We thought we had covered East Croydon in ample detail in recent articles. We also thought we would not be revisiting there for a long time yet. That was until the final version of the Sussex Route Study was published recently by Network Rail. Some significant revisions to the proposed track layout at East Croydon buried in appendix B mean it is probably a good idea to look at East Croydon again.
As with many aspects of the Brighton Main Line, indeed any main line, a change at one location may mean changes are needed elsewhere. This is particularly true for East Croydon. The more flexible layout now proposed may mean that other proposals for elsewhere to help sort out the trains before they get to East Croydon may be unnecessary. Conversely, the greater flexibility may mean greater overall capacity which in turn may mean that other ideas, previously not thought of any great benefit, could now become worthwhile. As such we really need to look at these proposals now because they may have an impact on issues relating to topics that will subsequently be covered in our trip down the Brighton Line.
East Croydon viewed from the south
In Part Seven of A Study in Sussex we saw how absolutely critical the junctions north of East Croydon would be in future when considering reliability and capacity. A once in a generation opportunity tied with essential resignalling presented itself and Network Rail was keen to substantially enhance and improve the layout. The proposals were a great improvement but, as was pointed out, the new layout did very little for trains from the slow (eastern side) of East Croydon transferring to the fast line to Victoria and vice versa.
The revised plans are a significant improvement on the ones in the draft study. They are also more complicated. To try to fully comprehend what we think is going on we will break the proposed track layout down into various component parts before putting it all together to give the complete picture. For convenience we are going to start at the south and work north.
Unlike previously, we are going to try to identify how the bridge at the south of the station fits in with all this. Network Rail’s diagrams are not helpful here but their study was about capacity rather than supplying the finer details of construction. It follows that we cannot guarantee we have got everything about this, or anything else, correct.
George Street Bridge
The first big change to the plans is that it appears that seven tracks will pass under George St/Addiscombe Road bridge just to the south of the station. There are currently six tracks there (as can be seen on Carto Metro) but it does seem to be the case that seven tracks are just about possible. Indeed this seems to be confirmed by the National Library of Scotland map site which has a map showing seven tracks there in the past.
Second gap with just one track at present but clearly space for two
We have four gaps between the spans of the bridge – or rather bridges, because there are actually two distinct bridges, with East Croydon tram stop on the deck of the northern one. The first three gaps (west to east) are of double track width and there is a final gap of single track width on the eastern side. Currently the second gap has only one track through it. In order to get a second track through, some modifications to the current platform 3 would appear to be necessary. If the ramp from the station ticket hall to the platforms were made less steep (as is believed to be intended) and the current platform 3 were extended slightly northwards then there would not appear to be any problem in putting a second track in.
An arrangement with four slow tracks coming in from the south into the four future slow platforms (platforms 5 – 8) would seem ideal as this would involve no pointwork between these platforms and the bridge. This would mean that the platforms could stay in their current locations – or be moved only very slightly northwards.
Fast lines through the station
Whilst the slow lines can neatly line up with the slow platforms as they go under George St bridge the same cannot be said of the proposed fast platforms. Four are proposed and it is only possible to route three fast tracks under the bridge. To fit in all the desirable pointwork for the level of flexibility now desired it will be necessary to move both future fast platform islands northwards. This means moving future island platform 3 & 4 further northwards and probably moving the future island platform 1 & 2 further north than originally planned. The amount could be in the order of 100 – 150m, which is quite significant given a 6-car train on Southern is normally around 120m long.
Looking southward from the end of the current platform 1
Fortunately the new footbridge is sited quite a way to the north of the platforms. This had previously provoked complaints for being located too far north, but may well turn out to be vital if the fast platforms are rebuilt north of their current position.
Whilst siting the fast line platforms to the north by a significant amount would seem to be quite a disadvantage to passengers who use the main concourse, it could at least mean it will be possible to provide a bit more circulating area at the top of the resited ramps. More circulating area on the paid side of the barriers could well be useful as East Croydon had yet another separate gateline installed in the past year or so. This is located on the west side of the main ticket hall and faces towards to the town centre. It is located at the top of the existing ramp leading to the current platforms 1 & 2 which, although an improvement on the former arrangements, isn’t really ideal as there can be conflicts of passenger flow around the top of the ramp.
Relatively new entrance at side of station due to be re-opened shortly once security bollards are installed.
With the extra fast track underneath the bridge and the future fast platforms further to the north, it becomes possible to reorganise the fast tracks in a much better way. Basically there will be more pointwork to the north and the south of the platforms to allow more flexibility. The grade separation where the tracks are lined up to continue to and from Victoria or London Bridge will be achieved much as it is today at Windmill Bridge Junction.
The revised layout allows for a trailing crossover to be installed between the future lines 2 and 3 north of the station bridge but south of the fast platforms. It is this which suggests the distance that the platforms will shift northwards will be considerable. Although there are good reasons for the relocation of the fast lines platforms and the change does have some advantages, as already explained, one can’t see commuters being very happy about the extra distance involved in order to get to the platform.
The diagram below shows just the fast lines and the fast line grade separation. Unlike previous diagrams in earlier articles we have shown the overbridge to the south of the station. It must be emphasised that the exact location of crossovers (north or south of the bridge) is our perception of where they will have to be located, rather than something deduced from a Network Rail document.
Fast lines only through East Croydon station
Slow Lines though the station
We can now look at the slow line through the station and slightly to the north.
Immediately to the north of the station the slow lines reduce to two tracks (one up and one down) as in earlier plans, but further along the up track diverges to provide an additional track. This means that just north of the bridge taking Lower Addiscombe Road over the railway there will be seven tracks. From west to east they would be:
Up Fast Victoria, Up Fast London Bridge, Down Fast London Bridge, Down Fast Victoria, Up Slow, Up Slow to Up Victoria Fast Spur, Down Slow.
Slow lines only through East Croydon station
The Up Slow to Victoria Fast spur
The fact that the Up slow now diverges means there is more opportunity for grade separation. So it is now possible to find a conflict-free route for trains from the new platforms 5 & 6 (the current 3 & 4) to get to the Victoria Up Fast line. This is a major improvement and eliminates one of the weaknesses of the earlier proposals. There are up to 18tph on the Victoria Down Fast line and removing the need for trains to cross this on the level is a significant benefit.
The grade separation is not so complete in the opposite direction as we shall see. Whilst this grade separation would be desirable it is not as critical as in the up direction, as in this situation it is the Up Victoria Slow that has to be crossed on the level and this would normally have a maximum of 8tph.
In a northbound direction it is vital that fast trains to Victoria do actually go on the fast lines, otherwise they will be stuck behind a stopping train with no opportunity to switch to the fast tracks until Balham – and yet again that would be on the level. Southbound the situation is less critical as there will be a further opportunity to get onto the slow tracks just south of East Croydon station – although again on the level so not ideal. For southbound trains not going to the Oxted line (in practice the East Grinstead trains) that call at Purley there is a further opportunity to cross to the slow platforms at Purley just north of that station. If the train is not stopping at Purley then there is no reason why it shouldn’t stay on the fast tracks at East Croydon.
The missing Down Fast Victoria to Down Slow grade separation
As suggested above there is one pathway that does not have a fully grade separated route. That is from the Down Fast Victoria to Down Slow at East Croydon. Although provision has been made for an Up Slow to Up Fast Victoria Spur there has been no provision in the opposite direction. This is presumably because of lack of space.
Unfortunately, there the only routing that appears possible to enable fast trains from Victoria to reach the slow platforms at East Croydon is to cross the down fast Victoria trains to the slow lines at Selhurst. This is what happens now and it currently takes place south of Selhurst station.
Even more unfortunately, because there will be a new layout there, in future the crossing from the down Victoria Fast to the down Victoria Slow will have to happen north of Selhurst station. This aspect of the revised scheme is actually worse than before because this move is now proposed to be before reaching Selhurst. This means it will be blocked if there is a slow train calling at platform 1 (down slow at Selhurst). To make matters worse Selhurst Depot is accessed via platform 1 so it is to be hoped that when the railway is at its busiest there are no time-consuming driver changes at Selhurst platform 1 and there are no stock movements in or out of the depot from the Selhurst side. One also hopes that there are alternative arrangements made in future to resolve the issue of trains terminating short at Selhurst in times of disruption. Currently these terminate at Selhurst platform 1 before making their return journey back to London and obviously this is a time-consuming process. There is the option of sending them into the depot and out again on the other side to continue their journey back to Victoria by another route.
Selhurst with the proposed crossing from down fast to down slow north of the station
As with all weaknesses in track layout one has to consider how bad it is in the real world and what it takes to resolve it. In the case of “the Selhurst issue” there would not be that many fast trains affected. In the current timetable during the evening peak only 6tph call at Selhurst platform 1 and the same number of fast trains leave from Victoria and use the slow platforms on arrival at East Croydon. This would seem to indicate that this move on the flat would not be that big an issue at current levels of service. If it really were important there is probably a partial solution available at Selhurst by sacrificing the fast platforms in order to enable an extra through line to be built through the station, but even that would create problems as many early morning and late evening fast trains stop at Selhurst (some advertised, some not) in order to enable staff to get to and from work.
Here there and almost everywhere
With the fast trains sorted out, it remains for various grade separations to be made to connect the slow lines without affecting the fast lines. The issue of joining the fast lines to and from London Bridge with the slow lines at East Croydon also need to be addressed.
Two critical factors come into play when resolving the remaining issues. The first is that there is no need to consider the possibility of a fast train south of East Croydon becoming a slow train immediately north of East Croydon – it simply does not happen. The second is that, because the London Bridge lines are paired by direction, once you can get the London Bridge slow lines to the slow lines platforms at East Croydon then you can trivially get the fast lines connected by means of a crossover between the fast and the slow lines.
All together now
We can now put all the pieces together to reveal our understanding of what we think the current proposal is. In general it does look a lot better than before, though one wonders if TfL are happier because the more complicated trackwork may make it harder for them to push for an even more complicated layout for their enhanced proposals to allow 6tph London Overground to West Croydon.
Latest proposal for East Croydon and the junctions to the north of the station
Next time we will, hopefully, finally get further down the line and consider the line from East Croydon to South Croydon and South Croydon junction.
Many thanks to ngh for supplying an updated diagram with the latest changes. Thanks to him, Long Branch Mike and Graham Feakins for proof-reading and supplying additional information and ideas.
Postscript November 2016
An unofficial November 2016 update
Since writing this article the plans have been considerably enhanced yet again. Nothing official has come out of Network Rail but collating information from various sources enables us to suggest that the above revision is very close to Network Rail’s preferred option. Note that they are not yet at the stage of a final single option so, if the scheme is implemented, it may not be quite like this.
The biggest enhancement is to enable a full seven tracks between East Croydon station and Windmill Bridge. There is even more grade separation. A lot of this is enhancement is because all the analysis is tending to show it is even more cost-effective than originally believed to enhance the East Croydon scheme rather than attempt to mitigate problems elsewhere – notably, but not exclusively, at Stoats Nest Junction between Purley and Coulsdon.
Thanks once again to ngh for ferreting out the information and providing the updated diagram
Re the 4th photo in the article and related text, that gateline facing west at the southerly entrance to East Croydon had been open for (from memory) a year or so, until being temporarily closed in the last couple of weeks for more works to be carried out.
I hope to be retired and no longer commuting from EC to Victoria before this next stage of major disruption on the fast line platforms! (I know the gain SHOULD be worth the pain, but ……!)
In the last diagram I presume that the green lines show all the historic tracks that have been removed over time and not just the current tracks that will be removed in the future to get to the new layout?
For some inexplicable reason, I am suddenly reminded of an expression used by my late father, 50 years ago.
“A bugger’s muddle”
Re Verulamius,
“… I presume that the green lines show all the historic tracks that have been removed over time …”
Correct.
Rob,
Blimey. So it has. I should have read the notice that I took a photo of. Oh how Greg and a few others will laugh – not.
“Due to the installation of security bollards this entrance will be closed”.
I can confirm the work involved is substantial. There is more to it than there is on the surface.
I will change the text.
As usual a very interesting and informative update but three small typos:-
Second line of the article would seem to have a “we” missing. In the introductory section, in the last para there seems to be a missing “to” before ‘identify’ and in the ‘Up Slow to Victoria Fast Spur’ section in line 6 of the third para there is a missing “h” at the end of “although”.
[Fixed. Thanks. PoP]
With the revised layout, do the relevant sections between the junctions permit 10-car or 12-car trains to stand out of the way of other train paths, if there were a delay in gaining a green to proceed? I’m doubtful about the Selhurst Junction to Gloucester Road Junction section, for example.
What a rats nest of tracks to sort out.
Here’s the Google Map of Windmill Junction for people to draw lines on: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3874906,-0.0845626,1551m/data=!3m1!1e3 – you can see that there is going to be a lot of layout changes, new flyovers (on the Selhurst approach), etc, as the diagram is not easy to translate to the current structures at all!
The new Platform 1 and 2 at EC should only take out a few small industrial units at the north west of the station area. It seems to me that there is a desire to move most of the alighting footfall at East Croydon to leaving via the new footbridge, straight into the commercial area.
I wonder if the work will unlock any of the currently unused/unusable land there for development purposes? I guess it’s a bit of a wildlife refuge right now.
Jonathan Roberts
The original diagram in the final version of the route study states:
Selhurst Jn changes provide:
– Slow line grade separation
– Up direction slow to fast grade separation
– 10-car standage on spurs
I find it a bit concerning this isn’t 12-car. I believe Network Rail are still developing this proposal so maybe there is more that can be done. It seems to me that the distance between East Croydon and Selhurst just isn’t enough for all the segregated track that one would ideally like.
Re Jonathan Roberts,
From what I can see having had a good look at it yes 12 car stand between Gloucester Road and the new Selhurst JNs. The key part
relocated remainsof Selhurst Jn will probably be moving a minimum of 100m-110m Northwest closer to Selhurst station hence this is major improvement over the previous scheme as there are no possible conflicting moves possible at the planned Selhurst Junction which is very significant for pathing.An illuminating article, good news about the proposed improvements.
I particularly appreciated the separate diagrams and exposition for fast and slow. My eyes tend to glaze over a bit with full complicated diagrams, but this way of explaining it made the issues seem very clear.
@PoP
Very interesting article. It all seem to make sense to me.
Just wondering about “an even more complicated layout for their enhanced proposals to allow 6tph London Overground to East Croydon” – is that by diverting the services from West Croydon?
[Sorry, I meant West Croydon. I tried to get this out in a rush when tired and unfortunately it shows with a few niggly mistakes like this. I have corrected it. Basically the proposal is for 2tph extra but this is thought to need a third track from Gloucester Road junction towards West Croydon. Now that viaducts are proposed (we think) over Gloucester Road junction this will be a more complicated thing to do. PoP]
I’ve always been curious why historically lines have mostly been groups by fast/slow rather than direct (eg BML, MML, WCML south etc)?
Sure I can think of some minor benefits this way, but this seems out-weighed by the benefit of trains being able to cross from fast to slow without blocking the opposite direct.
Chris
Re Briantist,
No – 3 tracks Gloucester Road to West Croydon* to accommodate 2tph extra LO from Norwood Jn and potentially 2tph extra LBG – West Croydon via Selhurst that TfL have also had dreams of (A23 bus corridor relief especially at Streatham also see the older CR2 route discussions)
*As can be seen in this diagram from the Sussex part 7 article:
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/Further-proposed-TfL-changes-revised.png
Which would look slightly different now in the light of the recent revisions.
West Croydon would also need an expensive rebuild for an extra platform.
If TfL wish to increase services to/from West Croydon they probably need to provide grade separation for the flat conflict at Gloucester Road Junction (Down Shst – WC crossing Up WC – NJ). I suspect this would be technically easier (though very expensive) in the Up direction by burrowing a tunnel for trains from WC to NJ to the west of the existing surface line.
Echoing Chris Keene’s comment, would there be any benefit in reassigning the Victoria lines to be paired by direction? Or would that just kick the problem up the line to Streatham Common?
Chris Keene asks why lines have “mostly” been paired by use rather than paired by direction.
A Wikipedia article (which has many faults, not appropriate to discuss here, but I find nevertheless interesting) refers to this question. It has also been discussed more than once on londonreconnections. Probably pointless to discuss which is more prevalent, it all depends how many railways you count where. But designers when going for four tracks seem to have had varied views. It does depend crucially on how many branches the section of four-track has, which side they are on, and how much money is available for grade separation at branch points. (Paired by use scores well when there are lots of branches, mostly on the same side, and flyovers are not possible or affordable). Service patterns and short termination is also a factor; paired by use scores well if this happens. Paired by use is handy at the throat of a terminus, many fewer conflicting moves. Further complications are the question of how many stations need serving by fast and slow lines. It’s all quite complex.
But as you have noted, once the decision is made, it is very expensive to change to the other method.
@Malcom – – it’s a question I have asked successive Southern GMs, for example. Their views are fairly balanced – paired by direction has many operating advantages but paired by use is marginally better for terminal management – depending on the terminal layout.
Why are we talking about two extra trains from West Croydon for the overground? I know the South East Route PDF pp.80 desires:
“CO10 (2023)
An additional six vehicles during the high peak hour:
• Four vehicles from West Croydon
• Two vehicles from Crystal Palace)”
which would make it 8 TPH to West Croydon, by 2023 … except it is not possible at all without massive infrastructure investment, and so they can only have the two extra from CP:
“starting two additional services at Crystal Palace is the preferred option to satisfy conditional output CO10. The viability of this option will depend on overcoming a number of timetabling issues and if this isn’t possible, then train lengthening remains the sole alternative to meet CO10.”
I have probably missed something, as I am only skimming the massive PDF, and haven’t read further yet. Maybe the works at Windmill Junction unlock the paths, except I can’t see it on the diagram.
Sykobee,
“vehicle” clearly means carriage when one looks at page 81. This all seems a bit of a mess. Network Rail seem to believe that the solution is to add carriages to particularly crowded trains. In reality London Overground would do their utmost to have a homogenised fleet.
There is also a conflict in that Network Rail prefer running extra trains to Crystal Palace because they may be able to do that without additional infrastructure. TfL want to run to West Croydon because that is where the demand is.
Some of us (ngh in particular) strongly believe that TfL and NR are working on the basis of totally different forecasts and Network Rail believe in doing just enough to cope with their forecasts. Which leads to ngh’s delightful equation:
TfL do minimum = NR do maximum
If my eyes weren’t deceiving me, elsewhere in the document it states that the WLL Overground will have to be extended to 8 carriage operation if HS2 gets built… that’s not going to help having a homogenised fleet 🙂 (nor the work required at CJ).
@ Briantist. This time I agree with you. Some “out of the box” thinking could be good here and why couldn’t some West Sussex services use West Croydon instead of East, and why could some existing services be extended from Dorking, Horsham? The “East Croydon problem” is one that has deliberately diverting services and ramming East Croydon with London – Bognor/Portsmouth/Southampton services which don’t need to use that route. All I ask is that the full picture be looked at rather than think that everything must go East Croydon or via some new BML route running to the east of it.
Re PoP, Sykobee, Jonathan R, WW et al.
TfL want much more than NR suggest would be needed to meet demand in NR view therefore NR suggest spending very little on Southern Metro services.
Demand modelling.
This is a huge issue for example form the introduction to TfL’s response to the draft report:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/consultation%20documents/sussex%20route%20study%20consultation%20responses/transport%20for%20london.pdf
On the subject of 3 tracking and 12 car stand to prevent junction blocking between Gloucester Road and Selhurst JNs:
On the level on intervention require for “metro” services:
Castlebar 28 September 2015 at 13:14
“The “East Croydon problem” is one that has deliberately diverting services and ramming East Croydon with London – Bognor/Portsmouth/Southampton services which don’t need to use that route.”
Isn’t that so that they can call at Gatwick Airport? Sussex coast to London passengers have more direct routes.
Re Sykobee,
If you look at Sussex Part 7 there is lots of detailed discussion on unlocking paths. If that doesn’t make sense I can explain more in detail but that will be later tonight.
Tfl and NR are looking at 8car on both NLL and WLL to meet demand (see NR Anglia study)
Re TonyW1960,
Or just triple tracking Gloucester Road to West Croydon which would be much cheaper. Part of the problem is also the various different moves at West Croydon.
The tripple tracking and the parallel and increase in non conflicting moves it enables can be seen in this diagram from the Sussex part 7 article:
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/Further-proposed-TfL-changes-revised.png
Which would look slightly different now in the light of the recent revisions.
@ Alan Griffiths : Yes
But the majority of passengers from the South Coast (also Gatwick etc) do not get off at Gatwick. They want a better service to London (and Croydon) and one which doesn’t stop at Gatwick to get rammed full of people with heavy baggage who are also going to London. Your answer is the Southern Rail Pavlovian mantra which most of us down here are not buying in to. They might (and that is a MIGHT) use Gatwick two or three times a year whilst their need for fast rail access to London is more obvious and more regular
Castlebar,
You have raised this topic so many times and we go through an identical discussion. Repeating it yet again is pointless. So further comments on it will be deleted.
Just to add to the paired by use/paired by direction comments, as I understand it the principal advantage of paired by use is the reduction of conflicts at termini, which is why structures such as the Wimbledon and Holloway flyovers were built, to switch from PBD to PBU at a convenient point on approaching the terminus after the last junction. (Note also that the Bermondsey diveunder will include a down slow track to get trains leaving the LBG terminal platforms under the “fast” Thameslink tracks to allow PBD at New Cross Gate
PBD is easier to design for even when there are multiple junctions provided most branches are off the slow lines, as a burrowing/flying junction can be fitted in much more easily outside, rather than between, the main formation.
Between Croydon and Gatwick PBU is essential as the fast lines take a completely different route to the slows – Redhill station would have a very strange service if the lines were paired by direction!
One advantage of PBD is that it allows easy cross-platform interchange – see for example Earls Court, Hammersmith or Finchley Road.
It is interesting to note that when lne the from Wimbledon to Raynes Park and New Malden was first quadrupled, it was paired by use, with the extra tracks extending from the Haydons Road line, on the down side of the main line, the Epsom branching off on that side, both tracks then diving under the main line at New Malden to form the new Kingston branch. As evidenced by the redundant underpass tunnel here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4024188,-0.2653263,3a,75y,89.36h,88.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0FAySBM2htgpDvKZ8aBcNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This arrangement was changed to PBD in 1880, when trains from the Kingston branch started to run to Waterloo instead of Holborn Viaduct, and PBU only came to the Waterloo approaches with the construction of the Wimbledon flyover in the 1930s.
@timbeau
Are PBD and PBU acronyms for ‘paired by direxion’ and ‘paired by use’?
Re PoP and Castlebar
(if PoP will indulge an indirect comment)
“They want a better service to London (and Croydon) and one which doesn’t stop at Gatwick to get rammed full of people with heavy baggage who are also going to London. ”
Bluntly in “southern” land the future will involve being on rammed trains so best to get used to the idea. If the train isn’t rammed the capacity could probably be better used on other routes or stopping patterns.
BML2 proponents similarly also want services that avoid larger population centres so they don’t have rammed trains either unfortunately that doesn’t really align with the subsidy reduction mantra.
With the proposed new track layout prior to Selhurst, what are the chances the Victoria down fast to slow services will actually stop at Selhurst? Or will they just go through platform 1 without stopping?
@Rob of Croydon/Pop – Side entrance at East Croydon due to be reopened shortly – very shortly as I went through it at 11:20 this morning (and security bollards are in place)!
Sorry PoP. I thought it would be OK to answer Alan Griffiths’ direct question put to me.
I promise I shall not answer similar on topic questions in future as they have been answered “so many times” before and I can see no other honest answer. If you have a different, alternative answer to Alan’s question, could you share it please?
Castlebar,
That wasn’t really the point. It was the previous comment you made which yet again raised the issue of more trains from the South Coast via Horsham. I know it is dear to your heart but it wasn’t really particularly relevant and the repeated coverage of the this issue feels more like propaganda than informing us. We have to try to have a level playing field and there are others who have particular interests who voluntarily restrain themselves or have various restraints put upon them.
As for a response I think the one from ngh says it all and I couldn’t have put it so well.
If platforms move that far northwards then the new footbridge will,end up being at the country end, rather than midway, and we will be back to problems in passenger circulation. The previous proposals were obviously inadequate and, while these are an improvement, they are also obviously still inadequate:
1. Passenger circulation and platform capacity could be critical issues
2. The proposals make it harder, not easier, to release the additional capacity which could be unlocked at West Croydon.
3. Spending such large sums at East Croydon does not make sense until there is a strategy for additional capacity between the Sussex Coast and London
It is also hard to see how this plan could be implemented without impossible levels of disruption at East Croydon. This does not appear to be a set of works which could be achieved in weekend and Christmas possessions. Were any platforms shut midweek, the cascade pressure on the remaining platforms would probably end up with the whole station shut on safety grounds and it’s not clear a BML service from stations like Brighton could be maintained during such works.
So, for me, this is just institutional crayonism. If one joins up the train set like this, then for the medium term East Croydon works. But Overground to West Croydon remains broken, the BML remains broken and it is probably not possible in practical terms to get from here to there.
Theban forsees (with this plan) “impossible levels of disruption at East Croydon”.
I’m no expert in planning such things. But if London Bridge station can be completely rebuilt without (yet) the sky falling on our heads, then somewhere like East Croydon should be (relatively speaking) a doddle.
Firstly, London Bridge has been an exercise in how not to do things.
Secondly, at London Bridge taking a couple of platforms out in percentage terms is much less than taking a couple of platforms out of 6 (or 8) at East Croydon
Thirdly, the works at London Bridge have relied in passengers having alternative routes within central London. That is not possible on the BML, nor for Croydon.
A far better analogy is with Euston where HS2 have essentially accepted that their plans could not be achieved on a working railway.
In any event, it’s not for me to show that disruption would be impossible, it is for NR to show that the scheme could be IMO,emended without disruption. In any other area of business when a plan is floated it is floated alongside something setting out transitional arrangements. And without publishing transitional arrangements in the same document this really is only crayonism.
Theban,
As soon as someone says something is obvious warning bells ring in my ear. I can show you lots of things that are obvious but not true.
Spending such large sums at East Croydon does not make sense until there is a strategy for additional capacity between the Sussex Coast and London
But this is part of the Sussex Route Study. The clue is in the name. There has been a strategy for the past few years. It was that which identified that East Croydon was the most critical bit and without that everything else was a bit pointless.
It is also hard to see how this plan could be implemented without impossible levels of disruption at East Croydon.
I am not saying it will be easy but unlike at London Bridge you will have the luxury of being able to built two new platforms then jiggle around sorting out existing platforms by taking 2 out of use at any one time – so you never have fewer than six platforms.
It is the same with the tracks north of the station. If you have 7 when there were 5 there is scope for taking tracks out of use without drastically cutting back the service. Unlike London Bridge and its approaches, most of land where the complex junctions will be is actually unused so a lot of work can be done whilst keeping the existing track in place.
The alternative is just to live with what we have got and pass on to the next generation something that is woefully inadequate. Or to wait for Crossrail 4 at the earliest.
I think a fairer comparison than London Bridge is Reading. Whilst there was slight inconvenience a service was maintain for most working days. In the end they did have a week or so of major disruption but that was only because the benefit of completing the work were so great it was worth the additional disruption to take a year off the timescale of the project. I don’t think you have people wandering around Reading saying how they would have preferred the station to remain as it was and it wasn’t worth doing.
Theban says “without publishing transitional arrangements in the same document this really is only crayonism.”
Your opinion. Mine is that it makes perfect sense at this moment: obviously the transitional arrangements are the next thing to be worked out. But perhaps that is because of my “gut feeling” that it is doable. Your “gut feeling” (quite possibly much better informed than mine) says otherwise. Let’s see what others think.
“Let’s see what others think.”
I think Theban is right. Sorry Malcolm/PoP
Without wishing to reignite the curtailed discussion above, can I ask a factual question about the Arun Valley to those LR regulars who are much more familiar with documents such as the Sussex route study?
Am I correct in my layman’s reading that even if the entire NR wishlist for the Sussex routes is carried out up to 2043, none of the resulting train paths created through East Croydon will be allocated to the Arun Valley? They all seemed to have been earmarked for Eastbourne, Brighton and Worthing.
If this is the case, are these path decisions set in stone or can they be revisited closer to coming on stream, if actual demand patterns differ? Or can we safely say now there will be no extra peak services from the Arun Valley in the next 30 years?
(Disclosure: I’m a 3 day a week commuter from Chichester to Canary Wharf, something that’s perfectly do-able now, but not if seats start to be thin on the ground)
@ Toby
I cannot answer the question, not because I do not want “re-ignition”, but simply because we have been left in the dark here and I honestly do not know the answer.
I still do not understand why we can’t dig a large hole at Stoat’s nest and put the Fast lines into the hole…
1st stop East Croydon (2 island platforms underground as at Zurich), then split one line to Clapham Junction (another underground platform) trains can come out of the hole on the site of Longhedge works. The other line to New Cross / Loughborough Junction for the Thameslink.
In the long run this will give the capacity boost needed in South London.
Having lived for two years in one of the houses backing on to windmill bridge junction, how does the crayon drawing in the last figure work?
Is there really space?
Also how does the triple deck work with OHLE clearance? How high is the top of the wedding cake?
Re tjw: a few reasons why a tunnel from Stoats Nest isn’t the right answer now:
1) a high proportion of the capacity it provides could not be used effectively at any London Terminal or Thameslink. Ie not enough Central London platforms or cross London tunnels.
2) Approximately 100million reasons per kilometre, plus 500million reasons per island platform. So about 4-5billion reasons in your example.
@ Ngh – interesting that TfL are clearly unhappy with the planning process. The fact that mixed forecasts appear to be being used (up to date for overground, old for everything else) is nothing short of a disaster. Who allows this sort of nonsense? I’ve not even read all of the latest woes from Mr Ford in Modern Railways but someone needs to get a grip of appraisal if wrong forecasts are being used, schemes are not reappraised when costs escalate or scope creeps. Where on earth are the governance controls? Who in the private sector would want to buy a part of this shambles? I’m gobsmacked that this sort of rubbish can happen especially where there is an external regulator.
Coming back to East Croydon I confess I don’t understand the detailed layouts now or in the future. No criticism of those seeking to explain it’s just stuff that doesn’t lodge in my brain readily. I am bemused by the proposals to shove the fast platforms even further north. Makes me wonder what the poor souls who arrive at East Croydon by tram and bus will make of an ever longer interchange time. I also wonder whether the end result of this will be fast trains that are very heavily loaded towards the rear (even more so than they already are at East Croydon).
Can someone explain to a mere “dumbo” (i.e. me) why a third track is needed to allow a marginally more frequent service into West Croydon? Surely a single track should be capable of handling 10 or 12 tph even if people have to be “tipped out” from some and they need to reach a siding. LU achieves vastly better than this in many places so why is NR seemingly not able to do the same? I’ve used West Croydon a few times recently and while the place is busy with people the train service is positively leisurely and speeds on the approach tracks seem extremely low for no obvious reason. Looking at Opentraintimes for the AM peak doesn’t show a particular onerous headway through any platform although I accept there are crucial pathing issues immediately after West Croydon whichever way a train heads north.
@Malcolm
“obviously the transitional arrangements are the next thing to be worked out.”
…..dare I suggest they might involve the Arun Valley/Mole Gap line?
Castlebar
It isn’t E Croydon that is the sacred cow of routing …it’s Gatwick (expletives deleted) Airport!
Hence the gutting of the ex-LBSCR Portsmouth route over the years, & the consequent waste of available capacity.
I agree that the TfL wish for an extra track GloucesterRd – W Croydon would be a good idea, if the pennies can be found ( I don’t think it’s a serious engineering problem )
Which re-raises WW’s very valid points about “Value” overall, again, doesn’t it?
Um
@Walthamstow Writer, 28 September 2015 at 22:04
“I am bemused by the proposals to shove the fast platforms even further north. Makes me wonder what the poor souls who arrive at East Croydon by tram and bus will make of an ever longer interchange time. I also wonder whether the end result of this will be fast trains that are very heavily loaded towards the rear (even more so than they already are at East Croydon).”
I think the intention is to avoid modifying George Street bridge whilst using the available space for the extra track to allow the Down Fast platforms (3 and 4) to each have clear parallel overlaps through the bridge to the junctions south of it. That will allow simultaneous Down arrivals from both Victoria and London Bridge routes in the adjacent platforms, and also a Down arrival in 3 at the same time as a Down departure from 4 and vice versa. The consequence of this is that the Up Fast has to remain a single track under the bridge and the full length of the diverging turnout must be north thereof. Thus, It will be at least 100m beyond the bridge before the diverging tracks will be far enough apart for the new platform to commence between them. A raised walkway from the south concourse could be built out over the tracks to a point along the platform wide enough for a new stair and lift tower to be erected near the south end of the new island.
“Can someone explain to a mere “dumbo” (i.e. me) why a third track is needed to allow a marginally more frequent service into West Croydon? Surely a single track should be capable of handling 10 or 12 tph even if people have to be “tipped out” from some and they need to reach a siding . . . “
The proposed layout does offer some improvement for trains on the spur between the Selhurst Slows and Gloucester Road Jn. In the Down direction, these trains will no longer have to cross the Up Slow on the flat anymore. Whilst the spur has clear overlaps in either direction so a train can enter at slow speed with the junction at the other end blocked by other traffic, there is a limit of 8-cars in order to clear the junction to rear, and that standage is very tight in both directions, so the tails of such trains can take a long time to clear the respective junctions. The new layout may be able to offer some small improvement to this standage (any addition at all would be welcome to help alleviate the slow tail clearance problem for 8-car). It’s unlikely satisfactory 12-car standage would be possible, however.
An idea to improve flexibility and capacity a little in the area at a reasonable cost without a third track might be to make the existing lines bidirectional between Gloucester Road and West Croydon. A short Down side bay may also be possible, suitable for LO traffic from Norwood Jn which could run in and out on the Down line in parallel with Selhurst-Sutton traffic (also in either direction) on the Up line. A short platform existed historically and the site looks as if it may still be available.
An illustration:
http://www.townend.me/files/westcroydon.pdf
Re Theban, PoP, Malcolm, et al.
Phasing of the works.
1. Much easier for the Windmill Bridge Junction works than the previous proposal in the draft report as lots of thinking has obviously gone into the the constructability of what is proposed.
2. East Croydon as covered in previous articles this can be done keeping 6 platforms open with slight reductions at the weekends etc. With the new P1/2 & 3/4 being further north keeping 6 platforms open is far easier. The track alterations being similar in scope was what has and is being done on the Southeastern side at London Bridge on a significant number of weekends.
How it might be phased:
Phase A: site clearance of area currently without track etc. and relocation of electrical and signalling equipment as required.
(elements of B&C1 concurrent)
Phase B: construction of new bridges and other civil structures in the Windmill Bridge complex where existing tracks effectively won’t have to be touched until taken out of use. (This is a major change from last time that will significantly reduce disruption.)
New VIC down slow bridges (x2)
New LBG up slow bridge (x1)
New VIC up slow bridge (x1)
New VIC slow–>fast & VIC down fast box near Gloucester Road Jn (x1)
New VIC down fast bridge (x1)
Phase C1:
ECR station works
As new platforms are further north the new P1/2 island can be constructed and completed prior to use
[Phase D track /signalling work]
Phase D1:
Bring new P1 and new western 6/7th track into use to where it joins the existing Up fast Vic
Phase D2:
Bring new down slow VIC alignment into use at the Eastern End
Phase D3:
Bring new P2 into use in the down direction requires existing track 1 to new lifted or slewed
Phase C2:
Existing P1/2 taken out of use for demolition of the existing P1/2 and construction of new P3/4. Existing Track 2 relaid as new track 4 further east in places
Phase D4:
Bring new up slow LBG into use in extra 7th track North of Windmill Bridge (Addiscombe Road)
Phase D5:
Bring new up slow VIC alignment into use at the Eastern End
Phase C3 :
Extend existing P3/4 (new 5/6) north by about 20m
Phase D6:
Bring new P3 and Track 3 into use (down direction) and new VIC down fast alignment from Selhurst. And bring new Up slow–> fast alignment into use
Phase C4
Close existing P3 (the new P5) to passengers to remove the circa 20m from the southern end of the platform (beside the ramp) and slew track to the east. Old P4 /new P6 remains in use at this point.
Phase D7:
Bring new P4 and new P5 (old P3) into use.
Phase D8.
Selhurst Junction rebuild including bringing into use new western sections of Vic up and down slow.
Either the Fast or Slow side of ECR should be available every weekend and at least one terminus should be directly accessible
Regarding the paired by use/direction comments earlier, it should be remembered that, north of East Croydon through Selhurst, the two pairs of tracks are configured such that the slow pair are more curvy and thus subject to speed restrictions e.g. through Selhurst and Thornton Heath, as compared to the fast pair through there. Moreover, as things stand, mainly only the platforms and other infrastructure on the slow pair are equipped to cope with their stopping trains and passengers, as opposed to what remains of platforms on the fast side (especially the up fast). Moreover, the junctions are on the slow lines’ side, e.g. from West Croydon at Selhurst, at Streatham North & South and at Balham. In other words, it is sensible to retain the present arrangement on the route towards Victoria.
On the other hand, the route towards London Bridge becomes paired by direction.
@tjw
“I still do not understand why we can’t dig a large hole at Stoat’s nest and put the Fast lines into the hole…”
I’ve set up a site trying to work out that as a proposal: http://hs4.info but I’ve not really got much further than maps. If you’d like to help out with fleshing the idea out, your comments (and indeed crayons) would be welcome.
With respect to a down fast to slow connection, were the new Up slow reversible then surely there would be a theoretical route if a connection were made to the Down Fast south of Selhurst and at the base of ramp to the down slow. I’m not sure whether there would be the paths to do it but with a parallel movement across the Up Slow to Fast there shouldn’t be a conflict.
I also note that they haven’t rearranged the tracks at Norwood Jn, as the previous proposal had. I presume this is as they are doing less with the London Bridge fast lines and so don’t have the room.
Walthamstow Writer,
Regarding the poor souls arriving at East Croydon
I wish the other platforms were also slightly to the north. Then you could extend the concourse to the north and lose a bit from the south. You could then build two decent island tram platforms (four tracks, four platform faces) with exit passenger routes to the station that actually lined up with the station entrances. This would provide so much more flexibility for tram working and give the opportunity for far more options in the future including timetabled cross-platform interchange.
If the concourse at East Croydon were bigger they could even put the Tramlink Information Centre there which would be a much more sensible place to put it than its current location.
Greg & timbeau, Of course you are right,
The more I read here, the more I think Dr Richards-Beeching got it right with his/her post at 9:24 yesterday morning
Re Silent Lurker,
“I also note that they haven’t rearranged the tracks at Norwood Jn, as the previous proposal had. I presume this is as they are doing less with the London Bridge fast lines and so don’t have the room.”
Doing what was previously proposed around Norwood Junction would probably be far more disruptive which is presumably why it has disappeared after detailed review.
@ngh
Thank you for taking the time to set out a possible transition plan. I will work through it over the next few days.
My immediate reaction is that travel volumes on Saturdays are still reasonable high and I think partial closures in many Saturdays could be a problem. I don’t know what what happen to Thameslink either if London Bridge to Croydon was not available – terminating all the trains from Bedford, Cambridge etc at Kings Cross would be infeasible.
I would agree though that if 6 platforms can be kept available on weekdays and 4 on Saturdays, with both Victoria and London Bridge generally available, then it is doable.
Theban: terminating anything from Bedford at Kings Cross would be infeasible, but that’s me being pedantic.
However terminating the entire TL service on the ECML at Kings Cross all weekend is very much feasible, it’s only 6 trains an hour.
Also terminating the entire weekend TL service on the MML at St Pancras or elsewhere in the core is very much feasible, it happens 4-8 times a year for engineering works already.
And of course, it won’t be the entire TL service, only the 10-12tph that go via London Bridge at the weekend post 2018.
Does the old map really show 7 lines under the bridge. The track alignment when it pops out on the north side suggests not. Isn’t the left hand track a siding that stops just below the bridge ?
Re Theban,
The current plan is appears potentially far less disruptive to via Norwood Junction Services and therefore potentially less disruptive overall…
Based on Strategies already used by NR:
Some fast VIC services could of course run via Norwood Junction & Crystal Palace on the weekends (if the Thameslink services weren’t diverted that way due to engineering work between Norwood Jn and London Bridge!). [this being the original fast VIC – Brighton Route!].
A limited number of Thameslinks could also run via Selhurst and Streatham (as a some do in the am peak at the moment). The key thing being to ensure if fewer services run thought they are all 12 car and turn back any shorter services (for example run Tattenham Corner shuttles etc. ?)
The phasing was a quick brain dump was there will be lots of smaller stages such as adding /removing points that can be done over the weekends as the work around London Bridge on the SE side in 2015 has shown.
Re Stuart,
Yes 7 under the bridge with one being the former headshunt (redundant in the post steam era)
I still think it’s a shame more hasn’t been though of to take advantage of Mondial House’s obsolete status (102 George St, Croydon, should you want to see what I’m going on about). If NR were to come to an arrangement with the owners then we could potentially get more tracks under that bridge by creating another span or two without having to touch the existing ones to any great extent, and building the replacement tower above the new railway (and to provide the sweetener, potentially in the air rights over the existing railway as well).
…so the fast line platforms could then remain as far south as the slow line platforms.
mr_jrt,
Maybe obsolescent but certainly not obsolete.
But would demolishing be necessary?
Surely if you were willing to rebuild George St bridge and deal with the necessary changes in road and pavement level you could get three tracks through the western portal of the bridges anyway? It certainly looks like you could already get three through the northern bridge. OK, you would have to have the platforms a little further north to spread the tracks out but you would probably want to do that anyway to reduce the slope of the ramp.
Look at the photos in the article carefully. I am not at all convinced demolishing Mondial House would be that beneficial as far as the railway is concerned. One could do with a bit of extra railway land but I suspect compensation payment required would far outweigh the operational benefit.
mr_jrt
I’m with PoP on this. I think there would be room for another line on the Western side without any demolition if there was a willingness to rework the bridge. My faint recollection is that there were concerns about the strength of the northern bridge when Tramlink was created (but it could be a false memory) and it is possible any tinkering with the bridge might force a rebuild.
Unless there is a willingness to add further tracks all the way to South Croydon, all it would achieve anyway is reducing the need to move platforms northwards.
@Pedantic of Purley, 29 September 2015 at 16:25.
“One could do with a bit of extra railway land but I suspect compensation payment required would far outweigh the operational benefit.”
I expect that if drastic surgery to George Street bridge and even surrounding buildings had been the only way to get the highly desirable eight platform layout then it might have to be done that way, but seeing as there is an alternative that gets the same operational bang for many fewer bucks, then that option is always going to win. The extra walking from the south concourse is not ideal but is equally not an unreasonable distance. Many stations have asymmetrical platform layouts like this, usually for very good historical reasons as they expanded. From a positive perspective this feature allows some additional high level circulating space constructed out above the tracks that could help handle the crowds heading for that new 1&2 island, certain to remain the most popular platform for northbound passengers with its vast majority of the fast Victoria and Thameslink services calling.
@PoP
I mentioned it as it’s proposed for demolition regardless, with a much taller tower built in its place (according to that article, anyway). It was more of a win-win opportunity presenting itself – the railway gains a small slither of more railway land, enabling a) the fast platforms to be further south, b) the trackwork to all be south of the bridge, c) less curvature to be required, reducing speed limits, d) perhaps even reinstatement of a through line or two made possible, or the space used for wider (safer) platforms, and e) revenue from the air-rights above the existing railway, should that be factored in.
The building owner gains a larger (and more practical) footprint to redevelop, increasing their yield substantially, all of which would front onto the George St. bridge over from the station, making it rather valuable, IMHO.
As for a major rebuild of the bridge – I’m not sure it would be required. If the levels dropped that significantly, I’m sure the new island platform could be built at a marginally lower level – you would just be making the ramps/steps et al. slightly longer. You pile down from the road to build the new abutments, then excavate the road surface and lay the new deck, then finally excavate underneath to make the new opening. I’ve seen this all done first hand as I worked opposite Hills Road in Cambridge when the bridge had a new opening cut in it for the MGB. 🙂
Re Theban,
Spot on on the Northern Bridge deck – the roof of the current station building is suspended from a separated structure to reduce the loading on the bridge as can be seen in the 3rd photo in the article Brick pier for the bridge deck and concrete base further right for the steel suspension roof structure.
mr_jrt,
I understood that but my understanding is that they would still be entitled to massive compensation if you stopped them building on existing land already allocated to that type of land use. I may be wrong on this however.
I also suspect they have some kind of outline planning permission already.
The best bet would be some kind of land swap but I suspect Network Rail is pretty limited as to what it can offer and probably not welcome if they have already drawn up the plans in detail.
Re WW,
“Can someone explain to a mere “dumbo” (i.e. me) why a third track is needed to allow a marginally more frequent service into West Croydon? Surely a single track should be capable of handling 10 or 12 tph even if people have to be “tipped out” from some and they need to reach a siding. ”
Because there are so many conflicts and restrictions elsewhere you need lots of flexibility in others (West Croydon) to make a viable timetable work especially if you don’t want delays to quickly escalate i.e. self recovery can take place at West Croydon before the next trip.
There are 5 routes that go through to West Croydon all of which have significant interactions to other services so there isn’t much flexibility
1. Overground
2. Southern LBG via Selhurst
3. Southern LBG via New Cross Gate
4. Southern VIC via Palace
5. Southern VIC via Selhurst
With some of 2-5 extending to Sutton and beyond
Silly question: West Croydon has three platforms at the moment, numbered 1, 3 & 4 on Carto Metro. In the Mark Townend diagram, there are also three platforms. One has just moved. What changes will actually be made at West Croydon? Is anything official?
Re Mark and WW,
Fast line vs slow line platform loading and usage i.e. will loads more passengers be congregating on the the new P1-4 at the south end?
The post 2018 plan (i.e. before this intervention) the plan is that 38tph approach East Croydon from the South of which and use the FAST lines North of East Croydon (20tph to LBG and 18tph to Vic) of these 38tph:
4tph pass as GatEx (fast platforms)
16tph will call at the fast platforms
18tph will call at the slow platforms
Post this intervention (44tph Fast north of East Croydon) of which:
4tph pass as GatEx (fast platforms but they now have the option of being able to stop without reducing capacity…)
20tph will call at the fast platforms [new P1-4] (+2tph LBG +2tph VIC; all via Quarry line)
20tph will call at the slow platforms [new P5-8] (+2tph VIC – Redhill etc.)
So not as skewed as it might appear at first!
Re IamHedgehog,
“What changes will actually be made at West Croydon?”
At the moment nothing.
NR suggest nothing needed due to their the demand modelling.
TfL want a big rebuild due to their demand modelling suggesting higher growth (which matches real observations) but mildly in shock at the cost of doing a big job on the station when starting to look at it in detail so might be looking for smaller solutions).
I can’t work out if the proposals will significantly simplify the pattern of which trains stop on which platforms for those going to intermediate stop destinations, but perhaps a precursor to this scheme should be to improve the information systems for passengers changing trains there, which I find very difficult to comprehend. It’s probably alright for people entering the station from outside, as I expect the display in the ticket hall gives a comprehensive overview. I recently transferred there from a down fast on the hunt for the next train to Merstham, however, and had much trouble finding out from the platform displays where or when it would arrive, even though I had taken the trouble to note the route terminus. Fortunately, a regular overheard my enquiry to a member of staff in a platform booth, and subsequently gave me more correct information that saved me from missing the next train and being late.
The perplexing situation is exacerbated by the length of the ramps and (current) remoteness of the stairs to the new overbridge, which heightens the angst at the thought of making a mistake when committing to a platform. Something like a touch screen or two stationed near the platform exits dedicated to the NR website’s Live Departure Boards in nice big large-print lettering would do. (Also likely to be more useful than the intermittent and selective nature of announcements during service disruptions).
Don’t get me started on passenger information at East Croydon. It is woeful and, what little is supplied, can be wrong.
@NickBXN
You could use your phone and bookmark
http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/ECR/MHM/To
Or use the free National Rail Android or iOS apps.
Network Rail are just never going to be able to provide usable display boards that list every single station you can get direct from East Croydon from. If you want a touch-screen do as most people do and use the one in your pocket!
If you’ve got a non-Smartphone you can use the text service, so you would text
ECR to MHM to 84950. Costs 25p.
@ Briantist
Not “most people” I suspect. Not everyone has one in their pocket though I suspect “most people” soon will. But some of us are partially sighted, some of us have arthritis and cannot do tasks that “most people” can do easily. Generalisations are understandable, but there is also a larger minority out there than your posting would suggest.
@Briantist (in Gigabit internet heaven) – 30 September 2015 at 06:17
Network Rail are just never going to be able to provide usable display boards that list every single station you can get direct from East Croydon from.
Any particular reason for their inability?
Clapham Junction have ‘next train to….’ indicators on the footbridge, as did [do?] London Bridge.
Not all of us carry a mobile telephone of any variety.
Re NickBXN,
What information at East Croydon…
If this goes ahead it should simplify platforming – especially in the down direction.
All the Down via Redhill Services should be probably be on P7/8 in your case.
Plenty of “next fastest services to” boards with carefully chosen destinations would greatly help reduce confusion.
East Croydon is a bad enough station these days as it is. Hordes of passengers not looking where they are going because they are staring at the screen of their mobile instead would be disastrous. Progress = not.
John U.K.
Clapham Junction has “next train to” boards and there are loads of stations on it but they never seem to have the ones I want.
East Croydon has the same. The only trouble is it is in the unpaid area of the ticket hall. If they could duplicate that on the footbridge in such a way that people looking at it wouldn’t block the flow then that could be useful.
Each platform on East Croydon also has two screens worth of “next fastest train to …” (displayed alternatively on one screen) on all platforms and in practice they cover a large portion of the stations people actually want.
I realize the diagrams are not to scale, but they still seem to show the Up Slow To Fast spur diverge from the up slow line a great deal more southerly than one would have expected. Of course it needs to be possible to have a train standing on the spur while waiting for space on the up fast line, but does it really have to be that long for that? Or is the ambition that trains using the spur will be able to vacate the up slow line at speed and only brake down later?
Relating to this dichotomy between finding where to go using public screens (or asking people in uniform) on the one hand, and your own phone (or asking passing strangers) on the other. Its about authenticity. I ought to be able to be confident that the first sources are correct, and up to date (as far as possible). Whereas something from a website : that’s probably authentic, if I know whose website it is (but carefully examining the url while walking upstairs could be a challenge). And as for a 25p text to a magic number, it might give a plausible platform number, but whether it’s the actual one my train is going from, the one it should usually go from, or the one it went from three timetables ago, how am I to know?
Henning Makholm says “… and only brake down later”. I guess you meant “slow down” or “brake”, rather than “break down”. The English language is full of pitfalls!
@Malcolm: Yes, sorry. Homophones don’t really register when one “speaks” a lanaguage primarily on the internet …
Henning,
You have my sympathy. It is extremely easy to do. Also “brake” is relatively modern word and old accident reports refer to “problems with the breaks” which is how it used to to be spelt. Network Rail still sometimes refers to track “slues” whereas everyone else refers to “slews”.
Can I just say thanks to ngh and Mark Townend for taking the time to explain the West Croydon situation. There are obviously more train movements than I thought. As for East Croydon I think I’ll just avoid the place for the next 20 years or so. 😉
….and “all tickets must be shewn”
Re Henning,
“Or is the ambition that trains using the spur will be able to vacate the up slow line at speed and only brake later?”
Exactly
I always find that the “Next Trains” boards are always on “Page 2 of 2” when I look at them…. Only displaying one page would be useful.
As for the next train to XXXXX boards, have you seen the size of that at London Bridge? I’m not sure if it actually even displays every possible destination… But it takes a long time to find the one you want!
The diagram shows a new bridge taking the up slow LBG line over the fast lines. I’m curious why the current ramp down from Cottage Junction can’t be reused. If the diamond crossing at Cottage Jn becomes a set of points instead, the existing track would connect exactly the locations it needs to.
Until relatively recently East Croydon used to have in the unpaid area of the booking hall, opposite the ticket kiosks, a large board with an alphabetical list of stations showing the time of the next train and the platform number. I found this indispensable and the “next train” indicators hardly make up for this for passengers not travelling to London, Brighton or Gatwick.
Furthermore, having an indicator above each platform entrance from the booking hall with only information about the trains from that platform requires passengers to look at them all in order to find the right one. Passengers entering the station from the taxi rank don’t even have this possibility as the indicators are not visible and one has to rely on the rather sparse information provided on the indicator by the taxi rank entrance.
It should be obligatory for those designing stations to visit Germany and see how it is done properly: a station is not just fare barriers and retail units.
Re Henning,
“The diagram shows a new bridge taking the up slow LBG line over the fast lines. I’m curious why the current ramp down from Cottage Junction can’t be reused. If the diamond crossing at Cottage Jn becomes a set of points instead, the existing track would connect exactly the locations it needs to.”
Probably 3 issues:
1. the points at Cottage Junction would probably be fairly low line speed compared to what they propose (30 vs 50mph) which makes a difference to potential throughput.
2. It makes it possible to stand a 12car train on the Up LBG – ECR slow just after Cottage Bridge (only 8 car at the moment)
3. It also makes it easier to have a train standing on the VIC up slow if needed (higher approach speed as previously discussed)
And possibly a 4th
4. I assumed that the existing Up Cottage Jn – Norwood Jn would be reused (cheapest option) it could be that the alignment of the 2 former lines just to the west are used (there are 2 spare track beds under the down Norwood Jn –> West Croydon flyover.
This route would have lower curvature and higher line speed but be more expensive. (This route is used by lots of trains that are stopping services south of East Croydon but run fast to LBG north of East Croydon, e.g. Uckfield, East Grinstead, Caterham, Tattenham Corner and via Redhills). Doing it this way may have eliminated the need to add the extra Up LBG track to Norwood Jn from the 2014 proposals. The slow /fast line split would be north west of the flyover to help the stand and approach speed issue.
Item 2. is probably the big one.
Re Henning,
PS:
The slow (east) side of East Croydon used to be mainly 8 car services (20m cars) especially when the current arrangement was built but there are now lots of 10car /12 car services and more to come (i.e. the 11.5car equivalent Uckfields (10x 23m). Which means there are lots of performance issues around fouling Cottage Bridge Jn with 10&12 car services at the moment…
[East Grinstead platforms lengthened in CP4 to 12car, 10 car Tattenham & Caterham services in the last 2 years and the 11.5 equivalent Uckfields next year, 12 car Reigates to come in a few years as well.]
Having changed trains at East Croydon twice on Tuesday 29 Sept 2015 (change from 60+ Oystercard to ticket on Key one way, opposite the other way), I can only say I’m hoping signage and circulation will be much better once the current works are finally finished.
@ngh: Ah, that makes sense. I had momentarily forgotten all about trains from West Croydon and therefore imagined each of the slow lines would belong exclusively to trains from East Croydon until Streatham or Sydenham, such that there’d be no routine need for any of them to need to stop right after Cottage Bridge.
As a regular user of Selhurst Junction crossovers I have to say that the planned layout looks rather impressive. I’ve spent many a minute sat on the slow lines just south of Selhurst working out how things may be improved, and not reached a solution of such elegance. Of course it’s not perfect, but linking a five track southern spine with two four track northern spines plus a depot plus a further two track southern spine was never going to be easy.
Pairing the Victoria lines by use north of Selhurst could work at Selhurst and Streatham Common North, but would be next to impossible for the Streatham Hill line at Balham. Changing to paired by use for Victoria could be done by the low level Stewart’s Lane and right hand running over Grosvenor Bridge, though that would rather mess up the residual southbound freight that currently comes onto the BML at Pouparts Junction.
@John.
Sadly, German station timetables don’t show all stops and nor do the platform indicators. I have scratched my head on that one many times. However, I do agree that train information displays at GB stations should be much more carefully planned, for passengers at all entrances and on both sides of the ticket gates. that’s especially important at major interchange stations, and I guess that East Croydon is one of those.
Re Henning,
The issue isn’t really the slows from West Croydon as they stay on the Up slow LBG all the way to London Bridge, it is that most of the services on the Up Slow LBG from East Croydon join the up fast LBG line just before going under the Down slow LBG – West Croydon viaduct* so 2 LBG services from East Croydon can leave at the same time from the East (slow) and West (fast) sides of the station both heading to the fast London Bridge line before Norwood Junction so one has to wait.
* The oldest railway flyover in the world
Re: TfL do minimum = NR do maximum. (love this BTW).
I stumbled upon a report this morning jointly commissioned by the Independent Transport Commission and the Office of Rail and Road snappily entitled: “On the Move: Exploring attitudes to road and rail travel in Britain”. I suspect some contributors will have already read it, but for the benefit of those who have not and are interested in this sort of thing the link is below.
It’s a dry affair, but the conclusions, if they prove to be correct, have far reaching implications for future rail usage and give weight to the idea that TfLs higher growth forecasts are more likely to be accurate. The bottom line is, for a myriad of reasons, we are likely to travel more in the future, and also use cars less.
http://www.theitc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ITC-ORR-Road-Rail-Attitudinal-Report-Final.pdf
Of particular relevance to London is the suggestion that migrants and the young are increasingly less car reliant. So any population increase in London, be it driven by birth rates or migration, will be an increase of people far more inclined to use public transport and it doesn’t follow than an x% increase in population will lead to an x% increase in public transport use, but a >x% rise.
So maybe ITC do minimum = TfL do maximum.
@ South Coast Ed
A truism in your posting. > My stepson and several of his ilk have had to sell their cars and use public transport for although living in the suburbs, they have faced such huge rent increases in the last 5 years, they can no longer afford suburban rents and run a car. They now earn substantially more than 5 years ago, but rents have apparently increased at a much faster rate. So cars exchanged for Oystercards.
@South Coast Ed – interesting. I often wonder if these higher forecasts are the result of two fairly recent factors – the increasingly high transaction costs of moving house(and all the other difficulties associated with moving), and the nature of employment, with people having both less job security and having to/being willing to look further afield for work. Traditional traffic generation models are calibrated on long term trends and wouldn’t pick this up. Put these things together and a lot more people spend a lot more time on the move. I am unaware of any recent studies of these issues,unfortunately, but anecdotal evidence (v dangerous!) from friends,colleagues and family reinforce the point strongly.
Isabel Dedring was asked at a presentation what was causing the increase in public transport and was it just a rise in population.
She replied they did no know for sure but were getting the feeling that it was roughly 50% population increase driven and 50% increase rising use of public transport (from a fixed size population).
Serveral reports looking at this have made the point that areas of high employment (West End, City, Canary Wharf, Heathrow etc.) have pretty much saturated roads so all increase is effectively going to have to be provided by public transport – and the bus can only make a limited contribution due to the saturated roads.
I think Graham H’s supposition has also caused a fundamental shift in how people look for employment and this massively increases the agglomeration effect. I suspect some people look at all places where they think they might be employed in future and position their home so that a decent proportion of those can be accessed from where they live (not necessarily by public transport and I suspect nowadays many people will happily switch from public transport to car and back again when appropriate).
Getting very much on topic I think this is highly relevant to the Brighton Main Line linking employment centres of London, Croydon, Gatwick and Brighton. It is also relevant for places off the Brighton Main Line. This is highly relevant to East Croydon because not only will it be the choke that will be holding up Brighton Main Line expansion up, it is also becoming a very popular place for people to buy flats near the station or anything that conveniently connects with the station (e.g. trams, suburban services). People don’t live around East Croydon because it is a fantastic place. They live there because they can get to places – and they are not looking for a parking space to come with their flat.
ngh has provided a minor update of the final diagram in the article in light of actually having seen a map of the currently proposed arrangements. The diagram in the article has been updated. The difference affects the route of the up slow to London Bridge but nothing fundamental has changed.
I must emphasis that the final proposed layout has still not been determined and the Network Rail team working on this are currently still evaluating options. In other words they are at GRIP2 not GRIP3.
Re PoP,
And Luppin Bridge (VIC – ECR slows) not being reused but that is the top of the long list of minor tweaks
Have indulged my more Crayonistic tendencies on Briantist’s http://.hs4.info site.
On this more restrained forum I will limit my comments to saying that I suspect as future passenger forecasts are clarified (upwards) it is inevitable that Network Rail will have to return to the options involving tunneling north from Purley (suggested in previous RUSs) sooner than the 2043 horizon of this study.
@Malcolm
“Relating to this dichotomy …Whereas something from a website : that’s probably authentic, if I know whose website it is (but carefully examining the url while walking upstairs could be a challenge). ”
It’s not “a website”, is is called Darwin[1] and it is the SAME system that provides the information on the displays in stations. You don’t seriously think that there is a special “East Croydon” program running somewhere???
It’s ONE system that provides APIs for the customer displays, for the nationalrail.co.uk site, the official Apps and other apps that use the feeds. There are two other provided systems Knowledgebase (KB) and Online Journey Planner (OJP).
I’m very surprised you don’t know this. Very.
You may recall the I recently wrote Overground Bot that uses the Darwin API to Tweet about late and cancelled Overground trains.
[1] http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/100296.aspx
@Briantist: thank you for reminding me about Darwin, the data feed. However, unless I am mistaken, the issue of trust is still there, as bemused passengers at East Croydon (or anywhere else) have to obtain their Darwin data through some front-end program (or website, as I referred to it). I think it is still possible, therefore, for it to be wrong, if the front-end program mangles or distorts it, or hides some important detail. But the likelihood of this may well be less than I implied.
On the increase in public transport use in London, evidence from my own extended family, who make much more use of cars than I do, is simply that driving in London is now so horrible and tedious, it’s actually preferable to go by rail. This was not the case a few years ago. I think the improved standards of maintenance is also a factor. It’s easy to forget just how much more crumby the stations, and how dirty the trains used to be not so long ago. Simply put: it’s become nicer to go by train.
@NickBXN. Interesting evidence. But surely some driving in London has been horrible and tedious since long before anyone here was born. And some journeys, say from one’s outer suburban home to a friend’s house 2 miles away, can still be very pleasantly achieved in a car (if there is car and qualified driver available, and parking and so forth). So it’s not an all-or-nothing thing. But over time the balance has shifted away from the car, and it is probably going to go on shifting.
Briantist,
I don’t know much about this side of things but according to the webpage you linked to:
” It is the only system in the UK to take feeds directly from every TOC customer information system (CIS)”
So the implication to me is that TOCs have their own CIS and by implication it may well be the case that when a TOC supplies an app it then goes straight to the TOC data. If true, then surely that data, closer to source, would be more reliable that the CIS which relies on Darwin data which is one step removed from the original TOC data?
Or is it a case that I just don’t understand properly?
Graham H, PoP (10:50), ngh
It may well be that transport / housing behaviour has changed. However, any such change will be overwhelmed by the error in basing the demand forecasts on the 2001 population census, rather than that of 2011. ngh’s post an 28 September 2015 at 13:59 refers.
It is difficult to over-emphasise the seriousness of this error. I do not know the cause of it but this is a matter of public interest. In any case, the Sussex Route Study should be withdrawn and republished based on the correct data, since the implications may be far-reaching and not intuitively deductible.
@ answer=42
Well said. The population of the coastal strip west of Brighton is set to rocket due to housebuilding targets set by central government. More rail capacity will be needed once the houses are built
answer=42
If you are talking about trains through East Croydon then fair point about the data being dwarfed by the alleged inaccuracy of the data regarding census. To be fair, I am fairly sure it was based on demand forecasts on the 2001 population census extrapolated for future years. Given we now have a more accurate, revised upward figure, it should be the 2011 population census figure extrapolated for future years. So a bad error or misjudgment but not as bad as you make out and probably not a good enough reason to withdraw the report.
However when it comes to passengers at East Croydon this is all pretty meaningless. With the tall buildings currently under construction and others planned, combined with the general demand for housing (or rather flatting) in Croydon and a new combined Westfield/Hammerson Shopping Centre having been approved, generalised population increases, regardless on what census they are based, are pretty irrelevant.
It does seem rather amazing that the growth allowed for by Network Rail appears to be substantially less than the growth TfL are allowing for the tram system.
‘I am fairly sure it was based on demand forecasts on the 2001 population census extrapolated for future years.‘
Yes, this is correct. The 2001-based forecast (it’s not drawing a straight line) is based on national population forecasts, which underestimated the 2011 outcome considerably, compared with the actual census data. Working on the 2001 basis, therefore, underestimates the subsequent growth in both London regional population and transport demand both for the present and the future.
So, applied to the specific case of East Croydon, using the 2001-based forecast tells you that some of the tall buildings you see under construction / planned will not be there.
Forecasting is difficult even if you have the right data.
@Castlebar 30 September 2015 at 09:25
“Not “most people” I suspect.”
Yes, very specifically “most people”. In Q1 2015[1]
Proportion of UK adults with a smartphone: 66%
(and Proportion of adults who personally own/use a mobile phone in the UK: 93% )
Number of 4G mobile subscriptions: 23.6 million (end of 2014).
[1] http://media.ofcom.org.uk/facts/
@Pedantic of Purley
“Or is it a case that I just don’t understand properly?”
Is it worth explaining here or would such a post be removed for being “off topic”?
@Malcolm
Not sure you understand how modern software works. Again, would explaining be off-topic?
Re Briantist PoP and Malcolm,
At East Croydon it could be as simple as the builders disconnecting the monitors (again! either deliberately or accidentally)
If I remember correctly, the Southern and SWT CIS are the only 2 that aren’t linked to Darwin but work is ongoing etc…
Which is also may be linked to “Journey check” not being available in the Southern area and hence TSGN not understanding the southern passenger requirement for cancellations, delays and short forms on twitter instead which they stopped doing when the Southern and Thameslink twitter teams merged. (It would probably have needed 2 extra staff tweeting full time on the average 2015 Southern day!)
Re. John “It should be obligatory for those designing stations to visit Germany and see how it is done properly.”
Just been to Frankfurt and tried to get from the city centre to the Airport. Only after buying a ticket encountered a barrier across the S-bahn entrance with a poster saying it was closed. Nothing to say how much was closed so made our way to the next stop via 2 U-bahn lines. S-bahn here also closed. Made our way to the main Hauptbaunhof via to more U-bahn lines. Followed the signs to the S-bahn platforms which were open but all the train indicators were blank. After hanging around a while we noticed people one by one speaking into a microphone to a remote information desk and then running up the stairs. Fortunately, this also worked in English, and we discovered that the S-bahn trains which should be running through underground were terminating in the surface platforms. Unlike underground, the surface platforms were announcing trains, but still using the underground platform numbers.
Or you could try Italy, where Mussolini made the trains run on time. Every time I go there the railways are on strike at weekends and nobody has a clue which trains are running.
@Briantist
We find that at busy times O2 data services are unreliable in Croydon so having a smart phone doesn’t mean that one can access online departure information. Many other stations are even worse for data reliability.
If the suggestion is that passengers rely on Smartphones for platform information, then there has to be free, very high capacity Wi-Fi otherwise there is no guarantee passengers will be able to access the information.
I think that I’ve got a bit further in finding out the source of the error. Network Rail’s Route Studies utilise, among other sources, its own October 2013 ‘London and South East Market Study’ (linkie below). This document makes a number of references to drawing data from the 2011 census. However, on page 26, we get the comment:
‘Similarly to the above, under all four scenarios the population of the London commuting catchment area was assumed to grow at a single rate (0.85 per cent per year) for the first 10 years considered. This rate is based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2010 sub-national population projections.’
Inevitably, these projections must have been drawn from the 2001 census. Now, it is legitimate to make a data cut-off date. I can’t find one in this document.
The detailed population data from the 2011 census were published by Office for National Statistics in December 2012 but the revised subnational population projections not until May 2014.
This suggests that Network Rail’s error was to keep on basing its Route Studies on the London and South-East market study without updating it for new core data. I see that there is now a Western Route Study which appears to make the same error. Garbage in, garbage out.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-and-plans/long-term-planning-process/market-studies/london-and-south-east/
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study/
ONS links for above contribution:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/snpp/sub-national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/stb-2012-based-snpp.html
Re Answer =42,
Exactly and it looks like no attempt is being made to refresh the Market Study so still GIGO. It looks like the imminent Anglia study will also be afflicted.
The likely hood of error was discussed in 2013 on LR but I can’t remember which thread – some of the comments were certainly from me!
Also later coverage in this article from JR:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/london-2050-tracks-future/
ngh
Thanks. I hope I haven’t gone over old territory.
Jonathan Roberts’s article suggests that the London Plan forecast are inevitably based on the 2001 census.
For what it is worth, I believe that there are reasons to be somewhat more pessimistic about long-term population growth than my comments so far would imply, especially if there is UK departure from the EU.
@Malcolm, 1 October 2015 at 14:28
“. . . over time the balance has shifted away from the car, and it is probably going to go on shifting.”
The Uber revolution and short term self-drive schemes may also persuade more and more to do those local outer-suburban journeys without their own car, which might just become habit forming and tip an increasing number into choosing not to run a personal vehicle at all. That in turn could make them even more dependant on public transport for those longer journeys where speed and dependability come into play.
answer=42 says “… reasons to be somewhat more pessimistic about long-term population growth than my comments so far would imply…” . Sorry, maybe it’s me, but I find this unclear. Do you mean that growth may be larger than your comments so far would imply, or smaller? Pessimistic implies worse, but I’m unclear in this connection whether worseness involves extra growth, or less growth!
Oops forgot interesting link:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/public-transit-should-be-ubers-new-best-friend/
“Public Transit Should Be Uber’s New Best Friend
“If Uber is worth its $50 billion valuation, it will have to do more than win over the market historically occupied by the taxi and limo industry — it will have to identify new types of customers.
“The biggest potential market is among people who own their own cars: The average American household spends around $8,500 on personal vehicles per year; multiply that by 125 million households, and you have a market worth in excess of $1 trillion per year. Persuading even a small fraction of households to give up their cars for Uber could be very lucrative for the company.
“But if Uber is to achieve its goal of becoming cost-competitive with car ownership, it may have an unlikely ally: public transit. A combination of (mostly) public transit along with some Uber rides can be affordable for a wider range of customers than Uber alone.”
Malcolm
Any forecast made on current data would be for rapid growth in population and transport demand, as discussed by many here. I’m suggesting that there might be factors that could slow this growth. one such would be EU-exit; there could be others.
When I was involved in demand forecasts for local water supplies, we learnt very early on that using actual planning consents and approved district plans was the only way to get close to realistic population forecasts. That was, of course, also based on census data at parish/ward level to give a baseline to start from. However, starting with the latest census is to be strongly recommended. If nothing else, it simplifies the calculations enormously! Forecasting transport usage must be a lot more complex as local employment numbers come into the equation as well, so starting with the right baseline is a way of avoiding a lot of pain. However, I was pleased to see recently that a local population forecast I made in the 1980s has turned out to be remarkably accurate.
@answer=42, et al:
I could, of course, be wildly wrong and this really is a cock-up of serious proportions, but it’s also quite possible that “2001” is just a typo for “2011”.
Always assume cock-up before conspiracy.
Re Anomnibus,
” it’s also quite possible that “2001” is just a typo for “2011”.”
Unfortunately we know it isn’t a typo
see my post for brief intro
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/east-croydon-revisited/#comment-255501
and the link to TfL’s 15 pages on the subject:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/consultation%20documents/sussex%20route%20study%20consultation%20responses/transport%20for%20london.pdf
This was also predicted several years ago in plenty of LR comments because the inevitable could be seen to happen before hand.
The market studies were badly timed in being finished just before new census data would have been available – time for a quick refresh?
It looks like the intention is for the market studies to have at 5 year* life span to match NR planning cycles (and hence the unfortunate timing) but it looks like they may need to be revised at 2.5 year intervals.
*NR may have been hoping for even more?
Malcolm: The Darwin site states, quite clearly, that
A programme to connect Darwin to CIS screens in every station in the UK was completed in 2015, meaning that if you use Darwin data in a digital product, the information shown in that product will be consistent with the information shown on departure and arrival board screens in almost every station across the country.
You may rest assured that any app or website you may use is, therefore, accurate (insofar as it will agree with on-platform indications, anyway)
@Alison W – “You may rest assured that any app .. you.. use is, therefore, accurate (insofar as it will agree with on-platform indications, anyway)”
Perhaps so, but at West Croydon on Friday, the platform indicators gave no indication that the 18:04 to London Bridge (standing in the bay platform with its doors open) was cancelled until just gone 18:30. However, that marvellous facility, called a human platform announcer, had already started telling us that some 10 minutes earlier!
Trains only show as cancelled when control enter it onto the database. The open train times maps are useful if they cover the area.
Not that they show trains that are cancelled either. They just won’t be on the map.
There seems to be a particular issue at some stations with the CIS and West Croydon is definitely one of them. If the train in the bay is out of service the display tends to show the next train out instead which causes no end of confusion. If its stopping pattern is changed the display rarely updates to reflect it.
Alison says “You may rest assured that any app or website you may use is, therefore, accurate (insofar as it will agree with on-platform indications, anyway)”
Thank you for that assurance. However, we should not forget that the apps and websites are in place to format the data, put it in a human-readable form, and, critically present only the data which the user requires. It is that selection element about which I am concerned (although of course even in formatting the data some inaccuracy or omission could creep in). But if my app misunderstands my requirements, then I am sunk. Remember, garbage in = garbage out, guaranteed. But the converse does not hold. Good stuff in may lead to good stuff out, but it may also (in the presence of coding errors or misunderstood requirements) lead to similar garbage out. Hence my concern.
@Malcolm:
Computers are just electronic descendants of clockwork automata* and have all the self-awareness of a hammer. They don’t ‘mangle’ data unless they’re explicitly programmed to do so. Any app that did this wouldn’t survive a day before being trashed by reviews pointing out its bug(s).
This isn’t to say that bugs cannot possibly happen, but the tools used to build such applications have come on in leaps and bounds over recent years, with much of the heavy lifting done for you. A programmer would have to be completely incompetent to get it that badly wrong.
(Computers do a lot of work on our railways too these days, so hopefully this tangent isn’t considered too off-topic.)
* Not quite as “distant” an ancestor as the narrator suggests: The wheel with the letters is a master program that relies on the tall stack of cams above it to do the actual work: an “A” in the master program will call the ‘subroutines’ in that cam stack and rely on it to write the letter ‘A’ onto the paper. Shift the stack’s cams around and the master program won’t know the difference: an “A” might result in a “K”, a movement of the paper, or a dip of the pen in the inkwell – i.e. a ‘bug’. Despite the speed and flexibility provided by modern electronics, computers today still operate along very similar principles.
@Anomnibus. Let’s agree to differ on whether I can rely on any app or website which I come across to be bug-free. I remain sceptical. We have probably between us said enough on this matter to be going on with for now.
Alison quotes a source as saying:
“A programme to connect Darwin to CIS screens in every station in the UK was completed in 2015”.
This actually is not true. South Eastern (when pressed) admits that all the customer information at local stations on my line is not, in fact, real time, but just extrapolated from real time information at the main stations at each end. So if anything happens to a train after it has left the main station (such as cows on the line – really happened) the ‘real time’ information becomes hopelessly unreliable.
@quinlet:
At the moment, I suspect that as long as the trains aren’t physically bumping into each other, South Eastern consider it a good day. It doesn’t make much sense to worry about expensive upgrades to their PIDs – given their age, it’s likely they’ll need to install new back-end IT infrastructure to interface them properly with Darwin – until the London Bridge work is coming to an end and the track and signalling are stable.
All IT equipment has a finite lifespan and depreciates in value each year, so companies tend to leave upgrades like this to the last possible moment in order to squeeze the most out of their investment. (Why install the latest upgrade right now, when its full benefits won’t be seen for another couple of years? The old system will work well enough until then. This is an accountancy thing.)
Quinlet’s information prompts me to say that providing accurate information to every rail passenger in the UK is actually a very big and complex task. In fact “big and complex” doesn’t really begin to describe it.
Any of the people working on an aspect of this task (of which I suspect there are many hundreds) must be laughing their socks off if they read some of the comments made here. I parody (emphatically no specific contributor here is targeted): “All you need is one big database, let’s call it Darwin, put all the data in there, and connect all the screens (and everyone’s smartphone) to it”. Life is just not as simple as that.
In spite of the glitches which do occur, I think that in broad-brush terms, UK passengers get very good passenger information. And, with (obviously) exceptions and setbacks, the trend is for it to get steadily better over time.
That is not a bug, then but garbage in, garbage out!
@quinlet:
Alison’s source and your evidence from Southeastern are not actually inconsistent. The data in Darwin will come from a variety of sources, of which one of the more common one train describer berths in signal boxes. This of course relies on the signal box having the appropriate berth detail, and this then being hooked up to Darwin.
For the stations between Ashford and Canterbury, it would appear that this data is not available to Darwin, and hence the real-time data has to be estimated. This can be seen at http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W28954/2015/10/03/advanced – at many of the stations there is no reported realtime data.
@ Anomnibus – I’d hope South Eastern are doing something because they’ve been granted a franchise extension for several years and they promised to vastly improve information to passengers as part of what they signed up to. It’s a bit poor if they were to do as you suggest as it would mean passengers would have far worse information displayed on station that the “I-Pad wielding” South Eastern Staff (another franchise commitment).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-to-boost-rail-services-in-london-and-the-south-east
@Malcolm bugs happen but I don’t see why you’d think apps were any more susceptible to them than platform information screens. Certainly I’ve never got wrong information from my app – whereas on several occasions I’ve seen a platform information screen displaying a “next train” from several hours ago, or similar failures.
A particular bug with CIS driven by the progress of trains is if the train is rerouted the system will either
– continue to show it as “on time” (as it was on time up to the point it was diverted), very annoying if you are waiting down the line beyond the divergence and, ten minutes after it’s due, it still shows as “on time”
– show as “delayed”, as happened to my train from the West Country this afternoon – an unexpected mystery tour via Melksham had the train shown as “delayed” at its next stop (Reading) until it actually turned up there, despite eth e fact that the signalling system presumably knew where it was and, at least after we passed Chippenham, how long it usually takes to get to Reading from where we were. Surprisingly, the detour only added 15 minutes to the journey.
@AndrewC, 3 October 2015 at 22:51
“For the stations between Ashford and Canterbury, it would appear that this data is not available to Darwin, and hence the real-time data has to be estimated. This can be seen at”
Following the 1994 Cowden incident, all the remaining small mechanical boxes in Kent (and elsewhere in NSE-land) were equipped with small computer based train describer systems. All of these were networked back to larger data consolidation centres that controlled the then new cab secure radio system (CSR) base stations, so channel switching could follow the trains automatically according to their head codes. This setup also made the TD data easily available to other information systems, so I’m surprised there is no automatic reporting from these locations. Perhaps there are technical problems in Kent currently. East Kent Resignalling is an ongoing major project in the area affecting many systems, and temporary loss of a feed could be a side effect.
@Mark Townend – I don’t think I explained my thoughts very well. What I should have said is that not all stations have their own signals or TD berths, and thus there is no way to determine the progress of the train through these stations from the state of the signalling alone.
@GTR Driver – “There seems to be a particular issue at some stations with the CIS and West Croydon is definitely one of them”. Quite. Until at least last year, the indicators on bay Platform 1 had a habit of displaying “Please Stand Clear The Next Train Does Not Stop At This Station” during the arrival of a terminating service. Fortunately, the signalling, drivers and buffer stops combined to prevent such an occurrence.
@AndrewC
I think CIS systems generally use time offsets from the last known TD step to estimate station arrival times. In continuous multiple aspect territory signals are often placed at platform ends, so passing them and stepping on the description can give a good record of actual departure time, but trains step into the platform berth perhaps a mile away (so at least a minute before arrival). I think you’re right some of those stations in Kent are in long 2-aspect sections. It appears RTT only records certain types of real-time updates where they’re simple to derive from the TD steps. That doesn’t mean that in real time the local TOC CIS wasn’t also using the same live TD data constantly to make emerging forecasts for passenger displays at other intermediate stations. Those estimates, however accurate, can’t be correlated with known departure TD steps so can’t be recorded as actual real time performance.
I suspect that the forecasting will improve as NR installs and commissions Train Management Systems as they will know a lot more than current signalling systems. However whilst this will cope with a train sent on a diversionary route…..the train is moving so estimating when it might get to subsequent stops is quite straightforward. What is much less straightforward and what customers really demand is information about onwards connection (which requires management intervention) that is usually not forthcoming excepting exceptional circumstances and when trains aren’t moving which requires a degree of clairvoyance!
Unrelated to the comment above, I have seen the screens which will be installed for Thameslink – at least on the central core and they look really good; a great improvement on what’s there now.
@ 100 and thirty – I apologise for the cynicism but let’s hope the supporting technology and skills of the signalling staff are as good as the whizzo new displays for Thameslink. You can have all the displays in the world but if the service is a nightmare to operate then it’s not the greatest help. They will help a bit but they won’t solve any underlying issues with what will be an ambitious service to get right day in, day out. I really hope Thameslink post 2018 does work well but it hardly covers itself in glory these days never mind with a far more complex set up. One incident last week had trains stuck for 90 mins or so and disruption lasting for hours.
lmm says “I don’t see why you’d think apps were any more susceptible to [bugs] than platform information screens”.
The software driving platform information screens is, I assume, acquired infrequently, by professionals, and subject to extensive testing. The software in a user-chosen website or app may be all those things, but not necessarily.
But if the general experience of users here is that the quality of information from websites and apps beats that on the screens, then, even though that might surprise me, I can’t argue with facts.
WW. I am with you regarding the difficulty of operating Thameslink, and I am absolutely certain in my mind that there is a fandamental disconnect between how the railways are run and what needs to happen to make this line in particular work as well as it can. This needs joined up thinking, planning and day to day operations with effective feedback loops. This is absent from today’s set up.
However, good signs will help. If, as we both expect, feeding trains into the core section is going to be challenging, then having good signs that state which train is in which order with a fixed display of calling points (not endless scrolling) will at least help customers when train appear out of order.
Thameslink will have to try and work out what mode of operation ends up minimising the impact of late trains – “work as booked” or “first come first served”. I think it is probably a step too far to consider the ultimate mode where trains come into the core “first come firsg served” but change identity within the core so that they “leave as booked”. This would really upset through passengers even if they didnt havecto cope with 8 and 12 car trains
@Mark T
“Following the 1994 Cowden incident, all the remaining small mechanical boxes in Kent (and elsewhere in NSE-land) were equipped with small computer based train describer systems.”
Not sure of the relevance of the Cowden accident to mechanical boxes, as the it happened on the East Sussex Line (albeit in Kent) which was controlled from a central ‘box at Oxted, and a train describer was not going to stop a SPAD anyway – the signalman was well aware of where the trains were and indeed called the emergency services before the collision actually happened.
Had there been a signalman at Ashurst (where the SPAD occurred that led to the collision) he might have been able to attract the errant crew’s attention.
@Malcolm:
You may well believe that. I couldn’t possibly comment.
Re. Diverted trains and CISs.
According to its documentation, Darwin receives its data from the individual TOCs’ own Customer Information Systems (CIS). Ergo, it can only be as good as those.
Given the scale of the work in and around London Bridge, across East Kent (re-signalling scheme), and elsewhere, Darwin will struggle to cope with situations where the data supplied simply isn’t sufficient to perform any meaningful processing.
For example, if a section of single-track running put in place over a long weekend to allow some work on the adjacent track, it might not be worth the effort of updating the TOC’s own CIS for just a couple of days if the CIS itself is an old installation and updating it is a resource-intensive process. It’s quite possible that just testing the changes could take longer than the changes themselves last.
Newer CIS software will be more flexible and powerful, but there are still stretches of the national railway network in the UK that use semaphore signals, so it’s not a given that every TOC Darwin relies on for information has the latest and greatest CIS installed.
@timbeau, 4 October 2015 at 15:05
“Not sure of the relevance of the Cowden accident to mechanical boxes, as the it happened on the East Sussex Line (albeit in Kent) which was controlled from a central ‘box at Oxted, and a train describer was not going to stop a SPAD [Signal Passed at Danger] anyway”
Cowden expedited the completion of the cab secure radio project [CSR], which was already underway in the south east at the time of the accident but was heavily delayed and phases had been deferred. There was a TD [Train Describer] already at Oxted panel that could be linked to CSR (but hadn’t yet) , but rollout on other lines needed the new small TDs which hadn’t been provided previously in most smaller mechanical boxes. So CSR required the TDs which in turn allowed the auto-reporting to management information systems, then modern station CIS [Customer Information] systems and eventually feeds to third party web services.
[Abbreviation information added by Malcolm – no reflection on Mark who was only continuing the alphabet soup started by others…]
On 100andthirty’s comment on the challenge of feeding trains (and information) into the Thameslink core, I’m reminded of an incident on the Munich S-Bahn (7 lines, no less, into a twin track tunnel with 2min. headway) during a service disruption: Although the indicators kept up to date with the information on late trains well enough, for the benefit of regulars used to a certain pattern, the announcer said “we apologise for the trains arriving in the wrong order”. An “issue” I don’t recall ever hearing apologies for back home…
Don’t get me started on SouthEastern’s iPads. They introduced Blackberries to much fanfare a few years ago. Information to travellers changed not one jot.
Apparently, during the direct award negotiation SouthEastern said they fancied introducing them, so they were written into the agreement.
At the last Dartford Joint Transportation Board meeting, a SouthEastern rep was present (to be fair, something the TOC had asked for !!). Much to my surprise, the chairman opened the floor to members of the public to ask questions once the councillors had finished. Hastily dreaming up something intelligent, I asked if all the necessary back-end IT work to properly support the already-rolled-out iPads had taken place. Unfortunately, he didn’t know the answer to that. However, anecdotal evidence says this.
Unfortunately there are many who are impressed by the use of the latest technology. What they don’t think about is what the technology is for, how information will reach it, and how it will be supported. My first thought when I heard about the iPad nonsense was that if suitable information about disruption exists (and from observation I am led to believe that it does not) then it will already be being disseminated by existing means. Furthermore on a DOO train such devices would have to be switched off as drivers are not allowed to consult anything other than the cab radio during a normal stop and are therefore of even less use. But iPad = modern, trendy, shiny so it must be good.
When I was working, I worked on introducing a computerised planning and recording system. After a false start, where we thought were working on a computer project, we relaunched the project as a people and process project. The aim was to deliver benefit to the operation by introducing something that was flexible to the needs of those using it. It was generally successful.
Later, when in a much more senior role, I was doing front line duties during a time of, let’s say, “interesting times”. Staff had been issued with Blackberrys which were no use at all underground, until a staff channel on the station wifi became available to non operational staff. Then we were able to get a feed from the central control room of stations open and services running. Having experienced using the output, I was able to speak directly to the people delivering the messages, and from such feedback, not just from me (!), the quality of jnformation improved. A similar process always needs to be applied to all such projects (qv Microsoft beta tests).
As others have said, just providing iPads without a clear vision of how they will be used is no good. In the circumstances mentioned above, I didn’t take the iPad I had available; it was too unwildly to carry around. Paper maps were much more useful.
However, for the Olymics, real thought had been given to suitable apps to help staff advise strangers about “stuff”. Even they couldn’t help if the info wasn’t there in the first place (such as where are the buses going whilst Park Lane was closed for road races).
Is this off topic? I don’t think so. As East Croydon is a major interchange station as well as somewhere for starting and ending the journey, quality information is vital and there is still a lot of work to do to understand customers’ needs. It is a great challenge as those needs are very individual
100andthity, I have appreciated your recent posts.
At East Croydon, and even more so in the Thameslink Core, platform space is likely to be a precious resource. It can be maximised by two simple things:
1. Remove the need for passengers to move around when waiting for their train
2. Ensure every passenger catches the first available train to their destination.
I think TfL are very much onboard for these. They seem to ensure on the more up to date lines that departure information is visible from most, if not all, parts of the platform. Destination is also shown very prominently on the fronts of trains. Passengers are also advised to “catch the first available train to x and change there if necessary.”. That gets people away from busy central stations as soon as possible.
National Rail just doesn’t seem to understand the role passenger information can play in keeping stations efficient, let alone the nuances of influencing behaviour. At East Croydon, having detailed departure information at just one or two points on the platform, even if the information is accurate and helpful (and by consensus it is probably not) because that means every interchange passenger will have to mill about and then congregate at these points on the platform. The correct approach was to design large size departure boards into the outside of cross-platform bridge structure so that the exterior of the bridge became one massive departure information screen visible from the length of the platform. An opportunity missed.
@Theban
“National Rail just doesn’t seem to understand the role passenger information can play in keeping stations efficient, let alone the nuances of influencing behaviour”
Crowded concourses and empty platforms seems to be the NR way. Why can they not display the platform for each train as soon as the previous train has left? Instead they wait until the train is entering the platform, resulting in a version of the Eton Wall game at the barriers as passengers rushing to catch the train meet people coming off the train.
Yes, occasionally there would need to be a platform alteration, but with the concourse much emptier, and proper announcements, that is not insuperable.
Theban
National Rail just doesn’t seem to understand the role passenger information can play in keeping stations efficient, let alone the nuances of influencing behaviour.
That is because it is (usually) NOT THEIR PROBLEM.
They are not running the trains, or managing most of the stations, after all, are they?
That is the responsibility of the TOC’s (again, usually) & therefore someone else’s problem.
The wonders of privatisation, as constituted here, strike again.
timbeau
Never mind the game of “guess which platform we are going to put an arriving/departing train in to?” … As played at Paddington by the control room ( manned by NR staff, of course )
It could be worse – Amersham and Rickmansworth appear to have no departure indicators on the platforms at all, presumably due to issues with the Met’s signalling system.
Real time trains is your friend. Other apps are available.
@ Mr Tingey @0933
Yes. SEP is a religion especially at the bus bandit TOCS. Perhaps TfL show the way on the Orange lines here: contractual commitment by the operator and inspection by the grantor on a regular basis with cash penalties for poor passenger information.
@Greg
“guess which platform we are going to put an arriving/departing train in to?” … As played at Paddington ”
……………..and many other termini. As I said, if they display the platform as soon as the previous train has left, the concourse will be much clearer, there won’t be the Eton Wall Game at the barriers as passengers rushing for the train meet passengers who have just arrived on it, and passengers will be distributed all along the train instead of all piling on to the carriage nearest the barrier (making it impossible for the latecomers – the halt and the lame, or simply those who were waiting near platform 19 when the train is finally called at platform 1 – to get on at all)
Even if they are only right 95% of the time, the platform alterations would be easy to manage if the concourse were clear.
The excuse I am always given is that “Control” don’t know whether the incoming train and/or crew will be fit for the outgoing service. In these days of mobile communications this is rubbish – if either the crew or the rolling stock are not fit to operate the next service that they are rostered for, that fact should be called in by the incoming crew as soon as it becomes apparent.
Timbeau, from personal experience I can assure you that crews do call in if they will not be available for the next working for whatever reason. The trouble is that crews are unable to use their mobiles when stuck on incoming services, and their only point of contact, ie the signaller, does not want to be bothered with such information, as they rightly are more concerned with safe regulation of trains than TOC’s rostering issues.
However in theory the location of every train, the identity of the crew, and the planned future movements of both is known. Unfortunately the information seems to be held in different systems and it does not appear to be anyone’s role to integrate them and make suitable contingencies, certainly not until an arriving crew is able to contact Control and start that process. As with much on the railway it does not seem to happen unless someone has been explicitly told to make it happen. Presumably the imminent(?)traffic management systems are designed to do just that.
As for unnecessary late advertisement of platforms, well I too am at a loss with that one. In the peaks I can understand the desire not to have huge crowds fighting in two directions, but when it’s quiet, I don’t get it at all.
Adding to the confusion at East Croydon are the number of possible platforms for a single destination and the last-minute delays added to incoming trains. Yesterday at around 0930 there were trains heading for London Bridge from platforms 2, 4 and 5. From ‘On Time’ they variously drifted to . . . . 2 mins . . three mins . . five mins late. Once on a platform, you no longer have access to the main display on the concourse so it means trying to read the displays on the other platforms (if not blocked by scaffolding) to judge which train will actually arrive first (or go back up and block the top of the ramp). As discussed above, the answer is more displays with more train information, ‘security’ notices on separate screens and NO MULTI-PAGES!
At Victoria, the crowding on the concourse due to last-minute platform information is made more fun by the ‘377 sprint’. Thus the 1403 to Sutton is finally shown at 1401 and 30 seconds as Platform 11 . . . . . . . Front Train, which means a sprint down five inert 377 carriages to reach the five that are actually going to depart in a rapidly diminishing number of seconds time.
@GTR Driver
I’m sure you’re right that crews report in with any problems, but that is the excuse I am always given for late advertisement.
“In the peaks I can understand the desire not to have huge crowds fighting in two directions”
But that would be avoided by having the train advertised well in advance, so that passengers are already on the platform when the train arrives. What you get at the moment is the platform finally coming up on the board only when the signal is cleared for the train to enter it – so given the size of the concourse and the impedence to progress onto the platform caused by the barrier line, only a few of the intending passengers have actually got onto the platform before the trains doors open to disgorge a horde of alighting passengers surging through the gateline in the other direction.
And with four minute turnrounds the norm on my line, that means very few people have time to walk the length of eight cars (let alone twelve!) to distribute themselves the length of the train, leading to gross overcrowding at the rear, and the less alert or fleet of foot unable to board at all.
The departures board at the 19-platform terminus I use can display 16 trains in full and a further 24 “subsequent departures”. And yet typically less than ten platforms are displayed at any given time.
@RayL
” ‘377 sprint’. Thus the 1403 to Sutton is finally shown at 1401 and 30 seconds as Platform 11 . . . . . . . Front Train”
Could be worse – it could be one of the mainline platforms (16-19) which are tucked round the corner – a long run from the departure screens even to the rear of such a train, let alone the front four (of twelve!)
eimbeau
Still not as bad as Padders – less than 3 minutes from the Lawn to platform 13.
Um
@Anonymous, 6.10.16 11.57
Unfortunately, for Amersham Real Time Trains can be inaccurate, showing a train as on time when it is not. Possibly extrapolation is in use as discussed above.
Of course Metropolitan trains do not feature at all – nor do they feature on the TFL site!
@ Jim S @2028 Real time trains is driven by TfL and Network Rail data, more here:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/about/sources
@Mods: source data also relevant to the Brighton line and @Malcolm’s concerns.
@Theban, Greg:
>National Rail just doesn’t seem to understand the role ….
That is because it is (usually) NOT THEIR PROBLEM
More fundamentally, that is because they hardly exist – National Rail, that is, which is just a brand name used by ATOC for their National Railway Enquiries organisation which employs a grand total of 25 staff. Everything else comes down the TOCs, except for the major stations run by Network rail – except that realtime running information has to come from the signalling system run by Network Rail, then be passed on to the passenger by the TOCs or ATOC.
Compare TfL which takes all responsibility for providing passenger information on and off the station, from signs to websites to apps – even though on the Overground much of that information will be sourced from Network Rail’s systems. Perhaps the answer would be to give TfL responsibility for all information, signage, train running information etc in the London area? They seem to be heading in that direction with suggestions (in the Overground article in the LR magazine) that we might see the emergence of “Overground” services that are not actually run by TfL but are somehow presented as part of the network.
Ian J
Typo by me…
I meant NETWORK Rail of course …. ( as you, perhaps might have seen ?? )
Ian J
The alternative, which some politicians prefer, is re-nationalisation. I am sure that is not a debate to have on LR but I don’t see TfL taking responsibility as a solution because that only works in London and whatever solution is adopted should be scalable nationally. Even in terms of BML, similar remarks can be made about Gatwick and Brighton (and that can only worsen) and the TfL solution wouldn’t work for them.
I see from “Ian Visits” weekly update on London’s transport news, that:
1: BML2 are releasing an updated version of their blurb
2: According to London Travelwatch, Waterloo is creaking with 108 million passengers in 1995 now up to well over double that … with implications for Clapham Jn etc, etc …..
Oh dear Greg. Haven’t the BML2 lobby group not given up yet? What part of “BCR less than 1” do they not understand?
@Castlebar: Didn’t you hear? George Osborne promised another study into BML2 in his budget announcement in March. The issue is by no means dead:
http://uckfieldnews.com/100k-budget-pledge-for-uckfield-lewes-rail-line/
Straphan:
Srictly speaking (according to the article linked) Lewes-Uckfield,rather than BML2…not necessarily the same thing at all….
….mind you,adding together all the money spent on “studies” could have laid a mile or two of track….
@ Straphan
(As Arundel ovine voters have already discovered re “promised” A27 trunk road improvements), there is a vast difference between pre-election “promises”, “definite promises” and “pledges”. Most seem worthless after the election, perhaps particularly when (then) Liberal seats were being targeted around Lewes. As this matter has been discussed before, I am certain any further discussion here will be suppressed.
@Castlebar: I have been reliably informed that the DfT are in the process of procuring consultants for this study. If that is indeed the case, then the study will almost certainly be carried out. What its outcomes will be is – of course – anybody’s guess and not up for discussion on this particular thread.
@Straphan
Why do you think BML2 is out of scope for this article? There are many of us hugely sceptical of NR passenger forecasts for BML and East Croydon in particular. Discussion of possible relief where an official study has been ordered seems hugely relevant here.
Kate,
If I could answer that. Part 10 will in fact be more appropriate but I can’t finalise that until about the end of the month as there is a small amount of additional info I am keen to get hold of.
OK, that makes sense.
Cheers
looking forward to parts 10 and 11
@Slugabed @Castlebar The study was reconfirmed and extended in the July Budget to specifically include BML2: “The government will extend the scope of the Lewes-Uckfield study to look at improving rail links between London and the south coast, including upgrades to existing routes, consideration of the Brighton Main Line corridor, and re-examination of the DfT’s feasibility study on BML2.”
Interested Observer, there are things I want to say but I will be a good girl and wait for Article 10 if that is the right place for comments about East Croydon relief which will need to cover the Haykerloo, BML2 and CR2 as all could have relevance.
Sorry if this has already been suggested (188 comments, phew…), but:
If you install a possibility for down Victoria fast trains to go to East Croydon down slow just north of the East Croydon platforms then any trains West Croydon – Selhurst (-Victoria) won’t be in conflict with the down fast -> down slow movements!
@Kste – I think it will be extremely unfortunate if the BML2 debate turns out to be a complete review of public transport south of the Thames, as implied by dragging in CR2 and the bakerloo extension. The magnitude of that undertaking will lead to nothing (but the consultants will enjoy the fees for a long time to come). History doesn’t teach us much but it does demonstrate that single solutions to different multiple problems almost always fail spectacularly. But I’d better hold my peace until the article.
MiaM,
If things really got desperate I reckon you could put a short single track tunnel in from the Down Fast Victoria between Selhurst and Thornton Heath in the vicinity of Elm Road to the perturbation sidings on the eastern side of the tracks near Cottage Junction. One possible advantage may be that it would go under Selhurst depot which reduce objections to the route and provide a worksite although it would create problems for the depot during construction.
Now this would be massively expensive (£100m for tunnel and then the cost of 2x portals) and I am not suggesting that it should be part of the East Croydon scheme or even that it should ever be built. What I am suggesting though is that if anyone claims that East Croydon will have a capacity problem after Windmill Bridge etc is sorted out (assuming it goes ahead) there are ways of dealing with it.
I don’t really want to get into any BML2 or other argument at this stage but what I am trying to say is that any proposal that starts “In order to solve the problem at East Croydon …” needs to consider the issue that if there are problems at East Croydon after 2025 then they are solvable – and probably at less cost than the alternatives proposed. And yes I am aware that BML2 is not just about avoiding the alleged problem at East Croydon and there are other issues to consider.
The issue is that there needs to be clarity on the 30 year future of East Croydon and BML before spending on the present work. If a tunnel might be necessary in future it is probably cheapest to build it now and avoid some of the flyover construction.
Re Kate,
1. There is reasonable capacity boost in 2018 after the London Bridge works have finished.
a) an extra 6tph into London Bridge via East Croydon in the am /pm peaks. (+42% tph)
b) an extra 2tph into Victoria via East Croydon in the am /pm peaks (+12% tph)
c) longer trains on average
d) fewer seats more standing space (this is the most efficient method by far but the least popular!)
The East Croydon and Windmill Bridge Junction works include this (and other capacity boosts) having happened as a starting assumption.
2. The biggest issue with demand forecasting producing low growth numbers won’t be on the BML itself (assuming East Croydon and Windmill Bridge Junction works go ahead) but will manifest itself far earlier on the suburban services where no major interventions are really proposed by NR (as opposed to TfL…) due to Thameslink and Windmill Bridge Junction improvements on the longer distance services.
3. The Windmill Bridge Junction and East Croydon Works have “high*” BCR and “medium*” value for money that will be far higher than any tunnelled scheme and will also be far far cheaper which will be especially important politically as lots of other schemes will be competing for cash on other routes (CR2 [Wessex/Anglia], Haykerloo [Kent], CR3 [Kent /LNW?]) so it will be difficult for any Sussex scheme to get look in for major cash so soon after Thameslink / London Bridge rebuild etc.
The aim is to add an extra 4tph to VIC and 2tph to LBG above the 2018 increases
So LBG fasts +8tph and Vic Fasts +6tph overall (so theoretically an extra 24.5k+ peak hour passengers at 12 car trains and Class 700 seating layout…)
4. The scheme has a cost advantage because resignalling needs to happen in the 2019-24 time-scale hence there is significant cost advantage to doing it at the same time as resignalling (any tunnelled scheme would not be completed to align with resignalling time scales which would add more cost to do more signalling changes later.)
*DfT/HMT definitions
ngh
With it helpfully set out in numbers, 25k/hr with no significant increase in capacity at West Croydon is barely enough for East Croydon alone and is going to be inadequate for BML unless more jobs can be created in Sussex to encourage reverse commuting. The trouble with that is that BML isn’t really fast enough to support reverse commuting and the decision to force more standing reduces the attractiveness of reverse commuting. If that is all this scheme can deliver it should be shelved and a proper long term scheme planned.
I am coming to the view that a high BCR is often the mark of a bad scheme, not a good one. All too often I think a high BCR suggests a scheme leaves unsatisfied demand and certainly leaves no spare capacity because leaving spare capacity would reduce that high BCR. At the most charitable, a high BCR is high risk because it assumes traffic forecasts would not exceed those modelled. I think we are seeing this with the Croydon scheme. If TfL forecasts were used then the planned Croydon scheme wouldn’t deal with that demand. There is enormous potential for new development in the West Croydon area over 10-30 years (probably very little in the next decade will happen) and I suspect the TfL forecast is itself far too small.
I also disagree with your assessment of the politics. If we take the measure of communities being well-served if within an hour of a London terminus then the present BML plans serve only a portion of West Sussex and do very little for the main centres in East Sussex. And the plan isn’t looking at how to expand the area served in under an hour.
I suggest looking at
http://www.commutermaps.co.uk
That shows journeys within a 1 hour radius of London by train. It shows that really the only part of the coast served properly is Brighton, whereas much longer distances to the north of London are reachable within the magic hour.
Some people think 40minutes is the magic limit because of time between home and station and station and office so look at the map on the site and see how skewed it is to the north of London.
I disagree with the plan because it doesn’t deliver enough capacity. But capacity is not the only measure. We need to be spreading the economic effect of London and spreading the area over which the increased housing demand falls. By those measures all the NR plans for Sussex are an abject failure.
NR should be saying the country does not need HS2 but instead needs several more HS1s spread around London, probably something like Gatwick, Basingstoke, Oxford, Cambridge as destinations but there are many alternatives which could be picked.
Rather than spending money on Windmill Junction and East Croydon there should be a new HS line from Gatwick to London with a stop at East Croydon and then on to somewhere north of London – personally I would favour Cambridge because East Anglia is almost as badly served as East and West Sussex.
Above all we need to more away from crude BCRs and, at an absolute minimum, demand that any scheme costing over say £10m must also consider how it increases the commuting radius of London.
* I mean look at the 40 minute map as well as the 60minute map
Incidentally, the politics of London-centric planning could be addressed like this….
Give councils two years to propose and outline cost schemes which increase the 30, 45 and 60 minute commuting radius of the major centres – say, London, Birmingham, Machester, Cardiff, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast.
Score them at
1 pt for each head of existing population brought within 30 minute commute when they weren’t before
2pts for each head of existing population brought within 45 minutes for the first time
3pts for each head of existing population brought within 60 minutes for the first time
Set a £10bn budget limit and undertake to fund the top four schemes with greatest points per £ spent anywhere in the country, subject to checking the costings. Then every part of the country would be treated fairly and we would end up with four schemes which delivered maximum economic impact.
ngh
CR3 is GCR – SE&CR other wise called “Route F”
CR2 is a modified form of “Route D”
Kate
,,, NR should be saying the country does not need HS2 but instead needs several more HS1s spread around London, probably something like Gatwick, Basingstoke, Oxford, Cambridge
Such as – MAIDSTONE – a county town with an utterly slow service.
But, no, not mini-HS1’s but simple, for certain values of “simple”, cough, track-&-signalling upgrades that allow so-called services on the “Southern” routes to actually exceed 70 mph from time to time, or even, shock, horror reach the enormous speed of 100 mph – it would make an enormous difference.
Whatever happened to Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Southampton, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Bradford, Coventry (all of which are about as big, if not bigger than,Cardiff)?
@Kate:
The reason north London commuters can live so much further out is simply because much of their railways’ original commuter services were handed over to the Tube network and disconnected from the main lines. E.g. part of the Central Line’s present route to Loughton originally connected with the main line out of Liverpool Street near Ilford. You’d struggle today to find any trace of the junction.
The Northern Line also has some bits of ex-railway line in it, as do the Metropolitan and the District lines.
This segregation never happened south of the river, which is why trains down there are so much slower. It also doesn’t help that Kent, Sussex, etc. are coastal counties: there’s no “inter-city” market as such, barring very, very few exceptions (e.g. Brighton & Hove), as the distances simply aren’t that great. Brighton is scarcely 60 miles away from London Bridge. That’s nothing for a modern express train. It certainly cannot justify a High Speed-grade railway on its own. (HS1 isn’t really a British railway, it’s merely the tail end of a much longer TGV line from Paris.)
The railway companies serving these coastal Home Counties focused far more on coverage, not speed. The LNER* could run lucrative inter-city services all the way from London to the tip of Scotland, as well as all those lovely coal trains coming the other way. The LBSCR** and their bitter rivals to the east didn’t have any of that. Only the LSWR*** had access to the south-west and southern Wales and thus had the luxury of running long-distance expresses to places like Bristol, Swansea and Truro.
Building for coverage meant sacrificing raw speed. The Brighton Main Line was an exception; its line speeds today are arguably limited more by the 3rd-rail technology it uses for electrification as the line itself is pretty straight. However, the old Uckfield line was always a secondary route.
Today’s South Eastern network uses tracks that were originally laid on cheap shingle rather than conventional ballast, often with even cheaper stations built out of wood. It wasn’t until the very early 20th Century that any of the lines serving Kent was able to handle speeds above 60 mph.
This is why the lines north of London are so much faster. The lines no longer have many urban commuter services to worry about, so their focus has been mainly on getting trains up the tracks through Cricklewood or Stevenage as quickly as possible.
* London & North Eastern Railway.
** London, Brighton & South Coast Railway.
*** London & South Western Railway.
For those who don’t want to read the long version of Anomnibus’s comment, as far as I can see, when you cut out the historical factors that are now irrelevant, it comes down to:
If the trains didn’t stop at the multitude of stations we have south of the river we could have a much faster service.
And Greg, I don’t think the 90mph Brighton Main Line restriction has anything to do with signalling and has everything to do with not running the trains at such a speed that you get problems with pickup from the 3rd rail shoes.
London-Brighton by train is something under 60 miles so even with a couple of stops this suggests that there is a lot of scope for reducing journey times without having to push top speed. In fact (wonderfully on topic) sorting out the mess at East Croydon would do wonders to reduce actual journey time – no tunnels involved.
@anomnibus – I suspect you mean GWR rather than LSWR; I do not believe that the LSWR attempted to enter the Bristol and Swansea express markets (not even with through carriages ).
Re Kate/Theban
I didn’t mention anything about West Croydon/ Suburban services! (The key thing is that there is a lot more to South London that doesn’t involve Croydon directly)
In 2018 the remaining 3 car 377/3 on longer distance services (along with a requisite number of 4 car 377s) will become available so more metro service (on not via Tulse Hill) will become 10car.
NR is also suggesting 12car on VIC metro service.
The completion of London Bridge works will also allow and extra 2/4tph (am/pm peak) suburban services to resume.
NR are also suggesting at adding 2tph LBG to Wimbledon.
The resignalling in CP6 will also allow other initiates like P7 at Norwood Jn that had sunk without trace to be done fairly easily and cheaply.
The key thing is that NR take on board real growth rates before ruling out the need to do anything in South London for South London. The main examples in this category being Tulse Hill platform extension to 10 (/12) car and Gloucester Road Jn – West Croydon capacity (3 track etc.)
Reverse commuting will require better connections from South London to East Croydon for example stopping more fast LBG services at Norwood Junction which won’t be popular with the users of those services.
Re PoP,
Agreed but as there isn’t a tube the longer distance rail services have to stop at the stations e.g. Clapham Jn to interchange to destinations other than Victoria and South London needs metro type services.
” In fact (wonderfully on topic) sorting out the mess at East Croydon would do wonders to reduce actual journey time – no tunnels involved.”
Particularly agreed on this point it should also make the timetable much more reliable overall. Reduced journey times also increase the number of passengers carried / hour which LR comments frequently seem to forget.
ngh,
“Reduced journey times also increase the number of passengers carried / hour which LR comments frequently seem to forget.”
I presume you mean from the perspective of train capacity per hour on a given route.
Basically if the train is faster it can complete more journeys in a given period. For one train it is insignificant but for a heavily used line (especially tube lines) it can be make a difference to the number of trains required. Conversely any slowdown (e.g. longer station times or adding a station stop) means that potentially you have to increase your fleet size.
Increasing speed means trains can be used more productively. With a 12-car train getting on for £20 million just for the initial capital cost of the train alone this can be a significant factor.
Even if one wanted to built a tunnel we know that realistically it couldn’t be done until after Crossrail 2 or 3 for various reasons – not just financial. In that intervening period the improvements at Windmill Bridge etc would probably pay for themselves anyway.
Greg Tingey
12 October 2015 at 09:24
“MAIDSTONE – a county town with an utterly slow service.
except at peak hour, when it is served by HS1 direct trains.
Re PoP,
“I presume you mean from the perspective of train capacity per hour on a given route. ”
And hence passengers /hour … [Higher flux in the physics/maths sense or flow rate in the water through a pipe sense]
“Even if one wanted to built a tunnel we know that realistically it couldn’t be done until after Crossrail 2 or 3 for various reasons – not just financial. In that intervening period the improvements at Windmill Bridge etc would probably pay for themselves anyway.”
Precisely. (and a tunnel also need to find a partner North of the Thames!)
Just standing back from the debate for a moment,there is the wider issue ( raised by Kate, although she takes it as a given) as to whether it is a Good Thing to encourage commuting. The question can be put alternatively in terms of do we wish to see future development as intensive or extensive. Both have (different) resource implications, but hitherto, the general consensus amongst academic planners (a not specially trustworthy band, alas) has been that the optimum size in terms of efficient use of resources for a settlement is around the 1-2m mark.More than that and the resources (sc infrastructure) to serve it becomes disproportionately expensive. Less than that, ditto.
Put more controversially, a London of 12m within the existing boundaries would probably cost less to service than a London of 10m + 2m dumped beyond the Green belt. [BTW, I like the idea of five or 6 mini-HS1s- that’s a 1000+ miles of tunnel at £100m a mile – to you, >100bn + some big bills for stations and stock. Let’s say £200bn, shall we? Shall I wrap it up for you now, or would you like it sent on?]
@Graham H
“I do not believe that the LSWR attempted to enter the Bristol and Swansea express markets.”
………….or Truro for that matter – the closest it got was Ruthern Bridge (near Bodmin), although it did run road coaches between Wadebridge and Newquay.
The LSWR got to both Bath and Burnham-on-Sea courtesy of the Somerset & Dorset Joint Line, but not Bristol
@timbeau -indeed – and none of these in any way an express service from London. Hark, I hear the sound of snipping approaching… so I’ll not divert us any further. [But I may spend a happy hour or two looking into the LSW carriage circuit diagrams].
ngh,
And hence passengers /hour … [Higher flux in the physics/maths sense or flow rate in the water through a pipe sense]
You have to be very careful here. It all depends on a match between the trains and the signalling. You can’t treat trains as flows. Two water particles travelling at high speed through a pipe can be touching each other. You can’t do that with trains travelling at high speed along a railway track. The faster they go the more you have to separate them. What you want to do to maximise line capacity is get them travelling at the same reasonable speed and fairly close together.
You can have fairly slow speeds and high line capacity. It happens on the Underground. It happens in the Borough Market area. If you had extremely long trams driven not that fast on line of sight along uninterrupted plain track you would probably have a higher line capacity than anything you could achieve on a railway.
Usually you are trading capacity for speed. It generally doesn’t matter though because there is usually something else that limits capacity (e.g. terminal capacity).
And to get back to topic, the arrangement north of East Croydon can have extremely high capacity even though the trains are running through junctions at relatively slow speed so long as the signalling is designed to be optimised for that speed.
What you really don’t want more than necessary is trains coming to a halt (unavoidable at platforms obviously) as that eats into capacity regardless of how well the signalling is optimised. Putting it bluntly, the capacity of a track with a stationary train on it is zero.
So one of the benefits of rearranging East Croydon and the junctions to the north of it and also optimising the signalling is that the traffic will flow unlike today which often degenerates into a start-stop situation. That will both improve capacity and reduce journey time.
@Graham H:
No, I really did mean the LSWR. You can catch a train from Waterloo to Cardiff direct. Granted, the last time I used it, it was a short, and rather noisy, diesel train, but it does the job. I’ve also used the line to get to Torquay. It’s actually the most direct route to the South West — not for nothing was the GWR nicknamed the “Great Way Round”!
(The route has long been treated as the GWR’s unloved sibling, which is a shame, but that’s not a reflection on the LSWR. The route from Salisbury to Exeter was still double track back then.)
Fast trains down out of London Bridge are often held for a few minutes at Windmill Bridge, but Victoria trains less so. Both can be held again waiting for a platform at East Croydon. A perfect junction might save 5 minutes but achieving half that saving in practice might be optimistic. That really doesn’t solve the problem which has others have said is about line speed down the BML.
However, apart from Victoria trains crossing from slow to fast there is rarely in my direct personal experience much delay to up services and I am sceptical how much, if at all, journey times towards London will be improved. Journey times might be worsened by increased numbers standing because more passengers will take longer to get on and off and if a train is full of standing passengers everything is slower.
Anomnibus. Since the LSWR ceased to operate trains in 1923, unless you are much older than I thought, you cannot use your personal experience to “prove” where LSWR trains went. Anyway, we’re getting a long way from East Croydon, whichever way round you get there…
Kate: I don’t think anyone has said the “the problem” is about line speed down the BML. The fact that trains do not exceed 90 mph has been mentioned, but there has been no demonstration that this limit is a significant cause of anything. 20 miles at 90mph takes 13 minutes, at 120mph it would be 10 minutes, and at 150 mph it would be 8 minutes.
The problem with being held at East Croydon has less to do with the punctuality of trains coming out of Victoria or London Bridge, and much more with the unrealistic dwell time set in the planning rules. At present peak-time trains are given a dwell time at East Croydon of 1 minute* in the timetable. Can anyone tell me which train on the fast lines actually manages this? This is – in my opinion – the primary cause of why trains are held at Windmill Bridge and outside East Croydon.
*Source: Network Rail 2015 Timetable Planning Rules – Sussex Route – applies to all stock except Class 442:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/Rules%20Of%20The%20Route/Viewable%20copy/TPRyearXX/sxXXp.pdf
The minimum peak dwell is to be increased to 1.5 minutes from December 2015 onwards. GTR is – of course – very reluctant to bring in other restrictions into the timetable (lower headways, longer junction margins, longer dwells at key stations) as that would mean they would have to remove trains out of the timetable that they are contracted by the DfT to operate. Network Rail will therefore keep trying to introduce more restrictions to – if anything – better reflect the true operation of the signalling system. GTR will fight these tooth and nail. The DfT – who is effectively the boss or client of both NR and GTR – will sit back, relax, and munch on their popcorn, sometimes making a nasty comment about one or the other’s performance.
Welcome to the GB railway, folks! We wish you a pleasant journey.
Re Malcolm,
Indeed the biggest differences in journey time reduction come from increasing the line speed or actual speed at slow speeds.
It is far better to look at Pace (time/distance) than speed (distance/time) when looking at potential journey time improvements.
I think the aim the ECR/Windmill Bridge Junction rebuild also includes line speed increases to typically 60mph on the fasts and 40mph on the slows including junctions (with the exception of Selhurst spur) which is a major improvement (i.e. less varying higher line speed especially at some junctions where the speeds for differnent directions could be very different e.g. 40 vs 15mph (currently at cottage jn?) combined with hopefully far less time at stand still the importance of which PoP has already highlighted.
Improved power supply for better acceleration or deceleration (regenerative braking) at stations will make far more difference than upping the line speed from 90 to 100mph.
A small example:
A 377 on AC will accelerate to 90mph in circa 96seconds covering about 2200m in the process and 377 on DC will accelerate to 90mph in circa 141seconds covering circa 3,400m hence the penalty for stops (or continual changes in speed) south of the river is much greater. [Siemens, Alstom and Hitachi units also have software controlled current draw limits]
Re Staphan,
“At present peak-time trains are given a dwell time at East Croydon of 1 minute* in the timetable. Can anyone tell me which train on the fast lines actually manages this? ”
Gatwick Express 😉
@Malcolm:
No, I’m not that old. I suppose “SWML” would have been a better choice of acronym; [More stuff about getting to the west snipped. Malcolm]
@Kate:
The problem with the BML is that fast services from Brighton have to share tracks with slow services. [More stuff contrasting north and south London snipped…we’ve heard it before]
@Anomnibus
SWT don’t go beyond Bristol and Exeter any more:
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/uploads/ptt20may2015.pdf
On the plus side Waterloo-Exeter is now a regular hourly clockface service all day. There is a new plan to introduce some additional trains running via Westbury to Yeovil Junction. They’ve not nearly enough trains to run that route at high frequency so it’s just going to be a few services at least in the beginning:
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/NewWestofEngland.aspx
Anyway I’ll stop talking about the wrong division before the shears appear . . .
@straphan
“The minimum peak dwell is to be increased to 1.5 minutes from December 2015 onwards.”
Well that’s progress surely and the very concept of the expansion scheme is meant to provide the additional capacity to allow yet longer more realistic dwells whilst still accommodating the current service and a more frequent future service.
@anomnibus
“It’s actually the most direct route to the South West — not for nothing was the GWR nicknamed the “Great Way Round”! ”
Do keep up! That epithet became out of date in 1906, when the Castle Cary cut-off lopped more than twenty miles off the distance from Paddington to Exeter, all but eliminating the LSWR’s advantage.
Using the subject of alternative routes to get back on topic, and the BML – the problem with any of the proposed alternative routes is that they are longer, were not built for such high speeds as the BML (modest though those are by standards north of the Thames), and do not serve the major traffic generators of Gatwick and Croydon. So who exactly are they going to attract? Are there really that many people in Oxted and Uckfield who want to go to Lewes and Brighton? Would Arundelites really prefer a service to Dorking and Sutton instead of to Crawley, Gatwick and Croydon?
The BML, as the first line to the coast, had the pick of the easiest route to engineer and also the major traffic centres (Gatwick was then far in the future but has skewed the advantage even more in favour of the BML). The johnny-come latelies (mainly built by the LBSCR to feed more traffic into their main line – and to stop the competition attracting it through Tonbridge or Guildford instead!) had to make do with what was left, and unless someone is planning to build something like a new airport elsewhere in Sussex there will never be as much demand for their services.
@timbeau – yes – I could never understand why BML2 has/had anything to do with Lewes and Uckfield – by all means re-open to Lewes (and Hailsham, too) as part of local improvements but given the shorter distances and high frequencies on the existing main line, trains taking the pretty way round are always going to be overtaken by their BML1 siblings by the time they reach London.
@Mark Townend: that isn’t really progress…
Network Rail have some serious issues in their Train Planning Rules across the country – in some places resignalling projects that took place 20-odd years ago have not been reflected in the rules. This is one of the major root causes of delays at present.
As far as I know, NR – or at least some timetable planners – have now started actually talking to signallers to ensure they understand how signalling works on their patch. However, any change to the rules has to be negotiated with and agreed by operators. Unfortunately, this does mean for some of them that – were they to have rules that properly reflect the capability of the signalling – they would not be able to run some services that they are contracted to operate as part of their franchise agreement. They will therefore continue to reject any changes outright because they know that if they accept them they might as well hand in the keys to the franchise altogether.
Hence on the one hand we have NR actually trying to do something right, and on the other hand we have both the franchisees and the DfT, neither of whom would like to reduce the train service for both financial and political reasons. They would much rather keep schtum, keep wagging the finger at NR, and wait until someone loosens up some purse strings at the Treasury to pour some concrete – and claim the Earth is indeed square until then.
@straphan
There are some rules that probably no one really understands at all properly except the signallers and the designers and testers of the signalling. An example at a place it behoves me not to reveal: A through platform had a clear overlap ahead of a starting signal, clear of a turnout to some sidings that had been out of use for many years. The signalling had been designed originally so a train could arrive in the platform simultaneously with another movement in or out of the sidings, which were being refurbished at the time for new rolling stock stabling. The long-disconnected routes were to be recommissioned in the interlocking, but it was discovered the overlap was a (very) few metres short of the new build requirement, which had to be applied because of the change was considered substantial enough. Hence a train arriving in the platform now had to be made to lock the siding connection and prevent movements in and out at the same time, as well as prevent a platform arrival whilst a siding movement was taking place. The problem could have been solved by a lower run in speed, actually only a small extension of an existing speed restriction which would have brought the clear overlap into line with the latest standard, but it was bureaucratically impossible to implement a speed limit change at that stage, even though it would have been practically meaningless to journey time at a station where all passenger services stopped. Yet it was clearly perfectly fine to introduce seemingly random new signalling restrictions. I can find no specific mention in the timetable planning rules for this year so either it remains one of those little-known esoteric restrictions just waiting to trip up an inexperienced planner, or operators have complained sufficiently to get the restriction removed again.
@Anomnibus.
Ahh – Waterloo trains west of Exeter; the Atlantic Coast Express and a slip coach fo Salisbury. Mid 50s as I recall; what nostalgia!
Graham H
Alternative routes are not about sending services from London Bridge or Victoria to Brighton the long way round. Rather BML can become more dedicated to Brighton services if places like Littlehampton, Worthing, Eastbourne, Hastings, East Grinstead and Uckfield can be served on alternative routes, probably with shuttle services from those destinations to the BML for the minority of passengers want Gatwick or Croydon rather than London.
Kate: that’s definitely a plausible desire. It does not fit very well, though, with the acronym (BML2) chosen by the most well-known group of such dissidents. From the BML2 website: “We have to accept that it is Brighton which always drives demand and growth.“
– and it’s only on the northern part of BML that the capacity would be relieved by sending trains from all the places you mentioned by a different route. To come back to this thread specifically,it is East Croydon that is the bottleneck. And the campaign to re-open from Lewes is irrelevant to that.
I commuted from East Croydon to Victoria 25 years ago or more. It was passengers getting off NB trains that created space for those boarding during the AM peak. Having occasionally travelled there in the peak since, the situation appears to have changed such that East Croydon is an even more important destination for passengers in the AM peak (and conversely departure point in the PM peak). Thus bypassing East Croydon is counter intuitive.
In Europe, cities the size of Croydon (eg Zurich S bahn) have invested in underground main line stations to supplement capacity. I’ll say no more on that as I would hate to be accused of getting out my wax crayons!
100andthirty,
Specific to Croydon:
– why go underground if a way has been found to increase capacity on the surface?
– Croydon has also supplemented activity. Exit the station and you will find a tram system centred on East Croydon.
– Croydon has the notorious road underpass which limits its options for underground lines to east-west. They are not necessary north-south because that is what the trains do.
@Graham H:
Put more controversially, a London of 12m within the existing boundaries would probably cost less to service than a London of 10m + 2m dumped beyond the Green belt.
Indeed, especially if you put the extra homes in places which are either a) in walking/cycle distance of (existing or future) major employment centres or b) in places which can be connected to spare transport capacity into those major employment centres.
There may not seem to be many of these about, but, say, the Old Kent Road is not far off the end of the Bakerloo which has spare capacity, and Old Oak Common has a couple of almost unused double track rail formations into the area.
PoP. I understand your logic only if the current railway plans are sufficient, which, given all the plans for development, and the dispute between NR and TfL oved the growth assumptions,
My point, which I accept wasn’t entirely clear, is that any proposal for BML2 or whatever it becomes, will be flawed if they miss Croydon especially if, as some have suggested, the current Brighton line serves, er, Brighton and BML 2 serves East Sussex
The cull on BML2 comments has begun. Please save for a later date and a more appropriate opportunity.
Good news. If you had continued to allow comments on a hypothetical BML2, yet refused to allow rational discussion on alternative routes to the west of East Croydon, avoiding it altogether, the whole thread would have been flawed. Can the cull please extend to Uckfield and Lewes too?
@Ian J – the logic of what you say must be right (and I believe underlies the various studies into agglomeration efficiencies), although there are two underlying problems which are probably specific to Britain (many of the urban agglomeration studies were undertaken in Germany) – local transport is,in many UK cities, fairly sparse (and in particular is often quite to very, bad at serving suburban centres of employment such as office parks and industrial estates). The other issue is that whereas in most European states, free-standing cities can be fairly widely spaced (which reinforces their self-containedness), in the crowded UK,the catchment areas (TWA) of many settlements overlap,making it more “attractive” to travel further afield. Chuck into the mix the problems of education, housing market and the nature of employment, and it becomes fiendishly difficult to move from our present patterns of movement to something more rational, alas. Free marketeers please note!
Castlebar,
You are using emotive language peppering you comment with terms like “rational” and “hypothetical”. It doesn’t help.
Our position on all this is clear. If projects have an impact on London they can be discussed in the appropriate place as far as it is relevant to London. We may relax this a bit but a detailed discussion of Volks Electric Railway for example probably wouldn’t qualify.
Secondly, we are not a bulletin board and there are loads of other places people can discuss their favourite schemes to their hearts content.
What I am hoping to do is finish an article on South Croydon which is more relevant to BML2. I may also do a separate on the line down to Uckfield because everyone seems so obsessed by this for some reason. But it will only cover the line as far as it has some relevance to London.
However apart from the necessity of work I do try and do other things so I can’t say when this will be though I am keen to do this as soon as possible.
Thanks gin PoP. That’s only fair. A separate article down to (as far as) Uckfield, and to South Croydon would be welcomed in due course if you have the time.
As far as “I may also do a separate on the line down to Uckfield because everyone seems so obsessed by this for some reason” is concerned, I can assure you that not “everyone” is obsessed. It just seems like it. Some (and an increasing number of) West Sussex County Councillors are bemused, as it seems “the other lot” have “got their retaliation in first”.
P.S. Really NOT a good idea for you to mention the Volks Railway on here as the Aldwych branch is still looking for something to link to. You will give people ideas and false hopes.
@Castlebar 🙂 Surely you meant the seagoing tramway – a natural candidate for linking to, say France and therefore an obvious crayonista target – rather than the VER? [That’s enough of that…]
PoP That was meant to start as “Thanks again”. Please correct. My auto-spellchecker-correcty-thingy seems to have a mind of its own on certain days.
We’d all assumed that when you said “gin” you meant what you said, even tho’ it’s a bit early in the day…
@PoP
Quite so – Croydon needs fixing, whether or not BML2 happens, and whether or not it feeds into East Croydon or bypasses it.
@castlebar
Volks/BML2/Aldwych (!)
Bringing this back on topic, I’m perplexed how an extra track can be fitted under Windmill Bridge. You can’t rebuild it, because Gloucester Road is in the way, and the tower block prevents the road being realigned. Can anyone provide any clues?
Interested Observer,
I can provide more than clues. The plan is to widen Windmill Bridge – or lengthen it depending on how you look at it. This implicitly means land take and therefore increases the likehood of a public inquiry.
Of course you can rebuild it! Gloucester Road can be dealt with. I suspect a bit of a diversion is all that is required.
More seriously, apparently, there is a planning application going through that, if approved, would either scupper Network Rail’s plans or at add to the expense of compulsory purchase.
Re PoP and IO,
The current Windmill Bridge (A232) consists of a 4 track span to the West and single track span to the East so if it was rebuilt as single span steel bridge similar to recently rebuilt Tennyson Road Bridge (the next road bridge to the North East) that would give you some of the extra width needed…
PoP
More seriously, apparently, there is a planning application going through that, if approved, would either scupper Network Rail’s plans or at add to the expense of compulsory purchase.
And this is Croydon, & Croydon council want the station rebuilt & improved & …
Have they not noticed this slight local difficulty?
Greg Tingey,
As always you are jumping to false conclusions.
The accurate version is as follows:
One of the council sub-committees invited a speaker from Network Rail to give them a presentation on the work proposed at East Croydon and Windmill Bridge. During the course of that meeting some of the committee members who were local councillors then said the equivalent of “hang on a moment, under this revised scheme you will need land that currently has a planning application outstanding” and expressed concern about what is going on. I can assure you Croydon council are very supportive of this scheme and will almost certainly do what is necessary and within their power to make it happen.
You seem to forget that councils are limited by their available actions in such circumstances. As the land is not actually safeguarded the council could not refuse the application on the grounds that it will needed for a proposed railway scheme. As it turns out they have refused it for different reasons.
Graham Feakins has done a search and we believe the application is this one.
Now Network Rail are aware of the issue (maybe they were before) I am sure they will “bear it in mind”.
Re that planning application – 3rd time residential development has been turned down on that site (hence it might have been well known to some councillors) and the developers are appealing with Croydon contesting the appeal because the proposed development apparently looks
uglydifferent “The development would not provide a high standard of design and layout, nor would it respect the visual character of the area…”It also appears some of the locals want a pavement on the railway side of Gloucester Road as it approaches the Bridge – possibly something for NR to bear in mind when potentially placating the locals in the future?
re Briantist 30th Sept. Just tried your link to LDB @ ECR. Response:
‘Due to an issue with industry data we are unable to show platform information for trains arriving and departing at this station. We are working with our industry partners to address this as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.’ !!
It’s been like that for a couple of weeks. You have to watch them on the open train times map instead. Or use real time trains. That seems to be working as well.
PoP
I was commenting on the information I had available – of course, if you have other extra information, as stated, that alters the case.
But don’t blame me …..
I’d best add that I have since discovered a much more significant planning application that was accepted in June this year directly to the south of the bridge and adjacent the railway on the west side:
http://tinyurl.com/o3v9snj
I’ve often speculated that developers might sometimes attempt to expedite approvals of schemes in close proximity to mooted major infrastructure projects (that aren’t yet safeguarded), even if they’re not the most attractive developments to pursue on their own business merits, and the developer is not even entirely committed to actually building them. A piece of urban land next to a railway with permission for umpteen flats could be worth far more than an abandoned ex-industrial site with no such permission, and the best scenario for the developer would be if they were compensated on compulsory purchase for the notional lost value of the unbuilt housing development rather than the old industrial shed, without even having to turn a spade themselves or worry about selling on the units. All for the price of some drawings and a planning application!
@ Mark T
I’m sure that happens
Mark T,
Yes I think that is what happens too. I don’t see what is wrong with this. All the developer is doing is establishing a fair price for the value of the land by means of the planning process.
There is, of course, the danger that the developer, for some reason, actually has no intention of building but, in reality, that makes no difference. He has established the value of the land and therefore the amount he should expect to be compensated. If the land isn’t compulsorily purchased it makes no difference – the land is worth what it is worth. Note this can actually work against the developer because if permission is refused it is then established that the land is not worth as much as is claimed.
To not give full compensation based on potential would lead to absurdities and perverse consequences such as unnecessarily building something to maximise compensation. The fact that a parcel of land is used for skip storage doesn’t change the fact that it is a potentially valuable site and a fair price must reflect this. If it could only be used as a skip storage site then that would be different.
Getting planning permission doesn’t really matter. What needs to be avoided is the developer actually building something that costs money to demolish as this (unlike straightforward compensation) is avoidable and a wasted expense not to mention the danger of protest from future home owners with a compulsory purchase order served on them.
Another reason for wanting to stop the development is that it would make things a whole lot more complicated. Instead of dealing with a developer or company who will look at the thing from a monetary point of view you will be dealing with multiple individuals who will not only want to highlight any monetary loss but also also want compensation for the disruption and loss of their home.
Remember any compensation paid will probably be relatively small compared to the cost of the scheme and that any land that isn’t permanently used can be sold off on completion of work to offset losses.
Mark T, Castlebar,
To clarify, when I say “getting planning permission doesn’t actually matter” it is a bit misleading. It is a bit like Schrodinger’s cat. You don’t know if they would have got planning permission or not but looking in the box (or in this case applying for planning permission) establishes certainty. Of course Network Rail would rather they didn’t get planning permission because that potentially increases the amount they have to pay but if it was inevitable that they would have got it anyway then the situation hasn’t really changed simply because they have applied for it and got it.
Hope that makes some kind of sense.
@ Pop& Mark T
The reason I said “I’m sure that happens” is because the F.D. of a publicly quoted, notionally famous house building company (who I have known for almost 40 years when he started off as accounts clerk) told me himself that it does happen. So not mere speculation nor suspicion and it’s perfectly legal.
If I could develop this planning permission issue a touch. The value of a plot where development might be possible, but planning permission has not been applied for is, presumably, the weighted average of its value if granted and its value if refused (weighted by an informed guess at the respective probabilities). So, totalling over lots of plots, applying for permission and gaining certainty will make no overall difference, as some plots will have it granted (and their value will go up) and some plots will have it refused (and their value will go down).
Castlebar,
Yes. Not only that, I would suggest it is the fairest way of establishing what the site is worth. Of course the planning department would argue, reasonably, that the planning system is being used for a use it was not intended but that is tough. If you are going to argue what you land is worth and go to the expense of appealing against a ruling if you think it is too low then, before you encounter large legal costs, you want some pretty solid evidence to base your case on. Planning permission plus three independent assessments of the value of the land based on that planning permission would go a long way to making your case.
“………..and some plots will have it refused (and their value will go down).”
No, wrong.
and some plots will have it refused (and it goes to appeal). Sometimes a brown envelope is passed. The latest rumours (without any foundation of course), concern the Bourne End – High Wycombe old GWR route.
If the appeal is refused, a couple of years pass by and an alternative proposal is submitted
Yes PoP
I feel certain that if my F.D. chum and you got together in the same room, “much would be revealed unto you”
Malcolm,
Exactly. So basically, if a developer were to apply solely to establish the plot’s worth, then he is basically taking a punt that he will get permission and that will put him in a more favourable situation than taking what is on offer or he expects to be on offer.
Alternatively it could be that he simply wants a better idea of much he can reasonably expect to get so that he can plan his finances for the future e.g. he is thinking of selling the company (or the land) if he can get a good price or wants to borrow money against it.
Planning tactics can be quite bizarre. In one case in Croydon a developer put an application in for a house he didn’t own, initially without the knowledge of the owner, and subsequently the owner was amongst those who objected to the development. It still got passed! Actually the developer put in two separate applications and was clearly intending to play off one owner against another to get one of them to sell at the lowest price.
I must emphasise that in the case of the two applications related to Windmill Bridge being discussed they were both submitted prior to Network Rail giving any suggestion of their enhanced scheme so in each case it was clearly not the intention to put in the planning application simply to try and get more compensation when the compulsory purchase order is issued – if they can’t come to an agreement to sell voluntarily.
Terms of reference for the promised Lewes – Uckfield / BML2 study (comments passim) have now been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/london-and-south-coast-rail-corridor-study-terms-of-reference
[Readers are reminded of the request to hold back any comment on BML2 and related matters until after the next article in this series is published. This message is allowed through because it is purely factual – and the moderators’ opinion of “purely factual” will be applied strictly. Malcolm]
Perhaps one might, nevertheless, be permitted a comment on the TOR [Terms of Reference]? [Sorry, but no. Malcolm]
Re. Planning Shenanigans…
I despair sometimes of the lunacy of planning laws like these. Planning permission should never be treated as a form of currency. If you haven’t actually built the thing, you shouldn’t get to charge taxpayers as if you had.
(The region’s chronic housing shortage isn’t helping either, but that’s another wildly off-topic rant.)
@Anomnibus: You may call it lunacy. I call it straightforward fairness. If anyone (even a demonised building corporation) is to be compulsorily deprived of their property, they should be compensated by the amount they could have sold it for. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
(Actually real people being actually turfed out of their real home should and do get some pennies more, but that’s by the way).
Anomnibus,
Methinks a read of Das Kapital is in order. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood.
The land is worth somewhere between £X and £Y due to its potential. What is on it is irrelevant. The problem is that although we can provide values for X and Y (lower and upper bound) they are vastly different and dependent on exactly what the potential of the land is. By establishing what would be permitted to be built on it we can get better values for X and Y and reduce the difference between them.
The land is already worth £Z – somewhere between £X and £Y. All that is being done is to establish as accurately as possible what £Z is.
If you start expecting people to be paid less than the land is worth when it is acquired then where do you stop. Do you do the same for schools, hospitals etc ? What would stop unscrupulous councils and others acquiring land at knock down prices and selling off their own surplus land at a profit?
In any case, if all this is done in advance of safeguarding how do you know the planning application isn’t for something the owner genuinely intends to build and in the event of not having the land compulsorily purchased will do so?
If you build on land, knowing or having good reason to believe that the land will be compulsorily purchased, then you probably won’t be compensated for the building without good reason as the courts and valuers will take the attitude that you should have done everything reasonable to mitigate your losses. That does not affect the value of the land though.
[I think this digression has gone about as far as it can. Further comments will be scrutinised to see if they are relevant to the article or “fair comment” in response to what is written. Otherwise they will be deleted. PoP]
Hoping to pass scrutiny….The problematic result of PoP’s correct analysis is when one comes across Public open land…be it a park,or whatever…owned by a public body and marked on the developmant plan as open land…no potential for Planning Permission,the land has “no value” which is why (for instance) new roads etc have a tendency to destroy open land more than anything else,in urban areas…
@Slugabed: That is not the only reason why new roads tend to be built on open land. It may well be a factor. Scrutiny suggests, however, that we try to wrap up this particular digression, and I think I agree with her.
Slugabed,
They realise that. Normally if you take away public open space you have to provide an equivalent amount elsewhere. This is usually not that hard to do since you buy private open land and transfer it to public use.
PoP
Yes indeed,
I could (but won’t) name an example in my neck of the woods….problem is,that this policy still (generally) results in a net loss of open land,as it would be most unlikely (though not impossible) that the “swapped” land would be cleared to provide the requisite replacement open space…
PoP
Indeed, & the first known example of that was … (?)
I think I can answer that:
Church End open space / playground in Walthamstow.
The new railway cutting went through open public ground & material amenity compensation was demanded. ( Though, of course, it wasn’t called that, then. )
As noted in Peter Kay’s article in October’s London Railway Record – I can’t remember whather I mentioned it in my articles on the ex-GER lines, but, being all of 200 metres from my house, I’ve known about it.
Slugabed
Unless, of course you are the Ministry of Roads (as it was then in fact, but not in name) back in the 70’s, trying to build the M25 – until they ran head-on into The Corporation – & lost.
Epping Forest got bigger …..
Going through open space where possible and avoiding demolition of particularly residential accommodation is usually going to be easier politically as well as technically but there must be some reasonable compensation for those most closely affected by noise, vibration etc, and for any loss of public amenity. On the other hand, an open space route may be more likely to encounter newts.
Still no platform data on the National Rail app. Shows why on-platform information is essential
@Kate
Use a better app. E.g. the Virgin Trains one has had platform information for years now.
BCR is a very good measure. You’re right that a high BCR scheme will probably build only what’s definitely needed, not a bunch of spare capacity for the future. But isn’t that what we should be doing? Given a limited supply of money, better to build two schemes that will be fully used immediately rather than one bigger scheme that risks a load of empty carriages?
On commuting times the reality is that capacity is cheaper and just as valuable. There’s no point in increasing the number of people nominally within x minutes of a CAZ if people who are already theoretically within that range can’t actually commute there because there’s no space for them on the trains.
The down Victoria fast to down slow switch doesn’t have to happen north of Selhurst with the new layout – it could happen south of East Croydon (with perhaps fewer conflicts).
Re Anon 1919
See my comment in the part 10 article here:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/study-sussex-part-10-south-croydon/#comment-257953
Being looked at Stoats Nest.
[Snipped for brevity and to read as a poem. LBM]
Coming home last night from E Croydon …
Services running late & cancelled all over the place.
This “was due to congestion”
Which explained nothing at all, actually & this was at 20.10 hrs.
Um.
Who was “at fault”? Southern? NR?
I have no idea.
I think it’s time, again, to go back to Gerry Feinnes:
His announcement at King’s Cross one day:
“We regret the delay to the Yorkshire Pullman, it was due to bad management”
Note I’ve summarised a number of issues below – hopefully the mod’s scissors won’t go into overdrive.
[Scissors not wielded this time, even though the comment is a bit long and a bit wide of the topic. The sheer interestingness (and neatly-summarisedness) of it has saved it. Malcolm]
Interesting to note that the issue of East Croydon’s works came up at the Transport Committee today when Mike Brown was being gently toasted. He certainly wasn’t grilled – I think the Cttee were giving him a gentle introduction. 😉 The questioning was whether TfL were confident the scheme would proceed on time and wouldn’t be affected by cuts / the reviews of Network Rail. He felt it would proceed OK and had been in discussion with Peter Hendy about preserving London area schemes. He did express a little concern that the Bow remodelling near Stratford and some freight enhancement projects might slip and he was worried that Crossrail’s performance may be affected and that NLL expansion may be impacted if freight can’t be taken off the route. Mike Brown had clearly been briefed about the EC remodelling and knew its importance.
Mike Brown also said that the anticipated “rail vision” document would likely emerge in Jan 2016 following work between DfT, City Hall and TfL. Was due this month but diary problems have stopped it. He also said that DfT had conceded that some franchises were “too big” and might be broken up (South Eastern?). When questioned by C Pidgeon about “rumours” that fast trains would be forced to stop at more stations and other trains would be turned short away from termini Mike Brown denied TfL were proposing this or that the “Rail Vision” would have this level of detail. I suspect though that we may have had a tiny glimpse into how TfL might want to “metro-ise” some bits of the network. Run extra short trips to bolster frequencies on branches up to a suitable node or interchange to the tube like Balham or Wimbledon. Just my guess. No word on taking over any franchises. MB did say the “Rail Vision” was not just about London but also covered the wider South East area.
Mike Brown also caused some excitement by appearing more sympathetic about tram extensions to Sutton etc. Seems he is keen provided a suitable development driven funding model can be put together. The Sutton extension is certainly being worked up with Sutton Council to see if a plausible proposal can be put together. More info due in March 2016. Apparently TfL have been lobbying for London area vehicle duty revenues to come to TfL as well as a share of stamp duty. Hardly a surprise when the Treasury come along and grab your revenue grant! Jennette Arnold AM was covering for an absent Labour member so she managed to get a couple of swipes in about shoddy consultation about the closure of Caledonian Road for lift works and about TfL’s attitude to the Barking Gospel Oak User Group. Mike Brown was rather more emollient than his predecessor about accepting feedback on the upcoming blockade and other issues.
There was a great deal of adverse comment about problems on the road network and with the never ending issue of more and more private hire licences. Ms Pidgeon tried to push MB on implementing the Committee’s proposals as quickly as possible. He was unwilling to force them through without a proper review and consideration of the consultation (currently under way but ending soon). Ms Pidgeon clearly wanted something going to the TfL Board prior to the Mayoral Election.
Now that we have a Part 13 which gives us the proposed Norwood Junction Layout does the layout shown here need tweaking to match?
It may be obvious to some people what would happen; but not to me.
RayK,
Well it doesn’t need tweaking.
It is in fact considerably out of date. We are a bit reluctant to be too speculative as, even when we do know Network Rail’s current thinking, things might still change. It is expected to be pretty much finalised this summer and we hope that Network Rail will publish something before too long.
I think it is either in the public domain or can be quite easily deduced that the proposal now involves seven tracks at the most constricting point which means northbound there will be very little conflict.
One of the two critical sites involving land they didn’t already own has been bought, the other is effectively safeguarded and Network Rail now has a close relationship with Croydon Council as regards to this project which means that we don’t expect an nasty surprises of planning permission being granted where it isn’t helpful to the project.
Network Rail are even said to have passive provision for a conflict free Victoria down fast to down slow route. We don’t know the details of this and we are told that it is believed that it will only be needed if their most extreme forecasts are exceeded.
Before ngh, Greg and al say it: so, knowing Network Rail’s cautious forecasting, it is quite likely they will need that extra route from the Vic down fast to the down slow then.
Re PoP,
That is only a minor change to the diagram (the 2 Up slow lines from ECR don’t merge and then split again! I suspect Ray is referring to the NE corner near Norwood Junction which will need a slightly more significant change but that can be seen in the part 7 drawings which assumed 3 up 3 down to Norwood Jn at that point in time – they hadn’t worked out what to do at Norwood Jn at the point though. 9 sorted issues that weren’t in 7 and back tracked on some others and then they realised they really did need to do almost everything in base scheme.
Just as well all the piling can be done at the same time as for the other viaducts then!
And that is presumably ignoring the “easy” (for certain values of easy) extra of inserting slow-to fast links where the lines cross over at the N end of the Quarry line, S of Stoat’s Nest, I assume?
Though they are “the wrong way around – fast-to-slows would be a little more difficult/expensive.
P.S. Will there an “A SiS” part 11, dealing with Stoat’s Nest?
We have already done part 13!
Yes we will do Stoat’s Nest though there might not be much to say that you want to hear. There is no urgency as there is no hot news or anything about to happen. It will be more of a case of get it out the way so we can discuss the complexities of Redhill – when I understand them.
PoP
Assuming anyone can understand all the many problem surrounding Redhill, that is?
@PoP, GT
There’s a discussion in the Rail UK forums about Redhill, its new platform and how that might fit into longer term aspirations:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128178
It surprises me a little that, if the plan is to demolish platforms 1/2 at East Croydon and rebuild them on a different footprint, that it’s been necessary to do so much refurbishment work on the existing platforms. The canopy’s been reclad*, and now the platform surface is being raised.
* As an aside: The original canopy cladding lasted about 85 years, from c.1905 to c.1990. The 1990 replacement seems to have been much less durable, since it lasted barely 25 years.
John Elliot,
The platform surface is only being raised using a temporary deck. This done because it is planned to rebuild the platform.
Not only are their benefits with not-quite-so-not-level access, this helps reduce dwell time at this very critical platform and so can be justified for even a relatively short lifetime. Remember the Southern/Thameslink timetable is practically built around platforms 1 and 2 at East Croydon.
Mark Townsend,
There’s a discussion in the Rail UK forums about Redhill, its new platform and how that might fit into longer term aspirations:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128178
But not exactly enlightening is it?
@PoP
Fair comment!
Can anyone explain why the platform indicators at Easts Croydon are capable of showing three trains arriving at the same time on the same platform? Tonight we had the 1934 Caterham plus 9′ the 1940 East Grinstead plus 3 and the 1944 Tatteham Corner on time.
The screens seem less keen on showing a train being on time 2 minutes after it is supposed to arrive, but is there not some kind of system which decides which train will get through Windmill Bridge first and describers it as being the first train and delays the others. Assume not, so three trains coming from three lines are all assumed to make it through the junction smoothly, and the potential conflict is not linked back to the describers
These things are not really based on time but distance. Hence how a train can spend ten minutes being two minutes away. Thus if all three trains are waiting for a path through the same junction, they will all be the same distance and therefore notional time away.
@timbeau – in fact, the timings are a standard estimation from the last beacon that the train passed. If the train is then delayed before it reaches the next beacon, it will seem to be “stuck” on a timing. (I understand the tube uses a similar system to TRUST also – hence the well known phenomenon of “Northern Line minutes”) .
This has consequences. In NSE days,we couldn’t figure out why trains were shown as arriving on time at LST when they were patently not doing so. A physical inspection showed the TRUST beacon for LST was not where it was supposed to be, but at least a block away from the station throat. It was duly moved (or rather,I suspect, several additional beacons were installed).
Just to clarify – there is no such thing as a TRUST beacon.
TRUST (the train running monitoring system that is the same now as it was when I started on the railway 24 years ago, and by the looks of it, much older still) takes feeds from one of only two sources: 1) the train describers that are provided in most signal boxes, 2) a signaller (or occasionally another member of staff) manually entering the time a train arrives, departs or passes a given monitoring point, determined by the Mark I eyeball.
On main lines, like the Brighton Main Line, every station and major junction will be a TRUST reporting point. However the system that drives the CIS screens is ‘dumb’ in that it can’t predict the future. All it does is take the last reported position of the train, its lateness at that point, add on the scheduled time from that point to the relevant station, and remove any recovery time. If a train is, say, fifth in a queue for some reason, but in a position that is normally only 5 minutes away, it will be expected to arrive at the station in 5 minutes time.
The systems can be manually overridden, but at times of major disruption (in Southern’s case, a whole summer), the people who can do this are busy in control providing wider information updates.
Re the Liverpool St example. This is called a ‘berthing offset error’. Where train describers are used (almost all main lines) the arrival / passing times at any given reporting point are calculated by the occupation of a certain track circuit* at that reporting point. In some cases the time between the track circuit(s) being occupied and actual arrival time can vary, and sometimes it is incorrect. In which case an offset is applied in the system such that the arrival time reported in the system is 38 seconds (or whatever) before / after track circuit XYZ is occupied. These offsets can be varied, and are audited regularly to make sure that the arrival times are the real arrival times. When Honourable Gentleman said that the TRUST beacon was moved, what he meant to say was that the berthing offset was altered.
* other train detection technologies are available.
And to clarify/question further, do signallers etc. really enter timings into TRUST or do they enter them into TOPS which is passes the information on (not sure if on request or by forwarding it)?
And it is not just train times that sometimes need to be manually overridden. All the evidence I have seen points to the number of coaches reported being what should be provided as indicated by the working timetable. They sometimes get amended but often a shortened (or lengthened) train is not reported. This is most noticeable (and unhelpful) on Marathon days with the runners crowding at one end of the platform only for a 10 car train to arrive.
Thank you all.
@SFD – thank you for the clarification – my signalling colleagues were obviously practising their (often usual) patronising assumption that simple non-technical language was best… Why would the planners be told about signalling detail etc etc?
BTW LST had other signalling oddities – there was one signal (forget which number) which wasn’t actually in the place shown on NR’s diagrams but about 20 m further into the country. This came to light when my team working on a RAILSYS model couldn’t actually make their computer version of the layout work. In the end someone had to travel several times to and fro looking carefully at the signal numbers on the post.
Train describers (TDs) ‘step’ the train ID from berth to berth when the train passes a signal, or a position about 180m beyond when the signal has only a single combined overlap and replacement joint. The running time for a stopping train from that stepping point to come to a stand at the next platform forms the berth offset time. In continuous 3 or 4 aspect main line signalling, the distance is often around a mile or less, so the offset time is fairly short and predictable. Sometimes though, often in very rural areas, distance from a signal to a platform can be many miles, and a number of separate stations can be within a single signal section. Arrival times for each station in that case must all be estimated from the initial TD step time, and as the offsets becomes ever longer, predicting actual arrival time using them alone becomes less reliable.
There was a meeting last night at Redhill – CILT Gatwick – and the Network Rail Project Sponsor Ben Craig revealed a new layout for the junctions north of Croydon which have changed from those in this article. However apparently the new layout appears to be largely finalised providing the money comes forward. Trust this is of interest.
krw,
From what I could see on the none too large screen, it didn’t seem that different from what we have published. I resisted the temptation to take a photo of the screen with my mobile phone but I noticed others didn’t.
I don’t think there was much new – more a change of emphasis through. Most interesting for me was that the top reason now for getting on with the job as soon as possible (rather than defer it) is that they are rapidly running out of potential worksites as Croydon’s high rise development continues. Basically they have got to get this in before surrounded by high rise buildings.
Also it was pleasing to see priority given to Gloucester Road junction which will make 6tph on London Overground to West Croydon possible. A pleasant change from the low priority this initially had. Speaking to Ben afterwards, Network Rail propose terminating some trains that currently terminate at West Croydon at Wallington (which fits in with TfL’s thinking). The speaker’s argument was that redeveloping West Croydon was complete overkill for what it achieves.
Actually Ben uses the word “overkill” quite a bit. It is very telling. Network Rail’s overkill is TfL’s “making provision for unidentified future growth”.
krw
Any readily-available sources for those, either now or in the near future?
Or even a good decsription of the proposed changes … ?
I admit to being one of the photographers and once I have recharged the phone can extract the picture. Best description I can give is a modification to the Up Slow to fast has been rerouted over rather than under plus tinkering with crossovers. I assume this is text only so not sure how I can post.
The revised proposals were discussed in the comments under the Norwood Junction article.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/study-sussex-part-13-norwood-junction/
We were previously careful to avoid showing the revised layout until NR had resolved purchasing the 2 key bits of land mentioned in comments above that are required for the 7 track solution (4 fast + 3 slow, increased from 2 slow) between East Croydon and Windmill Bridge Jn. The othe main difference is 6 track through Norwood Jn as covered in part 13.
krw,
Send the photo to me at pedantic [at] LondonReconnections.com. Replace [at] with @. Unless I have second thoughts I will put it on the website via a link. I might try to put the case to Ben that as we have a photo anyway so he might as well provide a proper version.
@ PoP it’s good to hear that Network Rail are providing for some London Overground services which currently terminate at West Croydon being extended to Wallington – but why Wallington? Assuming there is capacity it would make more sense for such services to continue on via Carshalton Beeches to terminate at Sutton. In a perfect world if the track from Sutton to Epsom Downs was double tracked (as is being currently proposed by TfL) such services could continue to terminate at Epsom Downs or are there capacity issues which would prevent such extensions of service?
I would have thought Chris Grayling would smile upon such improvements….
As I understood it last night the land take requirements remain extremely sensitive at the moment, although one parcel of land has been acquired the other has not.
I doubt if Chris Grayling has even the faintest idea of any proposals – Mark Carney does not, judging by the Q&A.
Wallington was mentioned by Ben Craig as the destination NR were planning – have to assume that they feel Sutton is well served by Thameslink?
Will send photo shortly.
krwRichardB,It has nothing to do with passenger convenience and providing a service and everything to do with finding somewhere to put in a turnback siding. Wallington is ideal because there was a former siding between the existing tracks that can be reinstated.
Wallington is also not far from West Croydon so the train should only have relatively few passengers on arrival at West Croydon. You don’t want lots of new passengers as these trains can already be full by Brockley or Honor Oak Park and you would merely be in the position of providing additional services for some and depriving others of any (that they could actually board).
Carto Metro merely shows a bit of a wiggle in the relevant place but other rail atlases show the former siding.
@ PoP thanks for the clarification. It makes a lot of sense.
Low res version of latest diagram is here thanks to krw. Note title is “Croydon indicative future layout” so don’t take it as definitive.
For those who understand these things, we are at GRIP2 not GRIP3.
Also the presentation indicated significant spend in 2018, which is CP5. Given NR cannot electrify to Bristol or Oxford in CP5 I wonder if this project can really commence before CP6 is nailed down – so delaying commencement by 1 – 2 years?
Also order of work has been changed with the intention to sort Gloucester Road Junction first.
Those of us who lived and commuted through the rebuild of Windmill Bridge Junction in the early 80’s and were promised it would never need doing again are glad we are now retired!
@krw
“the Up Slow to fast has been rerouted over rather than under”
Judging by the symbols for bridges/viaducts in that diagram, it looks to me as if the Up S to F still goes under the Dn Fast. A slight problem with the diagram is that they haven’t shaded out one or other of the lines there as they have done at all the other crossing points to indicate which line goes over the other one.
I agree that it is not 100% clear and I could well be wrong. The speaker made reference to four levels and also pointed at the line indicated as one which had been changed as he spoke (in answer to a question which was how the slide was left on display at the end of the lecture). The LR plans above follow the geography and this is a diagram – if PoP can get more from NR it would be nice.
Re KRW,
I’ll do new one tonight.
US to UF is under because of the gradients
[US = Up Slow, UF = Up Fast. LBM]
ngh has indeed provided an updated diagram.
Rather than just provide a link to it, I have added a short postscript to the article including the updated diagram.
Is the grade separation of Gloucester Rd Junction new? That strikes me as potentially costly adding a few bridges under the Victoria lines so I assume that the benefits are quite large.
Sitting on stopped trains as I do all to frequently around Windmill Bridge and Selhurst these grade separations are very necessary. As far as Gloucester Road is concerned I do see trains stopped on down slow to West Croydon, and, even worse, it’s an eight car spur so a ten car train there blocks movements across Selhurst Junction.
As a separate comment are there any plans for grade separation at Balham or Streatham North (other than the grand plan to route trains via Streatham when leaving Streatham Common?)
AoC. No.
Re Oliver,
Yes, but has been under consideration for number of years with TfL especially pushing for it as it is effectively needed as pre requisite for 6tph LO services to West Croydon.
The key point is that doing it means there is standing room for 12 car trains round the entire complex without blocking the junctions behind and you reduce conflicting moves so more trains move thought the complex at nearer line speed. If you don’t do Gloucester Road there would be a number of 10car* non blocking standing sections and also more conflicting moves that cause standing to be used.
* increased from the current 8 car in those places by previously included features (inc. the location that referenced by AoC).
4 of the 6 “bridges” required for the grade separation would be new viaducts any way so very little /no cost difference on those 4 (Down Fast, Up Slow to Fast Up Slow, Down Slow), so only 2 extra Bridges need under Up Fast and Selhurst Spur.
Oliver,
To add to the above and as previously mentioned, Gloucester Road separation will be part or all of phase 1 – there might be phase 0 preparatory phase.
My guess is that this is partly for TfL’s aspiration for 24tph on the East London Line (6tph) per branch. This is pencilled in for around 2023 and would require ATO over some of the route.
The New Cross branch shouldn’t be problem other than in timetabling, Crystal Palace is doable today supposedly, Clapham Junction would need work done but there could be temporary expedients (e.g. run each alternative train to Battersea Park). That would leave the West Croydon branch as the sticking point. Alternative trains to West Croydon could reverse at Wallington in a siding on reinstated track.
Doing Gloucester Road first also has the advantage of providing some easement early on in the scheme and makes it less problematic to introduce further 12-car trains.
@ngh & PoP
That all makes sense. I think the 12 car point was raised by the earlier article but not achieved with grade separation, I just had assumed (erroneously it seems) that grade separation was a significantly larger cost.
I’m going to be fascinated to see how they phase this work and keep some form of railway operating. Are you planning on covering that as and when the plans are revealed?
Oliver,
We will no doubt provide some updates if the scheme goes ahead. But there are a lot of other things to write about and even I would argue that there is more to railways and life than what goes on in Croydon.
Re Pedant of Purley at 11.33
” (e.g. run each alternative train to Battersea Park)”
I presume you mean “run alternate trains to Battersea Park”.
Yours, Another Pedant
Re: Guano
It’s Pedantic of Purley, not Pedant of Purley.
Yours, A third pedant.
@AoC, PoP
AoC: TfL has developed options for grade-separating Balham on the slow lines, but they are unlikely to see the light of day.
PoP: Another good reason for progressing Gloucester Road grade-separation early is because money is likely to be in short supply and this is an affordable first bite – and removes a lot of unwanted delay grief, too, while being timely for ELL ATO. Some of the second bite at Windmill Bridge might have to wait until CP7, given all the CP5 works and cost hikes now arriving at the CP6 ‘platform’.
Around 5 years ago I lived in a house on Gloucester Rd., backing on to the junction, and I do wonder how they are going to fit all the extra tracks in.
Taking the OS 1947 map overlaid over the bing satellite image see here,
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=18&lat=51.3812&lon=-0.0906&layers=173&b=2
you can just the transparency of the map to see the underway.
To get the extra 3 tracks through will mean quite a bit of land take and major works to the road layout. I presume that the 3 tracks will have to go on the west side, so meaning the demolition of the workshop / shed in Lambert’s place. But this will also mean the complete rebuilding of the road bridge which while not in the best of condition will result in a lengthy closure of an important road into Croydon (St Jame’s Road) and the removal of the ramp up to the bridge of Gloucester road.
I also see that they will have to take at least the gardens and some of the houses on Gloucester road…
As for the new rail bridges further north… hmm do I really see a place with 3 tracks one on top of each other…
TJ,
If it were easy, it would have already been done. There must, inevitably, be quite a bit of land take which is the key to the scheme otherwise the scheme won’t work. However, this junction is so important it is necessary to do this.
Network Rail are very reluctant to discuss exactly what is needed as they don’t want to unduly alarm people at this stage. Remember the final scheme has not even been selected let alone financed or about to be built. At this stage it is probably more about making sure any redevelopment in the next few years is compatible with Network Rail’s plans.
What is pretty much public knowledge is:
1) One site (I think the one which used to be a small site for skip firm) has already been purchased by Network Rail as the owner was planning to built flats on it – and had planning permission to do so.
2) Another site has planning permission for redevelopment but Network Rail and the owner are in active discussions.
3) Croydon council are very aware of the scheme and discussion is underway between Network Rail and the council as to the nature of the replacement Windmill Bridge. This will almost certainly be a holistic scheme for the bridge and surrounding area.
4) As a last resort there will inevitably be the possibility of compulsory purchase but probably all of the land only has low value buildings on it (a relative term in this day and age). One suspects, much of it would have been redeveloped anyway in the next few years.
I would add that the properties that you mention as likely to lose their gardens are old and very close to the railway already so if that is the case then maybe replacement with something modern and much better insulated for sound would not be such a bad thing. Remember the cost of a terrace house is peanuts in the scheme of things as far as Network Rail is concerned.
Re Milton C,
As there are about 10 bites overall one hopes the first 7 or so are in CP5! The whole area needs resignalling (including the move from Three Bridges Signalling Centres to the new Three Bridges ROC (to join the the section north to LBG and some /all of the section to VIC at that point) and conveniently the chancellor appears from Wednesday lunchtime to be looking for suitable
victimsopportunities to test ETCS / TMS / C-DAS with ringfenced fund of £450m for the last year of CP5 and the first 3 years of CP6 which is perfectly times for the rebuild. [Some GWML /ECML work also presumably thrown in too?].The Thameslink core TMS /C-DAS can then be extended to improve max performance of that system.
The SoS doesn’t appear to be looking at TfL preferred take over methodologies kindly at the moment, the variety where TfL jointly specify services and cough up extra (as per Southern 2009) in addition to having DfT controlled fare increases seems to be on the cards based on what has been coming out of DfT in the last 48 hours.
Re TJ,
Windmill Bridge (aka Lower Addiscombe /St James Road) as previously discussed in more detail in Sussex part 7 too:
There are actually 5 tracks underneath, the bridge is 2 span with 4 tracks and then a single track span over the Eastern most track. Replacing the bridge with single span one gets you to 6 tracks within the existing alignment which is the reason for the default 6 track proposals. Therefore 1 extra track to the west isn’t that massive an addition on top of that.
@PoP
The New Cross branch shouldn’t be problem other than in timetabling, Crystal Palace is doable today supposedly, Clapham Junction would need work done but there could be temporary expedients (e.g. run each alternative train to Battersea Park). That would leave the West Croydon branch as the sticking point. Alternative trains to West Croydon could reverse at Wallington in a siding on reinstated track.
No-one has mentioned the ability (or lack thereof) to cater for 6 extra tph north of the river on the ELL. Can Dalston Junction and Highbury & Islington cope with this extra traffic?
The supposed acceleration chimes with rumours I have heard of contractors being sounded out for ECI work following on from major railway contracts and commissionings in 2017
@Ian
I’m fairly sure that Dalston and Highbury can deal with turning 12tph each – that’s a train every 5 mins per terminating platform – which i think should be feasible; given that by definition, to run this sort of intensity of service along the sydenham corridor will wipe out most of the Southern slow services that would otherwise interfere with it, so it would be fairly reliable.
I think the problem is less with the ELL terminus stations, but more about the main interchange points. Chucking hoards of people onto existing fast line services at New Cross Gate (for LBG), the Jubilee at Canada Water, DLR at Shadwell, and the City/District/Crossrail at Whitechapel – just so they can get to the places the existing direct services take them – seems a tiny bit counterproductive to me.
Update from NR – dated earlier this week.
Croydon/Windmill rebuild gets finance release …. Or so it seems.
GRIP 5 or 6 ?
@Greg. GRIP 3.
SFD
Oh dear, still that far back ….?
Re: GT – the announcement only refers to funding for the design stages. No idea when the actual physical implementation might occur.
@ Greg – the danger of reading a “hyped” press release in the way the authors intended even though the reality is something much, much less. Clearly you have to do the design work and do it well but having “enthused” quotes from Croydon area stakeholders really is going totally over the top for design work. Get excited when Mr Grayling actually releases the hundreds of millions to actually do the physical work and then the stakeholders can go crazy when the work is actually finished.
WW
I was under the impression that a lot of the basic design work had already been done & that what was needed ( for track & signalling) was really detailed studies & “tweaking” …
Though I did understand that a lot of the other structures, such as station buildings, etc did need a lot more work.
Re: WW – as I read it , the press release isn’t very hyped at all. The first line massively plays down the potential for actually increasing tph, and only one of the quotes is actually allowed to refer to it!
I understand it’s something like
GRIP1 Output definition – what do we want done?
GRIP2 Feasibility – what can be done?
GRIP3 Option selection – what should be done?
GRIP4 Single option development – what will be done?
GRIP5 Detailed design – how will it be done?
GRIP6 Construction test and commission – Do it
GRIP7 Scheme hand back – It’s done
GRIP8 Project close out – ….and dusted
@Timbeau:
GRIP8: Start planning next project to fix: All the stuff we didn’t do but should have & stuff we should have done in GRIP3, or 4 but didn’t do because we were too slow…
A case in point: Thameslink 2000 (sort of). I look forward to seeing the law of unintended consequences in action between now and 2021….
@SH(LR) – Thameslink 2000 has now become “Railplan 2020” under the GTR banner. Their new website is here:
https://www.railplan2020.com/
Greg Tingey,
GRIP 3 is probably further down the road than you think. With some spectacular cost overruns in recent years it makes sense for a government to approve one stage at a time until you are past the point of no return. There is a huge danger that enthusiasm sees good governance get forgotten. I have heard that GWR electrification was effectively signed off after GRIP 2 such was the determination to go ahead.
In the case of Croydon the track options may have been investigated thoroughly and the signalling is pretty much a no brainer since resignalling is necessary anyway but I believe there is a lot still to decide when it comes to station options and in particular what over-station development will take place.
I also suspect there needs to be a lot more done on the costings element. The construction cost of the infrastructure is probably the easiest bit to estimate. The addition rail costs due to weekend closures and only four platforms in use at East Croydon may be harder to assess.
GRIP 3 is the big one. At the end of that you have a final option – you know what you’re doing, how you’re doing it, and you have started all the consents processes, (and concluded some), and done some public consultation. You will also have done the most important part of all big Civils jobs – the ground investigations. (As has been commented here before, you pay for ground investigations whether you do them or not).
GRIP 4 takes this final option and turns the detailed feasibility into a design that can be properly priced. GRIP 5 is detailed design, ie down to the last millimetre for every component.
But, for a job of this size, GRIP 3 is a big commitment. Government will have thought about this long and hard – they might throw a few hundred thousand quid at something they are not serious about, but not the amount money that will be committed here. Something will have to go very wrong* for it not to go further.
* could be something outside the industry of course.
There should really be a GRIP9 where, after three years of project closeout, the expectations of the ability of the project to have solved whatever the original problem was are compared to what the the project actually achieved/cost/saved, in terms of time/money/use/economic boost.
Ben, that’s GRIP 8. It’s a check on Benefits Realisation.
SFD/Pop & others
Thanks – I get “3” & “5” confused I must admit …
Given that this is going to be as big as Reading, it’s got to be done right – but it also has to be done, doesn’t it?
@ Greg – and Reading is probably a very good example to quote as the rebuild seems to have gone to plan, to budget and to time. Yes it was hugely disruptive at times but the scale of the job was huge. I still can’t quite believe the scale of change that has gone on there. Let’s hope the eventual rejigging of East Croydon proceeds as well as Reading did.
Re WW,
Reading – Under Budget and most work ahead of time and work brought forwards where possible..
Key factors – WSP for easy constructability of modular a design concept* and Bechtel involved in project management and workload planning from a very early point.
*Expect to Euston HS2 costs fall when they conjure up a decent modular concept there too. (After Arup were replaced)
GRIP 3.5 ? [ Warning – paywall … may open in “incognito window” ]
Or is this “new” re-reporting, in spite of the “exclusive” headline?
AIUI, this would make “pulling back” or cancelling harder, even with the example of Watford – also this one has a much better cost/benefit ratio, does it not?
I think this just means GRIP 3. I repeat stuff I mentioned a few comments earlier.
The track layout is probably pretty much determined. Probably Atkins need to do detailed design work to tie down costs and notionally chose the final option.
Don’t forget there are still a lot of options for the station design and they need to be costed.
As Sad Fad Dad said earlier, you don’t even progress this far unless there is a serious desire to continue with the project. All costs at this stage are sunk costs with nothing to show for them.
Assuming that there are no unexpected unpleasant surprises this helps the investment case if you look at future expected benefits (ignoring sunk costs) against future costs. As, we are told, design work and planning is going to be a huge factor in the cost of East Croydon and the Selhurst triangle, the further they get with the project the sumbstantially more attractive it looks to keep going and finish it.
I see they have launched a consultation at Network Rail improvements for East Croydon and Selhurst and it looks more ambitious than what has been mooted before. Three new tracks and two new platforms.. To do it they are looking to shuffle the Station Northwards and rebuild it, in to what looks like Reading 2.0.
https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/unblocking-the-croydon-bottleneck-phase-2/consult_view/
Looks like it will have to be revisited again. I will attempt to find out more than made available in consultation papers an write an update.
Oh dear! This thread is nearly five years old, but there is a most interesting post from Network Rail from early June 2020:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/sussex/upgrading-the-brighton-main-line/unblocking-the-croydon-bottleneck/
The modelling work is to die for!
It is unclear to me why they would go to the trouble of sliding the bridge from its temporary position into the position of the existing bridge, rather than making its “temporary” position the permanant one and adding new s-bends at each end. It seems to be me that this would be easier, faster, and likely cheaper too, it would also mean the time the road has to be closed for would be far shorter as it’s only the addition of the s-bend that would require this.
The only downside I can see to this would be the permamnt loss of some playground space, but this could be reovered from the site of the current bridge after the project has finished (with a connection under the new bridge to avoid street crossings)
Since this all seems pretty obvious to me I must be missing something?
DJL,
I will fully answer this when I get the next article finished and published but an obvious initial question is ‘how do you maintain pedestrian and cycle access if you don’t do it this way?’
POP, I think you perhaps misunderstood me.
Accoding to this page https://carsconsultation.com/lower-addiscombe-road-windmill-bridge/
they will
> Build the new bridge offline south of, and next to, the existing structure, reducing disruption to road users
> Close the existing bridge to traffic and pedestrians
> Use the new bridge in its temporary location as a pedestrian and cycle route while the existing bridge is closed
> Demolish the existing bridge and slide the new bridge into its permanent position.
What I’m suggesting is that they could:
The new bridge south of, and next to, the existing structure could be the permanant bridge, in its permanant location.
The old bridge can then be demolished but the new bridge not moved, and instead the road layout adjusted slightly.
There would then be an s-bend in the road at both ends of the new bridge to re-align it with the existing roads.
DJL,
My apologies, I did not read your comment carefully enough. My suspicion is that rising S-bends in new road construction will not go down too well and probably breaches modern design standards.
As it happens, I was actually writing up about the bridge reconstruction when I read your comment. As I have a couple of questions anyway about the current reconstruction plan that I want to put to the project team I’ll try and get a definitive answer on this question too.
If you are going to make 8 platforms at East Croydon why can’t you make the platforms from west to east dedicated to up fast Victoria, down fast Victoria, Up fast London bridge, Down Fast London Bridge, up slow Victoria, down slow Victoria, up slow London Bridge, down slow London Bridge by moving the pointwork south of the station. eg. combine the fast lines and the slow lines south of the station and avoid all the reversible sections. By doing that you can then pair up the underpasses and flyovers north of the station and just bring the up London Bridge slow across into platform 7 via a flyover maybe cutting costs?
It would mean the fast Victoria lines only have to cross the West Croydon lines in one small flyover. The London Bridge fast lines are already paired then one for the down Wallington and one for the down Victoria slow line most of which already exists.