I suspect there are a number of simultaneous movements previously available that are currently impossible.

Indeed. It occurs to me that a useful luxury would be a scissors crossing immediately north of the current confluence of the up through and up platform (2) roads, which would allow a defective train to be 'put away' in the new loop while letting service trains north past it on the existing up road from both platforms 0 and 2. Aside from any signalling issues that this would probably present, I assume that the additional cost of four sets of points and a diamond would be prohibitive for its limited use, but the flexibility would be nice!

 

[Sunset route]

Looks that way. Should be fairly easy to reintroduce that connection temporarily before the final interlocking changes are undertaken. It will probably help most with swinging overlaps as I suspect there are a number of simultaneous movements previously available that are currently impossible.

We have neither lost or gained anything as regards to swinging overlaps. Certainly the planners have a funny idea to how many trains can arrive at Redhill from the south at the same time and the new layout won't increase that total.

 

[Deepgreen]

We have neither lost or gained anything as regards to swinging overlaps. Certainly the planners have a funny idea to how many trains can arrive at Redhill from the south at the same time and the new layout won't increase that total.

Indeed, only one train can arrive from the south, with a simultaneous arrival from the west.

Will the north end layout (which was the subject of the last few posts) permit two trains to leave the station northbound at the same time (from platforms 0 and 2), with one waiting at an exit signal from the up 'loop' (the new section of track cleared for passenger movements)? I don't know if such a signal will, or can, be provided - if not, obviously the simultaneous departures won't be possible. The only benefit of such a regime would be to allow the clearance of the platforms more quickly to allow other trains in, and the benefits may be considered insufficient to warrant the signalling (even if the spacing would allow it).

 

[MarkyT]

Indeed, only one train can arrive from the south, with a simultaneous arrival from the west.

Will the north end layout (which was the subject of the last few posts) permit two trains to leave the station northbound at the same time (from platforms 0 and 2), with one waiting at an exit signal from the up 'loop' (the new section of track cleared for passenger movements)? I don't know if such a signal will, or can, be provided - if not, obviously the simultaneous departures won't be possible. The only benefit of such a regime would be to allow the clearance of the platforms more quickly to allow other trains in, and the benefits may be considered insufficient to warrant the signalling (even if the spacing would allow it).

There will be no additional main signal, the line isn't long enough to hold another train. But there is a ground shunt signal planned at the northern end of up loop 0. That's so a long freight or engineering train can be held there, shunted forward of the platform starter, and run round if necessary. When a main passenger route is set north from platform 0, the shunt signal route will automatically preset and clear. Simultaneous northbound departures are not necessary or desirable as both trains have to merge into the one up line just beyond the station. Inevitably, one of the departees would have to stop again to give way to the other.

 

[Sunset route]

Indeed, only one train can arrive from the south, with a simultaneous arrival from the west.

Will the north end layout (which was the subject of the last few posts) permit two trains to leave the station northbound at the same time (from platforms 0 and 2), with one waiting at an exit signal from the up 'loop' (the new section of track cleared for passenger movements)? I don't know if such a signal will, or can, be provided - if not, obviously the simultaneous departures won't be possible. The only benefit of such a regime would be to allow the clearance of the platforms more quickly to allow other trains in, and the benefits may be considered insufficient to warrant the signalling (even if the spacing would allow it).

Even with platform 0 being staggered to the north compared to the rest of Redhill, there will be only one signal section for Up loop No 0 in either direction so you won't get simultaneous northbound departures.

 

[Deepgreen]

Even with platform 0 being staggered to the north compared to the rest of Redhill, there will be only one signal section for Up loop No 0 in either direction so you won't get simultaneous northbound departures.

Thanks for the confirmation - I suspected not. The only real benefit would have been to allow two trains to clear the platforms to permit others to enter, but the length of section precludes that. However, from what MarkyT says, I see it will be possible to hold a non-passenger train in 'loop 0', so that is at least some form of extra flexibility. I assume this would also apply to any passenger working which goes out of service at Redhill (either TLL, Southern or GW - there was at least one GW evening working which used to stand in the 'long siding' before coming back into Redhill to head to Reading)?

 

[Deepgreen]

There will be no additional main signal, the line isn't long enough to hold another train. But there is a ground shunt signal planned at the northern end of up loop 0. That's so a long freight or engineering train can be held there, shunted forward of the platform starter, and run round if necessary. When a main passenger route is set north from platform 0, the shunt signal route will automatically preset and clear. Simultaneous northbound departures are not necessary or desirable as both trains have to merge into the one up line just beyond the station. Inevitably, one of the departees would have to stop again to give way to the other.

Thanks - presumably that will also require a shunt signal at the south end of 'loop 0' to allow a train to get back out heading south?

 

[Sunset route]

Thanks - presumably that will also require a shunt signal at the south end of 'loop 0' to allow a train to get back out heading south?

That will be just a main aspect, with a subsidiary to gain access to Redhill Loco and hopefully down the Up Redhill torwards Easrlswood North ladder.