With consultation on the much-discussed improvements at East Croydon and Windmill Bridge opened on November 5th 2018, we look briefly at what is being put forward and take the opportunity to provide an update for the plans for the Brighton Main Line.
The much-needed proposed improvements to the Brighton Main Line centre on activity in the East Croydon area. These proposals have been extensively covered in this series of articles. This activity has been noticeable as a very much behind-the-scenes affair. It is true it has captured the interest of our readers, MPs, affected councils and rail users groups but there has been very little involvement of either the passengers or the more general public – until now.
A minor irritation has been that the proposed scheme hasn’t really had an official name, which has led to a long-winded description of what the scheme is when referring to it. This has been rectified in this consultation.
CARS for a better train service
There are those of us who are grateful to Network Rail that the scheme finally has a proper title and, better still, a true acronym. Slightly confusingly, ARS is a fairly standard Network Rail abbreviation and, in this context, it generally means ‘Area Resignalling Scheme’. It is then prefixed by the geographical location of the scheme in question. We have already had WARS (the Waterloo Area Resignalling Scheme). CARS in this case actually stands for Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme. It seems particularly unfortunate that a railway renewal scheme distinctly sounds as if it is something to do with road transport.
For better or for worse, the Croydon scheme will now be known as CARS. It is a capacity improvement scheme of which resignalling is a necessary part but remodelling describes it much better.
The consultation
The first thing to say about this consultation is – don’t get excited by it. This consultation, the first of what is expected to be a series of them, is about implementing disruptive infrastructure improvements in the Croydon area in order to provide long term benefits to rail services. The consultation is presenting the broad outline plan in order for feedback to be provided. Expect the usual notorious graphics from Network Rail explaining concepts and symbolising nothing that can be accurately related to what will actually happen on the ground.
Topics relevant to this particular consultation include the impact of the scheme, in broad terms, on the local community with issues such as over-platform development at East Croydon, station entrances and changes to the local road system. It is not about track layout, exactly what extra services will be provided or specific details of the proposed replacement for East Croydon station.
The consultation could really be summed up in five words: ‘Should we be doing this?‘ Network Rail is clearly hoping for positive (or at least an absence of negative) feedback, but the idea is to get the issue about whether it is a worthwhile scheme established at the outset.
The alternatives
In principle the idea is to compare it with alternatives but it is hard to see what realistic alternatives there are. The only two obvious ones are either to just maintain and renew the current setup and rely on reduced commuting and/or the abandonment of various proposed housing developments in Surrey and Sussex, or to go back to the original suggestion in the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy a few years ago and plan a tunnel from north of Selhurst to south of Purley.
The obvious problem with the first of these is that predictions of reduced rail use due to technology have always been found to be wide of the mark. It is true that changes have been detected and ascribed to new technology, and that journey patterns have changed, but the demand for rail travel hasn’t gone away.
The lesson from SWR
The one marked change in travel patterns that has been noted recently, on just one comparable railway line, is a slight drop in London suburban traffic in contrast to the increase in traffic (not necessarily 5 days a week) from further afield. As an indication of either more working from home or part-time employment (possibly prior to retirement), the idea that a season ticket should be considered for statistics purposes as equivalent to 10 rail trips per week is starting to get seriously questioned and has probably been a slight over-estimate for a number of years now.
Indeed, if anyone wonders why South Western Railway (SWR), in the past year or so, were not in bigger trouble than they were with a dramatic lull in passenger numbers, it is because the reduction in short distance traffic was partly offset by an increase in more-profitable long-distance commuting. Pertinent to East Croydon, a drop of passenger numbers from inner London doesn’t really affect the viability or benefits of CARS, but an increase in long distance commutes is exactly the sort of rail traffic that would benefit most from the scheme.
In a telling lesson of how fickle rail traffic can be, the SWR has largely recovered from the temporary loss of traffic – except on Fridays. Traffic is projected to increase again with the reasons behind the temporary loss not entirely clear but various explanations (including the effects of strikes) have been put forward. The suspicion though is that the move away from a rigid 5-day commuting week will continue to increase the number of longer-distance journeys.
The tunnel challenge
The obvious problem with the idea of a tunnel is the timescale. That is before we consider the enormous cost and the engineering challenge of underground platforms at East Croydon. A tunnel won’t be built before Crossrail 2, so you are probably looking at 2040 at the earliest. Action is needed sooner. A tunnel might be more appropriate when the signalling next needs renewing and all the lower-hanging fruit has been picked but it is hard to see it as the right solution for now.
The need for renewal
One thing that has become apparent over the past few years is that the railways have an enormous backlog of maintenance and renewal work to catch up on. This is starting to seriously affect reliability. This is particularly noticeable on London Underground but is also prevalent on the former Southern Region of British Rail.
Noticeable in particular is the problems with old tunnels. Modern signalling doesn’t like wet conditions and tunnels tend to be both wet and inaccessible to signal engineers. These often 150 year-old structures, built in an age when some construction issues were less-than-fully understood, are well overdue for some tender loving care. The problem of drainage in Sevenoaks tunnel have only just been fully addressed – probably for the first time ever.
A consequence of the direct route of the Brighton Main Line at its southern end is there are a number of tunnels. Major engineering work is planned for Balcombe, Patcham and Clayton tunnels. This involves not only a multi-million pound cost but also a closure of the southern end of the Brighton Main Line for nine days in February 2019. Other work is also being done or aspired to (such as an extra platform at Gatwick) to ensure a frequent reliable service can operated from Sussex. Clearly this work is of limited value if the trains cannot reliably and punctually travel through East Croydon. Whilst a straightforward like-for-like-renewal in the East Croydon area will go a long way to improving matters, it will also perpetuate existing known problems that would hinder both operation and future development of the Brighton Main Line.
So, looking at the bigger picture, it really makes sense to take advantage of a necessary renewal to expand on it and improve capacity in the East Croydon area. This is particularly so as another opportunity may not present itself for another forty years – and then the land necessary for improvement may not be available then anyway.
The inevitability of disruption
Commuters who may be in a different job in a different part of the country in ten years time may well question whether the disruption will be worth it – and it is certainly a legitimate consideration. There have been schemes in the past that have failed this test early on and generally do not even get heard about by the general public.
It is said that an upgrade for Bank station has been planned for years but no previous proposals could avoid a closure period of unacceptably long duration. It took a combination of necessity, an acceptance that some closure was inevitable and an innovative new plan to finally convince the people in charge that the gain would be worth the pain endured.
On CARS, the planners have worked hard to refine plans and try and minimise disruption. An earlier plan to rely on four platforms at East Croydon during disruption has been improved on and now there will be a minimum of five platforms open. This is actually much better than four platforms. Platform 5 is of limited use in a northbound direction due to signalling overlap restrictions – one of the major issue CARS is intended to resolve. With, effectively, only one northbound track for the ‘slow’ trains there is little to be gained by having two southbound tracks. In contrast, platform 2, the ‘fast’ reversible, is genuinely useful at enhancing capacity and its loss would have been highly noticeable.
Its not just rail disruption
One thing easy for rail-minded people to overlook when thinking of disruption during reconstruction is the effect on the road network. Nowhere will this be more apparent than Windmill Bridge itself which is a road-over-rail bridge that currently spans the five tracks present at that location. The plans require seven tracks and both space constraints and the desire to reduce the closure period to an absolute minimum means that Windmill Bridge needs to be a single span bridge.
The new Windmill Bridge road bridge will be longer than the existing bridge. Due to the difficulty of boring new deep piles in under an existing bridge whilst keeping it open, it will almost certainly of necessity be wider (road width). That is good news for Croydon Council because they can have wider pavements and cycle lanes across the bridge but it also means they need to think about how they will adjust the road layout and, indeed, the local topography.
Windmill Bridge forms part of Lower Addiscombe Road which itself is part of the busy A222. Whilst not a TfL road, its closure would mean more traffic on the A232 (Addiscombe Road) which is run by TfL. Furthermore, the Addiscombe Road is a major bus route onto which four of the busier routes serving areas to the east of Croydon converge. So disruption at Windmill Bridge could have a knock-on effect on bus services in the suburbs to the east of Croydon. Windmill Bridge itself is only served by one single-decker bus route that could easily be diverted.
As well as any potentially disruptive preparatory works, there will inevitably have to be a full road and rail closure of Windmill Bridge in order for it to be rebuilt. If recent experiences are anything to go by, demolition of the existing bridge may be more of a challenge, time-wise, than actually putting the new one in place. Not helping matters is Croydon’s Council’s recent memory of bridge reconstructions (by TfL) that have taken far longer than the council would have wished.
Given that the reconstruction of Windmill Bridge is going to have a major impact on rail services (including providing a rail service from London to Gatwick Airport) and also to local roads (including rail replacement buses for services to Gatwick Airport) one can see that, if not carefully handled, the replacement of Windmill Bridge has the ability to disrupt international air traffic.
Aiming for Christmas 2023
As more and more project development is carried out, problems get identified and an appropriate plan emerges. Given the scale of the disruption that would be involved, the only realistic time to replace Windmill Bridge is Christmas – New Year. If you miss that slot, even by a few days, you have to wait a year for the next one.
You also don’t want to have any plan that is dependent on not encountering high winds during the construction dates because you really don’t want to have to go back for a second attempt or end up with the old bridge demolished and the new bridge not finished. This, in turn, limits the options available. Major Brighton Main Line renewals in the past few years have often coincided with various particularly adverse weather conditions. To that extent, renewals on this line seem jinxed.
Given the time, realistically, to get through all the consultation procedures, prepare the Transport and Works Act Order (needed because the scheme involves land-take) and the probable consequential public inquiry, the development team have pencilled in December 2023 for the replacement work for Windmill Bridge. With Christmas Day falling on a Monday that year, it is probably the best opportunity they will have.
The problem for the planners is that an early start to Windmill Bridge really is on the critical path. Whilst, in theory, you could work on either side of the bridge and join the new tracks together at a later date, this does not lead to optimised railway construction work. The highly-automated track machines like to have a clear run. You also don’t want them getting in the way of passenger trains when they need to travel from one side of the bridge to the other. Basically, until Windmill Bridge has been sorted out, other work cannot commence.
Norwood Junction realisation
Another area where further detailed planning revealed that some modifications of ideas was desirable is Norwood Junction. The previous intention had been to get work at Norwood Junction out of the way before concentrating on the trackwork between there and East Croydon. This would have assisted in terminating some trains short at Norwood Junction to avoid capacity problems at East Croydon.
The more the scheme was worked on, the more it was realised that treating Norwood Junction in near isolation was not a viable option. Changes to the main proposed layout, even quite small ones, could impact on what needed to happen at Norwood Junction. Furthermore, a consequence of this was that once Norwood Junction was in its final state any options for further changes to the main layout would be very limited. Now one might argue that Network Rail should plan properly and not be in this situation but, as Network Rail has found to its cost, the rules can change during the course of a scheme and alterations can be unavoidable.
The plan now is to have six tracks through Norwood Junction with four platform faces at the station. The station would be rebuilt so the dingy subway between the platforms will be filled in and new overbridges built. This in turn creates an opportunity to make the station step-free which will be welcomed by many locals as well as Croydon Council and TfL.
If Norwood Junction station becomes step free, almost all London Overground stations south of Surrey Quays will be step free. Of the remaining four, Penge West is easy to do but requires political willingness and pressure. That leaves Wandsworth Road, Clapham High St and the challenge of Peckham Rye.
East Croydon – lighter
Some of the talk about the scheme early on was about the option of decking over East Croydon station for oversite development. This was obviously attractive to the planners as the financial case for the scheme would improve. This also fits in with Croydon Council’s desire to maximise land use close to (or air use above) the station.
Reality bit home in the form of the consequence of fire regulations for underground stations. A station is classified as underground for fire regulation purposes if more than 50% of the space above the station is enclosed. Even Shoreditch High St (on an embankment) is classified as an underground station by this rule. Having to abide by ‘section 12’ rules (it is still colloquially know as that even though the original rules have been replaced by different legislation) imposes considerable constraints – not least with the evacuation procedures.
The current plan involves ensuring that the station is not subject to more onerous fire regulations. It is still planned that there will be five exits from the station so it is not as if evacuation will be unduly constrained.
It remains to be seen whether passengers waiting at East Croydon will be subject to more noticeable diesel emissions from the Uckfield diesel trains in a semi-enclosed station or whether that problem will have gone away by the time the station is rebuilt.
If East Croydon is partially over-decked it is almost certain that the current foot overbridge will be replaced. Whilst some may be aghast at such expense for a relatively short life, it has to be realised that, with the latest class 700 Thameslink trains arriving, the former subway just could not cope with today’s passenger numbers let alone numbers in the early 2020s.
… and better
A further benefit of more forensic examination of the proposals as time progresses is that the track engineers have found a way to reduce the amount of ‘stagger’ needed in the platforms at East Croydon, with platforms 1-4 no longer located as far north as originally planned. We believe one of the factors making this possible is the exceptional width (for a single track) at the road bridge over East Croydon so that the first set of points can be located further south. Whilst the platforms will not be fully aligned, the offset of platforms 1-4 compared to platforms 5-8 (the existing platforms 3-6) will be substantially reduced.
Although this welcome change will be better for future passengers, we suspect the main reason for the change is to prove more space for the complex set of junctions to the north of the station.
The resignalling quandary
The East Croydon area is currently signalled from Three Bridges Area Signalling Centre (ASC). This is not to be confused with the much more modern Three Bridges Regional Operating Centre (ROC) which, amongst other things, controls the signalling throughout London Bridge and south as far as Anerley. It is the intention that East Croydon will eventually be controlled from the ROC.
A view of the Norwood Junction and Windmill Bridge diagram at Three Bridges ASC
One big issue is how you go about handing over control from the ASC to the ROC. An obvious school of thought is to hand over tracks to the ROC as they get introduced. This though makes supervisory oversight difficult if not everything is controlled from the same location. An alternative is to press ahead with moving everything to the ROC and modify as necessary. But the modern signalling in the ROC is sophisticated and complicated and one doesn’t want to have to keep testing it after every change.
One of the signalling pods at Three Bridges ROC
Although it might sound counter-intuitive, it might be best to continue with the ASC until there are no further modifications. There could still be additions outstanding but these could simply be flagged as ‘out of use’. It is believed that spare parts for the signalling consoles at the old ASC would not be an issue as there would be a stock of redundant parts from similar closed boxes – such as London Bridge. Such a plan to delay moving over to the ROC would mean that it is likely that any intermediate layout could not be used with optimum efficiency as it could not be incorporated into any advanced traffic management or other related software.
Part of the bigger plan
With a finally-grasped realisation by politicians that the Brighton Main Line needs some serious money being spent on it, Network Rail are starting to catch up on the work that needs doing. For them it is a three-pronged attack:
- Keeping on top of small remedial measures
- Brighton line upgrade work such as the work this Christmas at Victoria and the nine-day blockade south of Three Bridges in February 2019
- Long term plans to sort out the major bottleneck (CARS)
Although no particular measures are known, the small remedial measures would include anything within Network Rail’s remit that was necessary to ensure that Thameslink performs well on the current network.
The missing bits
What is, unfortunately, missing from the current plan for the Brighton Main Line is any scheme other than CARS that is not simply renewal. So, crucially, there seems to be no definite commitment to build a third (terminating) platform at Reigate despite originally due to be completed by 2018 or earlier.
The eighth platform at Gatwick Airport station is desirable but unfunded. Even sorting out passenger flow at Victoria, so often talked about, seems to have no funding. The one proposal that may well go ahead, probably with funding from the airport, is further overdecking of Gatwick Airport station to improve passenger flow and capacity.
An update on the track layout plans
Despite reiterating that this consultation is not about track layout, we have taken the opportunity to include our understanding of the latest plans for the layout. This will almost certainly not be the final plan. There are further enhancements desired and the challenge being worked on is to add these in as well without taking away a benefit that is already there.
We have never seen any 3D plans, but it appears more use is made of diving-under rather than having a viaduct on top of a viaduct to achieve the necessary grade separation. A turnback on the approaches to Selhurst depot to assist turn around of trains terminating at Selhurst and returning in back towards Victoria (or Shepherds Bush) has been added. A single long down siding has been added at Norwood Junction. We presume this is for future use by London Overground to enable 6tph to operate on the Crystal Palace and Clapham Junction branches.
First the lull, then the storm of disruption
On current timescales it looks like the Thameslink Programme will be complete and running a full timetable around the end of 2020. Passengers will then have three years of a relatively stable and reliable train service before the next prolonged phase of disruption.
If all goes to plan, by around 2028/9 CARS should be delivering tangible benefits although it will not be fully complete before the early 2030s.
Thanks to ngh for an updated diagram to complement those previously drawn and available in earlier parts of this series
So – re-introducing the easternmost “long siding” S of Norwood … the Selhurst turn-back looks like a good idea.
Would a single-track reversible reinstatement of the “emergency spur” ( St James’ Jn – Selhurst up fast ) give extra flexibility “just in case” or doesn’t the cost justify it?
Quite frankly – just get on with it ( Given legislative clearance) though an aerial view of Windmill Bridge itself is illuminating: Here, for instance
Oh yes – estimated cost?
Greg Tingey,
You seem a bit obsessed with the emergency spur. Look at the diagram. The track bed is being reused and the height difference means that it is unlikely that it would be possible to re-instate it in any form.
And back to other arguments I trot out each time you raise this. It would involve at least two extra sets of points if going from Up West Croydon to Up Victoria Fast. These are costly, a potential (needless) source of failure, need to be maintained, mess up block section spacing (a massive issue in the current and future layout) and may cause permanent speed restrictions.
And doesn’t the emergency spur date from a period when the fast and slow lines were transposed? Then it had a purpose. Now and in future it is hard to see what purpose there could be.
As far as I am aware GREP3 has not been completed so estimates are nowhere near finalised. The consultation is really about whether this is a good thing in principle so costs not particularly relevant at this stage.
Details, details – the colloquial term for the sub surface fire regs is section 12. [Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
Also I am sure a politician will come along and say that all this is un-necessary as ETCS will solve the capacity problem, and none of this infrastructure work is required.
Seriously I am really impressed with this scheme. I hope they will seize the opportunity to create decent facilities at East Croydon. Given the trouble they have had at Manchester Piccadilly getting two much needed extra platforms (source of the cynic alert), if the Croydon scheme goes ahead there will be much gnashing of teeth up’t north.
“Expect the usual notorious graphics from Network Rail” — they’ve started with an animation: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailSE/status/1059837361624940546
A correction for “Windmill Bridge itself is actually served by more bus routes than Addiscombe Road”.
I’m fairly certain that only the 289 route crosses Windmill Bridge itself.
Everything else on Lower Addiscombe Road, the 312, 367, 689, and the 410 for one stop, head off down Cherry Orchard Road. Presumably the 289 will have to go this way too.
Addiscombe Road (no “Lower”) gets 4 bus and 3 tram routes.
Liking the layout development, particularly the Gloucester Road Junction grade separation (this is new is it not?). Hopefully that solves the standage problem on the Selhurst Spur as well as eliminating crossing conflicts.
Surprised at the signalling changeover strategy, but there could be very good reasons for retaining existing panel and interlockings for as long as possible, especially if the temporary interim layout or series of layout stages can be made to look very similar to parts of the old layout. Engineers made a very good job of adapting an old Westpac geographical relay interlocking at Redhill recently for a comparatively major layout simplification to the north of the station and the same approach might have benefits for CARS. Geographical interlockings are, by their very nature, easier to reconfigure for layout alterations than other types of relay based signalling technology.
I can’t help thinking that if the bottleneck at East Croydon is relaxed to allow, say, 40tph each way (slow+fast) then the next stage will be grade separation at Redhill and/or Three Bridges.
Thanks for another clear and well-informed article.
Any info on the layout north of Norwood Junction and whether there is any potential for capacity improvement there?
Six tracks through Norwood Jn converge to five north of the station, with limited space beneath the A213 Penge Road at Goat House. The Down line from Crystal Palace is segregated from the London Bridge tracks, but the Up Crystal Palace line diverges north of the A213 bridge. Is this a bottleneck or do the real problems lie elsewhere?
Gavin,
You are correct. I must have clicked on the wrong bus stop. Text amended.
John Thorn,
Go the other way. Clapham Junction has known capacity problems and Victoria is not configured to make the best use of what it has. There is a potential for 4tph extra to Victoria with only problems north of East Croydon preventing it (once this scheme is implemented).
If anywhere south is done it will probably be Keymer Junction south of Wivelsfield station but I have my doubts that it will happen.
Lemmo,
Previous plans included a fifth track so a train from Crystal Palace could reach the easternmost (reinstated) platform at Norwood Junction without needing to use existing tracks so I guess that will be part of the scheme. Whilst an extra track on the western side up to the junction for Crystal Palace might be nice I suspect that too much has been built too close to the railway for that to be viable.
How is the Thameslink timetable doing lately? I’ve seen reports of “additional trains” in some papers that I presume really means the restoration of services that were cut after the performance issues this summer? I take it the 2020 date in the article is when we expect the full “Thameslink 2000” service with 24tph?
Lemmo + PoP
This would all depend on the Penge Road (A213) being rebuilt to accomodate 6 tracks. The rest of the alignment does likely have enough space if the current lines are slewed slightly to the east. I can see it would likely be ideal in conjuction with the rebuilding of Norwood Jnc to implement this after the work south of there has been put in place.
Another excellent article.
A few corrections:
“which four of the busier the routes ”
The second “the” appears to be a mistake.
“concentrating on the trackwork between there an East Croydon.”
I think “an” should be “and”.
Paul
[Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
Re Lemmo, Matt & PoP,
My understanding is that the thinking is 6 tracks* in use over Portland Rd but 5 (3 Up 2 Down) under the A213 (Penge Rd) with the points reconfigured south of where the Beckenham Junction line crosses to accommodate the future change of use to
[from West to East around Norwood Jn]
Slow ( mainly Ex West Croydon and most of the to Palace services)
Slow ( mainly Ex East Croydon slow platforms)
Fast (ex East Croydon)
Fast (to East Croydon fast Platforms)
Slow ( mainly to West Croydon from London Bridge fasts and all slow services inc . Palace)
Slow ( mainly to East Croydon slow platforms from slow lines inc Palace – no Ex London Bridge Fast access )
With the arrangement of the last 2 platforms it makes sense to mix the south bound slow lines traffic on to a single track under Portland Road to enable sorting by destination to an extent before they get to Norwood Junction and then splitting out to an extra slow line and adding a limited number from the fast from London Bridge that could stop at Norwood Junction but are “slow” south of East Croydon services e.g. pick from Southern Uckfields, some Thameslink via Redhill, some Southern etc e.g. CAT and TAT (probably the later) with the other remaining on the fast line till nearer Cottage Jn.
* 1 is currently not in use
Re PoP,
Extremely unlikely as it doesn’t enable any of that. Much more likely is to enable 4x 12car trains to be stabled overnight and off peak and cleaned with an easy southbound departure as it is very difficult to get trains out of Selhurst going south (especially as they get in the way of other services), this helps relive a key depot constraint.
It will also be much easier to get trains into Selhurst from the north with reversal in the new P6/7 without affecting other services except at some points in the extreme peak. (And also off peak with 3 Up lines using the 2nd “Up ” slow in the “wrong” direction is less on an issue and similarly using the 2nd Up slow to reverse off peak south bound departures from the depot at Norwood Junction to the down fasts at East Croydon (similar to today but much less disruptive in the future).
This may be of interest.
Quick summary – In order to carry out the works Network Rail need to take land owned by Wandle Housing Association in Lamberts Place to south west of Windmill Bridge. In exchange they are proposing to transfer railway land immediately north of West Croydon station. TfL had had their eyes on this to provide stabling for 12×5 car units to enable them to operate 24 tph on the East London line. Instead Network Rail have promised to provide the stabling required at Norwood Junction.
There is a lot to like here, especially the track layout ideas. If it happens it will make a big difference. The main point I’d make is on the tunnel alternative. Clearly, that is not an alternative at the moment so this scheme should progress. But if a tunnel alternative ever is on the cards, then it would be better to consider a longer new line, providing 2 extra fast lines at least from Gatwick. And if you are doing that, there is no reason why such a new line should run via Croydon. Routing via Bromley for example could solve capacity issues on both Southern and SouthEastern.
Vince
proposing to transfer railway land immediately north of West Croydon station
Um.
There is almost no mention that I can see of any consequent improvements in or near to W Croydon station. I wonder if extending the no 1 platform road line further along, with a possible longer lead in or out, would improve capacity – & whether it’s worth it, of course.
LMM,
Yes, they are planning to run from December exactly (as far as I can see) the Thameslink timetable that was originally slated for May for Monday to Friday. The new trains (and changes) are in the journey planners and in PDFs on the Thameslink website.
2020 is likely to be time for the 24tph but it might not be the “final” timetable as that is dependent on the new electric services to Corby running (so that the current Thameslink Express services can stop at Harpenden and Leagrave/Flitwick). Although the current date for that is December 2020, I am sceptical that the driver training will be complete by then.
Greg Tingey,
You keep mentioning West Croydon but this is about East Croydon.
As far as I know there are no plans for West Croydon as it is too expensive for what it achieves. The only thing in the pipeline is an eventual 6tph London Overground. Turnback will be achieved by reinstating the centre track turnback to the west of Wallington station. Whether or not this means 3tph, or 6tph, in passenger service as far as Wallington is far too early to say.
Just looking at the plan (appreciate it is a draft) they seem to have cleared all of the conflicts except South from Victoria fasts to East Croydon Slows which is still required to cross the Victoria Slow Northbound. It seems to be acknowledged by pushing it back north of Selhurst which in itself adds complications with stoppers at Selhurst being in the way and blocking the Main line.
As this is used by at least 6 trains per hour from Victoria that still leaves a lot of potential conflicts on current timetables. (2x Reigate, 2x East Grinstead & 2x Cat/Tatts).
Re Greg,
By North it is really North-West and would still leave room for 2 sidings beside the bay on retained land.
As covered in the previous articles there is an aim to make the bay quick to access than currently as well as terminate more (Southern) trains further west with a reinstatement of Wallington centre turnback.
T33,
Extra grade separate to address that is in is being looked at the issues are around easy constructability/phasing and minimising disruption to services during construction as it adds significant complexity
POP
‘supervisory oversight’ is a tautology, at least if the last word has the American meaning. If it were the English meaning, it would mean somewhat the opposite!
Hope that is helpful.
[‘Oversight’ in the sense of helicopter view of everything that is going on. I am open to suggestions for improved wording. PoP]
Assuredly going off topic, but as a local I’m curious about the Wallington plans. Is it TfL services turning back, and undoubtedly displacing a couple of VIC/LBG services, or the Southern West Croydon terminators being extended? I personally prefer more frequent trains to fewer destinations, but I know TfL disagrees sometimes.
@T33,@NGH
If further grade separation proves impossible, how about one extra left hand crossover between the slows south of Selhurst station, just before the down slow/selhurst spur divergence. This could allow a down express crossing from the fasts to pass through the up slow platform as an alternative to using the down slow. A fast could thus pass a down local loading at Selhurst, even one running in simultaneously in parallel, with its overlap engaged and swung left towards the depot for flank protection. Timetabling and regulation of slow traffic might attempt to keep at least one of the up and down slows through Selhurst station clear (especially of stoppers) at all times so there always is, or very shortly will be, a route available for a fast to weave over one way or the other. I expect for greatest flexibility, the new north end crossovers will already be designed at least overlap clear of the up slow platform starter, so a local can run in at the same time a down fast to down slow crossover move takes place.
@CHZ
It seems to be saying that the Wallington turnback is to facilitate more Overground services. Whether it is these services, or Southern services which are extended to free up space at West Croydon, is unclear. But I don’t see why either would have to displace any existing services on the Croydon/Sutton route.
Re Timbeau & CHZ,
Wallington – As already covered in my 1044 comment: Southern Services extended further west.
TfL are very aware that extending further west with their 5 car trains just doesn’t work, this hasn’t changed since 2009 with 4 cars (Fully discussed on LR at the time!)
On research, I note Gloucester Road Junction grade separation is not new in the layout iteration included within this article. It first appeared in a Nov. 2016 addendum to Part 9 of this series, after a commenteer had snapped a NR layout sketch on a screen at a public consultation meeting. http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/East-Croydon-future-layout-e1479303321660.jpg
Re Mark T,
Gloucester Road grade separation – Oh yes it is…
The map above shows some of the geographical complexity involved (e.g. the 3 levels in reality) which the NR diagram deliberately avoids restricting itself to 2 levels not matching reality.
Re Mark T,
Opps miss read you comment speed reading…
@NGH – Thanks. I guess the up fast bridge will still need renewing over the West Croydon line where it is widened to three tracks. A non grade-separated solution to the spur standage issue alone would have required a larger new span for the up fast, suitable for four tracks.
Although 6 Victoria trains an hour cross fast to slow at Selhurst in the peak at the moment, that doesn’t mean that that approach needs to continue after 2028.
The Victoria to Cat/Tat and Redhill slow (currently Reigate but presumably all stations to Gatwick if the third ‘Thameslink’ platform is eventually built at Reigate) could be routed platform 4 and cross to the reversible line south of East Croydon leaving just an East Grinstead train to cross fast to slow at Selhurst.
How many trains could we conceivably be expecting to approach East Croydon on the slow line? I can’t see cause for more than 16tph (4 EGR / 2 UCK / 6 CAT/TAT/CDN / 4 RDH) which ought to leave a gap for southbound trains to cross.
Forgive the rant but please don’t make it sound like that the February 2019 closure on the Brighton Line is the be all and end all of the disruption at the south end of the line.
On EVERY weekend in October we had buses between Brighton and Three Bridges plus many more closures full or partial weekend closured between now and next February. And that’s on top of all the other weekends in the year when other parts of the line get worked on.
And it is likely that there will be another 9-10 day closure to make up for the October half term one that was cancelled (because according to Southern we have suffered enough with the timetable mess up) – I just haven’t seen an announcement about it . On at least two occasions that work has also overrun causing disruption on Monday mornings.
And even on the weekends where the south of the line is operating we are not immune from works taking place elsewhere on the line. That’s a nice ‘*’ on the leaflet NR produced!
I do get that works need to be done but when you basically cut of a major city for weekends at a time – and one that especially relies on tourism – it get’s very draining when your social or work (lets remember lots of people work weekends) life is ruined because there are no trains.
There needs to be a better way to do this work.
Re Brighton Reader,
“There needs to be a better way to do this work.”
What would you suggest instead?
Some on these jobs have been on the “to sort” list since before the banking crisis (of 1866!) in the case of one of the tunnels.
The are now a lot more weekend closures (through till April /May to make up for there not being the first 9 day blockade. The logistics to feed the Feb blockade have been changed to get more done.
Jonathan H
Slow lines as it stands north of East Croydon.
Peak 6 Redhill 2 Uckfield 4 East Grinstead and 4 Cat/Tat plus 1 Milton Keynes
Off peak 6 Redhill 1 Uckfield 2 East Grinstead 6 Cat/Coulsdon/Tat 1 Milton Keynes
@ PoP – one small and entirely tangential comment. In the new TfL Customer Services report the look ahead on bus consultations reveals one due for “10 bus routes in Croydon”. What will be proposed is not known but a rationalisation of services and linking of others to reduce vehicle volumes and stand requirements to facilitate savings as well as the construction of Westfield may not be a shock. A possible further consequence would be a reduction on bus movements along some of the routes impacted by the Windmill Bridge works. Clearly further short term changes nearer the time may be required.
Is there a rough set of milestone dates for concluding planning / TWAO application / TWAO decision? I’m assuming, based on the article, that theTWAO process is on the critical path. One further question – article says benefits likely from 2028/9 but project not complete until early 2030s – what work hangs over from 2028 and needs 3-5 years to finish? This implies a timescale of nearly a decade and while I accept the work is complex that’s longer than it took to rebuild London Bridge and approaches.
@ NGH. I’m not a civil engineer but surely there are methods to speed up the work. Perhaps they needed to put this out to competition like the TFL Bank redevelopment was and some novel solutions were proposed by the contractors that TFL hadn’t thought about.
I’m not saying this is easy. There is no magic wand to make it all OK
And more and more weekend closures just shifts the inconvenience.
I’ve had friends in Brighton say NR should have just done the October 1/2 term closure because at the end of the day it would have been a lot less inconvenient!
@BrightonReader – why should competition be that magic wand? No reason at all that competition should inevitably invent anything new
Walthamstow Writer
Croydon is the only borough with rising bus use so the review will be interesting.
Aside from all the technical comments above, as a passenger at East Croydon I’d just be pleased if the relatively new footbridge over the platforms is torn down and replaced or at least amended to keep out the elements!
It’s shockingly dangerous how wet the stairs and concourse get. Surely one of the worst examples of engineering in recent times?
Walthamstow Writer,
Working backwards, a funding decision is needed by 2022. Before that they need an interim funding agreement to order some of the vital parts and book plant for the possession for Windmill Bridge. So public inquiry 2021 and hence TWAO 2020-1.
We are not yet done with ‘GRIP3’ which means there is a lot of planning still to do and we haven’t yet got a final cost. We are only at the first consultation stage. The next one (on East Croydon station) is expected next summer.
The date of 2028 was given to me as the point at which things would be better, operationally, than now. So, I would imagine a maximum of six platforms in use at East Croydon but better junctions to the north. Maybe only some of the entrances will be open (but better than today). Assuming the signalling gets cut over to the ROC at a late stage, I would imagine that alone would be a big job of more than a year’s duration in preparation.
Also I would imagine that there would be a critical phase, mainly early on, with 24 hour working then a more drawn out process to finish off. Part of the reason for this would be to minimise cost and this is what was seen at Bermondsey Diveunder.
The issue of East Croydon bus station occurred to me after writing the article. The current one is tiny and inadequate but better what we had before – which was basically a few stops on the bridge. It also only serves eastbound buses and no buses terminate there. There is no room for northbound ones such as the 312 and westbound it is still a few stops on the bridge. This is in contrast to West Croydon for those that remember the old bus station which was twice the size of the current one and even served a few London Country buses. But I have no idea what, if anything, is planned and forgot to ask.
Vince’s link is now fixed and modified to take into account the dodgy ORR website ( http not https). All reference (other than this one) to problems with it have been deleted.
The link is http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/25061/west-croydon-station-land-disposal-decision-document.pdf
“ARS” is also, of course, commonly used to denote Automatic Route Setting.
which is why I was careful to precede it with “in this context”.
Re Brighton Reader,
The work takes time (and hence disruption) which is one reason it has been put off for so long but is now more palatable because of innovations.
This isn’t Bank station (where the innovation was around extra tunnelling to make things easier for construction and happened provide passenger benefits too) and they are going to use the best equipment and methods available this kind of work is already undertaken by NR all over the country on very regular basis and there has been lots of innovation over the last 10-15 years on these type of jobs which is one reason for the current timescales. The big issue with Brighton – Three Bridges is that there are 4 problem tunnels AND a lot of other issues on this stretch.
This isn’t just a repeat of the “recent” Sevenoaks works where they looked at replacing the drainage* but also track, 3rd rail, ballast, tunnel structural works and some signalling too.
The time wasted at the beginning and end of short closures absolutely kills productivity increasing the need for more closure time (and increased cost and risk (e.g. the Monday am overruns)).
*https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/02/06/second-christmas-at-sevenoaks-tunnel/
And, almost more to the point, Sevenoaks tunnel has some half-decent diversionary routes.
Highly pertinent was that even when they needed to work in Sevenoaks tunnel for gauge clearance for Eurostar trains, they didn’t do the highly-desirable drainage work. It is not a new problem. And those weekend works frequently overran and messed up the Monday morning commute for thousands of people.
Regarding the Brighton Main Line, the innovative solution of the past was to not do the work and hope the railway would keep going. Also the benefit of innovations has to be offset against the doubled-edged benefit of better trackbase understanding. Now it is regarded as far more preferable to replace ballast down to a depth of a metre rather than just 300mm. This can lead to one (longer) closure every 25 years rather than patch-and-mend closures every ten years. Hence 10 day closures in the recent past just to replace the points at Purley and Stoats Nest Junction.
It does raise the question though of why the BML tunnel work can’t be done at Christmas and I suspect the answer is that Christmas this year was fully booked many years ago (and too late to change) and next Christmas (2019) is too late – this needs to be sorted out now.
@BrightonReader
I feel your pain.
It seems to me that this situation must thoroughly be laid at the door of Dr Beeching and his associates, as the availability of a diversionary route from East Grinstead or Uckfield to Lewes would have softened the blow considerably.
@Simon W
I agree, the new bridge at East Croydon can only be described as a bit crap. Hopefully Reading can serve as a model of what good looks like, when the time finally comes.
“On current timescales it looks like the Thameslink Programme will be complete and running a full timetable around the end of 2020. Passengers will then have three years of a relatively stable and reliable train service before the next prolonged phase of disruption.”
Three years of a relatively stable and reliable service – very funny, good to get a bit of humour into the article
@PoP: The section between Orpington and Sevenoaks has a half decent diversionary route (via Swanley & Otford) but I wouldn’t consider having to go via Redhill half decent…
Well I would because first it means a better service for us at East Croydon.
But more relevantly, at least you stay on the train and the extra time taken is not that great (compared with being diverted from Brighton to Gatwick via Pulborough). Or compare this to the GWR route to Marylebone via Bicester – and that is better than previously which was either bus substitution or an attempt to shoehorn trains in to Waterloo.
What follows is probably wandering too far off topic but………
Others have the challenge of not being able to close the railway whilst significant works take place. For example, if a tunnel needs major repairs, perhaps it might be cheaper, simpler and less risk to build a new one.
Ngh is probably aware of this, others might not be, but the Swiss were faced with this problem and did indeed build a new tunnel……see this: https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/08/06/building-a-world-heritage-tunnel-in-switzerland/
Perhaps such activities on the south end of the Brighton main line could four-track the remaining two track section (crayons put down!)
@100andthirty – The really interesting point about the Abula tunnel project is the cost – £188m for a 5.8km tunnel. The Swiss may attribute costs differently to us, and it is metre-gauge rather than standard-gauge, but £188m for a 3.6 mile tunnel seem pretty good value to me.
Jimbo…..whilst the track gauge is metre gauge, the carriages are very spacious and hit is overhead electrified – and was blasted though granite. The South Downs should be a bit easier to dig.
Perhaps a more relevant comparison closer to home would be the Farnworth Tunnel which was filled with concrete foam and re-bored.
This obviously wasn’t without incident, taking far longer although I’m not sure of the final cost – initially budgeted at £21m.
Some of the work carried out during the Seaford line blockade in August was intended to allow 3tph to use Lewes as a diversionary route instead of the previous 1tph, so this should help with future closures between Keymer Junction and Brighton.
There is a long line of precedents for new tunnels in the UK too – ones that spring to mind include Woodhead in the 50s, one on the WCML (the name escapes me) in the 60s and (for different reasons) Penmanshiel in the 70s
@ Ronnie MB
No new tunnel was built at Penmanshiel, rather a new route in cutting was built to avoid the original tunnel which had collapsed with sadly fatal results.
City & South London re-boring between Clapham South (?) & Euston also comes to mind, converting it to part of the Northern Line …..
@NGH Mark Townend – Perhaps the solution to lower the number of conflicts at Selhurst is to include a single track flyover at Purley so Redhill route Northbound can cross to the Main line without blocking the Southbound route.
Unfortunately NGH received a black and white print of the schematic. The layout is actually red from Norwood Junction (inclusive) and Selhurst station (exclusive) to Gloucester Road bridge and as shown towards South Croydon, with the exception of the Down Wallington for about 800m as it goes over the 1844 flyover.
What the schematic wouldn’t show even if the red/black balance was correct is that almost nothing is quite on its original alignment, either horizontally and/or vertically. Broadly this is to allow things to be built adjacent to a running railway. The Up Vic Fast span over the Selhurst Spurs has to be new (to make space for the new Down Vic Fast at high level), slightly to the west of the existing bridge, so building it to span three tracks instead of two is marginal additional cost yet provides decent standage on the spurs.
JP: “as it goes over the 1844 flyover” – that flyover’s replacement (whenever that happened), not the original, surely?
Don’t current requirements for emergency access make new tunnels vastly expensive? I seem to recall that was one of the reasons given why BML2’s suggested new tunnel at Lewes wouldn’t be anything like as easy as proposed; and the recent Aberystwyth-Carmarthen feasibility study was prepared to contemplate a 1km tunnel, but not 3km.
Ronnie MB,
The tunnel on the WCML was Kidsgrove tunnel, north of Stoke on Trent which was built in the 1960’s. This replaced Harecastle Middle and South tunnels. The third (North) tunnel was opened out. The original tunnels could not be modified to take the overhead line equipment.
Electrification was also the reason for building the new Woodhead Tunnel.
T33
Actually, the place for a pair of conflict-avoiding links is HERE where the Quarry line crosses over the Redhill route, so that a northbound ex-Redhill can join the up quarry fast ( And a southbound Redhill-line could also join the down Quarry fast, maybe )
Peter B
And, the existing Harecastle tunnels were a little “wobbly” to say the least, because of mining subsidence ….
Re 130,
Build another tunnel(s)…
The 4 tunnels are mostly in the High Weald AONB or South Downs National Park? 😉
LBSCR built one of them through an underground river so better drainage and water proofing have been required for a long time!
Greg Tingey,
Intuitively from a topology point of view but less so from a topography point of view. Those sides are seriously steep and the cutting quite deep (the steps to what I think was the former signal box give a clue). So I can understand the BML team trying to resolve this in the Windmill Bridge area which will already be a construction site. If solvable at Windmill Bridge the incremental cost will be much less than a challenging construction site south of Coulsdon.
Another factor is that by sorting it out north of East Croydon you bring the any benefit to the Oxted lines and the Cats and Tats.
Much as I am pouring cold water on the idea I rather like it and think it would be ‘neat’.
Also Most Redhill trains stop at Purley (not all but that’s another gripe for every morning!). Stopping at Purley on the fasts would soak up a lot of capacity. Windmill Bridge allows that with the added bonus that PoP mentions above. The issue seems to be that lack of crossing for down trains, however, except for East Grinstead, this could be done at Purley. The rebuilt junction is possibly too slow though and might hog capacity – it would only be two trains per hour though.
@130 & Jimbo: They’re also using their own old Ge 4/4 I’s to drag the rubbish away, so I suspect that’s not being booked as an expense.
From memory (and the Albula line book) the ground is actually not that great and this caused a problem during the original build as well. Even Wikipedia (in German) notes this:
Tunnelbauer zuerst durch anderthalb Kilometer Schiefer und Mergel kämpfen mussten
A mile of slate and marl…. Not nice….
@Greg @PoP Yes, it is unlikely that a track could be installed in the cuttings, because whilst from above it looks quite plausible when looking up it is not. I do though think there is enough space between Coulsdon South and Purley for a single flyover to be installed, preferably before Windmill starts work to allow greater flexibility during the Windmill works.
Which gets us to @PurleyDweller’s gripes. It depend on your point of view as we would like our Redhill trains to stop calling at Purley, just as they didn’t in the good old days. The size of the Griping community at Redhill (and Branches) because of considerably extended journey times is getting quite large – especially with those forced to change trains at Redhill from Tonbridge or Earlswood now and also Reigate if attempting to get to London Bridge.
A big flaw in the May 2018 timetable that I do not know how it might be fixed, caused by making Redhill suddenly a metro station on Thameslink from a main line Southern station.
The signalling strategy is non sensical. Changes to old interlockings are far more difficult to test than new ones, especially once you get back to geographical or relay interlockings as nothing can be tested off site or in an automated manner. On a similar job this was a day extra per stage to account for panel wiring changes and testing.
The strategy should be (and is for other major not dissimilar CP6 projects) to migrate it all to TBROC on a new interlocking connected to the existing trackside through interface locations (this is how Wimbledon-Sutton was Resignalled). Then as new track becomes available that is connected to the now in-situ interlocking with new trackside kit.
It’s absurd that anyone in NR is letting the strategy proceed in this manner, it will only come back and bite them later with major replanning. Another hugely complex railway job being led by civil engineers and architects it would seem.
Re closures:
Even though clousures at weekdays might affect the society and especially the economics more, weekend closures and especially during for example christmas and similar affects the actual passengers more as they tend to bring luggage on their way to visit family or friends or other kinds of leasure trips, and also they are not as familiar with traveling (at wherever they might be traveling) so stuff like bustitution or extra changes are potentially more cumbersome and prone to problems.
Btw, I know that it would really cost a lot of money, but have there been any investigation of what it would cost and what benefits there would be in reinstating the Lewes-Uckfield line and electifying the Uckfield-Hurst Green line, and perhaps doubling the single track parts of this existing line?
It seems like the fastest trains today between East Croydon and Uckfield takes slightly more time than the fastest between East Croydon and Brighton. Judging by the distance the total time Brighton-Lewes-Uckfield-East Croydon might not be that bad for a diversion route. Also electrifying that line would get rid of the diesel trains through East Croydon making it easier to fulfil requirements of clean air at the platforms.
If it is too expensive, it would be good to have an actual figure on how “too expensive” it would be.
@RORY – I admit to initially being as surprised as you by the signalling approach described, but there may be specific factors that favour this:
1. Geographical interlockings of a comparatively recent vintage and in good condition. Geo is definitely more quickly and easily reconfigured than free wired, especially the later models whose modules need less custom external wiring to achieve all desired modern functionality.
2. Long closures of fairly big chunks of railway for each stage, offering possibility to set up and partially test and connect up revised interlocking and panel for an upcoming stage.
3. Availability of a glut of refurbished spares for both interlocking and panel, with capabilities available for design and test. Using this may also avoid some resource conflicts with other concurrent projects Some flexibility for some intermediate changes to be not entirely to final new build quality, i.e. some temporary fudges acceptable.
4. Avoiding the chaos of of a multi-stage major project with huge numbers of engineering movements disturbing the peace and tranquility of the ROC.
5. New ROC workstations and regulation tools available in situ for simulation training for a longer period before recontrol takes place.
6. The project may implement some later stage changes in the new signalling and ROC anyway, as the layout gets closer to the final configuration.
The project will have their own professional S&T expertise, and there’s always more than one way to skin a cat. Final decisions will also be informed by local operations and maintenance opinion.
@MIAM
Lewes-Uckfield is I believe one of the most studied and analysed rail reopening projects of recent times. There is a lengthy list of reports from 2008 on the East Sussex council’s website.
The headline cost (see the NR exec summary) was I think about £141m for the base case of single track and about £200m with double track and intermediate stations. Obviously with 10 years’ inflation these numbers would be higher now (a good rule of thumb is that prices tend to double every 25 years, so maybe 40% higher after 10).
Still, it’s not bank-breaking stuff, the challenge with the project was always the BCR which has consistently been poor however it’s been cut and whatever calculable benefits, plausible or otherwise, have been thrown into the mix.
MiaM, Anonanonanon
A good reply Anonanonanon but you missed out a major factor. The re-opening shows very little benefit so, forget about capital costs, it is very doubtful it would even cover its operating costs. So you also have to factor in the ongoing loss if it were re-opened. And, I would add, for very little real benefit.
Remember also that the costs don’t, I think, include rolling stock so you would have to add a few million pounds for that. Yes, I know trains are leased but that is just hiding the capital cost.
@MIAM – the problem with a diversionary route is that it is just that. On any reasonable estimate of loadings it will, in this case, be cheaper to keep a fleet of taxis on standby. (The carrying costs of half a billion or so of capex are very high – think £70-80m – you could keep 1000 taxis doing nothing but standby for diversionary days for that money…) On non-diversionary days, of course, it is going to be slower than the normal mainline – indeed, it is highly likely that anything going via Uckfield will be run down by not just one but several later services barrelling down the normal mainline. That leaves just the local traffic between Lewes and Uckfield about which the less said the better (unless you are running the competing bus service, which justifies a very frequent operation and is unlikely to go away ).
@Miam
“Even though clousures at weekdays might affect the society and especially the economics more, weekend closures and especially during for example christmas and similar affects the actual passengers more”
I have never bought the argument that weekend and bank holiday closures are more disruptive, except on lines where the traffic is primarily commuter. Business meetings can be arranged around transport closures – the idea that businessmen jump on a train at the drop of a hat is just not credible – (or indeed that full fare tickets are only paid for by people on expenses: certainly in my company we are expected to buy advance tickets. Full fare is more likely to be paid by someone racing to some family emergency).
People cannot postpone Christmas.
In France, it used to be (and maybe still is) common for there to be a gap in service in the middle of the day. It may not be possible to do as much work in a four hour shutdown as in a 48 hour one, but you can do it every day.
Strictly speaking, it would be possible to
re-openbuild a new line between Uckfield and Lewes without incurring much operating costs, by giving the link no public service whatever except when the main line is closed. (Rusty rails and driver knowledge trips would still be necessary, but these would probably cost very small change compared to the building costs).Of course, this would be a pretty stupid thing to do, when there are so many other places where new tracks could be built and get regular use.
Re Timbeau,
The current French ultimate aim is to replicate the UK and do 5 hours overnight instead, the only reason they have to do it during the day is lack of union agreement. the day time closures destroy the economics of SNCF. Macron is on the case.
The problem with these works is that the only stuff you can really do in 4 hours is only being done because the line is closed for other works elsewhere and it is a shame not to use the closure to maximise the work done.
The non summer weekend loadings on the sussex routes are a faction of the non school holiday of the week days hence the engineering work at weekends
Re MIAM ,
Except the the opposite is true as soon as you factor in a small number of commuters having to take unpaid leave. Hence the focus on school holiday times to reduce this and also school holidays are really the only times when bustitution is possible during the week because buses aren’t doing school work.
Uckfield – Lewis
There already are some diversionary routes Three Bridges – Horsham – Littlehampton – Brighton which is already being used during every closure and has lower journey time than a rebuilt Lewis – Uckfield would if reopened. Also Wivelsfield – Lewes – Brighton will be available and used some weekends when Balcombe Tunnel isn’t being worked on.
As a reminder each day of closure entails an average of £2m work done, these aren’t small works…
Brighton – Three Bridges closures:
The replacement buses leave every 3-4 minutes and are being timed for connection purposes to take an extra 14 minutes than the train which still means they are quicker than a train via Littlehampton or a reopened Lewes – Uckfield
@Jimbo: The Albula tunnel has the advantage of the existence of the current tunnel, which will be retained as an evacuation tunnel linked to the new tunnel – helping meet the modern evacuation standards John Elliott mentioned.
Given the unexpected extended disruption of the Farnsworth rebore, I wonder if in hindsight a completely new parallel tunnel would have been a better bet. But would maybe have meant land acquisition hence a public enquiry etc etc. As with the Croydon scheme, the moment things go beyond permitted railway development rights, at least a couple of years get added to the schedule by the planning system. But you get a better outcome in the long term.
But certainly you wouldn’t do the City and South London tunnel enlargement now given modern working methods – you would just build a new parallel tunnel (like at Bank).
Rory, re the signalling strategy.
I’m sure you know better than the various signalling engineers and project managers on the CARS team who have been working on this for the last couple of years.
Note that doing most of the stage work on the existing interlocking and then transferring to the new interlocking at the last major stage is precisely how the London Bridge rebuild was done. Rather successfully I might add.
@Ian J
For the CSLR, enlargement might have been preferable to boring a new pair of tunnels because it avoided the need to build 14 new stations.
timbeau, Ian J
Bank got a mention. At one of the consultations I asked about breaking through the iron tunnel segments thinking this will be a problem. I was surprised to be told it wasn’t a big deal. The cutting machine could easily chew through the segments. It is only the shape of the structure that gives it its strength. So my guess is that a TBM of a considerably larger diameter than the existing cast iron tunnel would just chew through without difficulty. There might be a soil contamination issue though.
Of course the real problem is what happens to existing passengers whilst the line is closed for reconstruction. At Bank it is 40 days full closure – and that is a big enough issues. On top of that it is 77 days partial closure.
@SFD – Presumably refurbished Westpac geographical interlocking units and panel components salvaged from the London Bridge job can be reused for CARS stages. I think geographical in very good condition is the real game changer for these jobs, simplifying design and installation. You’d not want to do similarly extensive stagework on a freewired installation with developing insulation degradation for example.
@me “I have never bought the argument that weekend and bank holiday closures are more disruptive, except on lines where the traffic is primarily commuter. ”
@NGH “The non summer weekend loadings on the sussex routes are a faction of the non school holiday of the week days hence the engineering work at weekends”
The main traffic on the Sussex routes probably is commuter. I was thinking more of the Inter City routes, where the busiest times are often Friday and Sunday evenings. (In contrast, Friday is usually quieter than other weekdays on most commuter lines)
@Ian J – I expect the RhB will put a strong new lining in the old Albula tunnel for its new emergency and maintenance access role, once trains have moved into the new bore. Such a new lining may not have been possible to fit around the rail loading gauge and of course train services would have had to cease throughout its construction The new tunnel remaining close and parallel to the old bore makes construction of cross-passages an easy task.
At Farnworth, the old bore is also to remain as an access route, although there are no cross passages required due to the comparatively short tunnel length.
https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/03/03/farnworth-tunnel-once-in-a-lifetime/
@Sad fat dad
In case it wasn’t obvious from my post, I am a signalling engineer, and I am involved with planning and delivering similar projects.
The main supplier we discussed our scheme with, who incidentally delivered London Bridge, are the ones who said that’s a mad strategy. And they would probably know better than client project managers at the development phase
@Mark T – as I understand the reports, the problem with the existing Albula tunnel has been that the profile has deformed over time.
@Rory,
You fail to deal with the negatives of relocking and recontrolling early – locking yourself into the yawn-inducing cycle of data changes as an obvious problem. If you’re going to argue a point, please provide some balance.
@Greg and others,
An up direction grade separated link from the Redhills to Victoria is needed, but only one is needed in the short term. Stoat’s Nest will be grade separated in the future (maybe in the up direction only), but while Croydon is being worked on it makes more sense to do it there now, as passive provision would probably be 80-90% of the cost anyway. We looked up and down the route, and the intersection would be phenomenally expensive due to the cuttings. Nothing’s impossible though…
@GH – Deformation possibly in that 1.5km of slate and marl the tunnel builders had to fight through originally?
Given Windmill Bridge is going to offer some grade separation for Up traffic (Slow -> Victoria Fast) but not so much in the Down direction, could you perhaps explain why we’d need grade separation in the Up direction at Stoat’s Nest? It seems to me it makes more sense to grade separate Down trains, even if local topography makes that harder.
@ALBERT J.P. – Due to the relative disposition of fasts and slows in the area, down fast to down slow moves are easier to orchestrate on the flat than up slow to fast moves. While the the DF>DS move has to cross the US, this is comparatively easier to time and regulate with the many stops performed by most trains on the slows, i.e there’s often a window in front of or immediately behind a stationary US train in which to cross without creating delay. On the down fast there is typically a constant stream of expresses following at minimum headway heading for next stop Gatwick or beyond so getting across is much more problematic on the flat. So for Redhill to Victoria fasts and vice versa, whether crossing in the Windmill Bridge or Stoats Nest areas, an up direction grade separation gives more benefit than a down grade separation.
Re Albert JP,
Up crossing moves involve crossing the heavily used Down Fast, but Down crossing moves involve crossing the much quieter* Up Slow.
*Quieter because the 10tph of East Grinstead / Uckfield / Caterham and Tattenham Corner services only use the Up slow further north.
Some of the extra trains the capacity upgrade would provide would be extra fasts via Redhill services and grade separation at Up Stoats Nest would also also more Slow Redhill as well as some options for more heading towards something from East Grinstead / Uckfield / Caterham and Tattenham Corner.
As soon as you grade separate the the Up slow to Up fast move there is much greater flexibility in down pathing options.
NGH
Agree and the point of building a flyover to the Up Fast at Stoats Nest from Redhill is that the slow line between Purley and East Croydon is already completely full and causing delays every morning peak and again for the return in the evening peak due to congestion.
The Network Rail plan does very little to improve that situation as far as I can see (happy to be corrected) as all the flyovers are north of East Croydon, although the extra platform may help a bit.
Thus, taking out some of the Redhill trains from the slow lines is the only way to fit more services to Oxted or Cat/Tatt and the best approach to do that is to build an up direction Stoats Nest flyover, which will ensure capacity remains on the main line that will contain extra Redhill trains.
@Mark Townend – There’s an interesting webcam of the work site at https://albulatunnel.roundshot.com/ including opportunities to see the remaining veteran Ge 4/4 Is on the spoil trains. (Not quite as interesting as the famous Filisur webcam but you can’t have everything). It would be good if there were similar webcams for some UK sites.
Re T33,
See JP’s comment at 12 November 2018 at 07:37…
With the pre ’83 Windmill Bridge Junction design capacity on the Redhill lines was maximised by minimising stopping on Redhill services and sending as many to London Bridge as possible, post ’83 it is maximised by stopping Redhill services as much as possible which was done more and more as passenger growth increased.
The Post ’83 arrangement enabled more direct services and less of the pre ’83 “hub and spoke*” working over time
*Key hubs being Redhill, Gatwick (esp. post 1970), Three Bridges, Haywards Heath with lots of the branches operating as shuttles (somewhat better reliability too?)
Re T33,
As the problem is actually P4/5 and the signalling overlap northbound if East Croydon is rebuilt as proposed then a large bottleneck is removed and extra services can go via the eastern tracks to /from London without other interventions but they would need to stop (lots) to maximise capacity. A Stoats Nest Flyover would be to add extra capacity on top of that but only when you are interested in Redhill faster services (and you have rebuild Clapham Junction and Victoria etc. too)
@Mark Townend: The article only mentions “modernisation” as being the intention. There was a choice to be made between refitting the existing tunnel or drilling a second. It doesn’t give the exact reason a second was chosen.
However the notes on construction of the original also mention: Water ingress at a constant 6C at a rate of 300l/s. On the southside (Skt Moritz), they found sand mixed with huge boulders as well as granite.
So I think it’s fair enough to say that the ground conditions were “sub-optimal”!
NGH
Interesting and thank you for the clear thoughts.
Problem as I see it is that I can see the improvements in the Morning if 4/5 (or equivalent) are both Northbound will cut delays especially with more lines north of East Croydon, but that doesn’t sort the daily delays going south through to Purley which is where most evening trains lose time (and currently with less than 45% of trains arriving on time that is a clear issue). How will all that rebuild create a better service when it is already at capacity in the bottleneck between East Croydon and Purley.
It would make sense if the East Grinstead/Uckfield and Caterham/Tattenham services were concentrated on London Bridge. Then a flyover at Redhill could direct more trains towards Victoria from there and create an even service.
The current Victoria service is patently inadequate (and I say that as a Redhill user who goes to London Bridge/Farringdon more). The loss of fast services in May has been compounded with most trains being only 4 coaches and often full standing capacity before arriving at Purley, plus Coulsdon/Redhill/Reigate passengers unable to board at Clapham in the reverse direction.
It seems more sensible to put in the crossover at Stoats Nest than Croydon as that creates maximum capacity for the future, rather than limiting to just the same service the Windmill Bridge flyover creates at East Croydon.
T33,
It would make sense if the East Grinstead/Uckfield and Caterham/Tattenham services were concentrated on London Bridge
But surely they are? On the Tattenham Corner branch we only have 6 trains per day to Victoria (Mondays-Fridays only). Same on the Caterham branch (and I think all of those trains combine at Purley). An Uckfield train going to Victoria is extremely rare and only happens during engineering work.
On that list only East Grinstead has a better service to Victoria than London Bridge. Given the existence of Thameslink through London Bridge, London Bridge is basically full up so something has to go to Victoria. I am sure if they thought they could get away with 4tph in the peak to London Bridge and none to Victoria they would.
If any of these trains goes to Victoria then it makes sense for these to be the East Grinstead ones because these are 12-cars long and electric (so not a problem at Victoria where the platforms are covered).
Re PoP,
I’d disagree about London Bridge being full up, the terminating side isn’t and then 4tph of Thameslink had to not go via East Croydon because of the
BermudaSelhurst Triangle and to Rainham etc. instead…I’d go for + 4 tph on the fast to LBG and +2 on the fast to VIC compared to today with more Metro especially via Tulse Hill to the LBG terminating platforms too.
@NGH, @T33 – Here’s an image of the indications panel for the East Croydon area at Three Bridges ASC:
http://www.townend.me/files/Three%20Bridges%20Croydon%20Panel.jpg
Note the overlap symbol indicated by my added yellow arrow. When an up movement approaches signal 106, points 1608 are locked normal until the movement has come to a complete stand in platform #4. Thus no movement that requires these points in the reverse position can take place simultaneously, such as an up slow departure from platform #5. Similarly if an up route is already set from platform #5 signal 108 over 1608 points reverse, then simultaneous up slow or slow reversible moves from the south into platform #4 are not possible. Thus up slow/Oxted trains cannot use use #4 and #5 alternately with the previous train train still departing while the next one arrives alongside. I recall there was some consideration given to moving signal 106 back a few tens of metres south to make space for a restricted overlap clear of the points and improve flexibility, but this never got anywhere due to complications extending the platform at the south end of the station to compensate for lost standage at the north. Note at the north end the distance from signal 106 to the clearance point of crossover 1608 is little more than about 25m today, definitely insufficient for any kind of clear overlap, and there’s no possibility of moving the junction S&C without some widening of the alignment.
ngh,
Bad wording on my part presuming the context was clear. The route to London Bridge via East Croydon will be full up once Thameslink is fully implemented. If not then there isn’t a capacity problem at Windmill Bridge!
London Bridge itself isn’t full up and won’t be any time yet. Hence opportunities for extra services via Peckham Rye.
Couldn’t an Up Redhill to Up Quarry line link be built by cutting a ledge into the side of the Redhill Line cutting South of Stoat’s Nest? The quarry line crosses over anyway here so providing a non conflicting move needn’t involve building a bridge, just retaining walls in the cutting.
There are two road bridges over the quarry lines which might need replacing, though.
The main road is rather close to the edge of the cutting too. It would be hugely disruptive to rail traffic over the entire construction. As well as the parallel road (which is the main road from London to Gatwick and Brighton).
POP – 13/11 17:24
Sorry I meant as an overall group. Currently there are Victoria services all day from East Grinstead and Redhill using the slow lines, plus peak services from Tattenham/Caterham and hence crossing to the fast line at Windmill Bridge Junction.
It would make sense for the Redhill to Victoria services to cross at Stoats Nest and the East Grinstead services to be swapped onto Thameslink all day from Victoria (Instead of Rainham perhaps). Then only the peak services to Victoria from East Grinstead (what used to go to LBG) and Tatt/Cat would need to cross at Windmill Bridge Junction
It also seems wrong that the Horsham to LBG & Thameslink via Redhill service swaps to the fasts at Stoats Nest currently and that would be better staying on the slows, with the Reigate to Victoria and associated services crossing at Stoats instead.
Just these simple changes I am sure would unlock capacity in the current Junctions (although I am sure many East Grinstead customers may not agree)
NGH – Thank you for the diagram, very interesting – that will help for Northbound trains but not in the evening trying to get past Purley
Re T33,
Until they get to Cottage Junction and it all goes very very wrong* if T82 is anything other than Green. To many trains more than 8car “turning right” at Cottage Jn is a big problem, one of the biggest issues with the 1983 scheme (lowest justifiable cost which assumed everything from the slows south of ECR to LBG via the fasts would be 8 or less cars). Getting rid of the 8/10 car problems* so everything can be 12car without issue is a big part of the proposed scheme and why it is so complex.
Worth remembering in 1983, East Grinstead was served by 8car max DEMUs from Victoria (Uckfield shuttles) so 12 car trains could be focused on LBG and the ventilation systems for the Thumpers is still in Victoria. The lowest UK passenger rail usage in the 20th Century was in 1982 and East Grinstead was only electrified in 1986.
I think you want to thank Mark T for the diagram…
* A much bigger problem than P4/5 overlaps Northbound
** 4x 8car issues and 3x 10 car issues that result in longer trains occupying 2 blocks when stationary, reducing capacity and blocking junctions .
Re T33,
PS to summarise at a high level:
“It would make sense”
No it really really doesn’t! The infrastructure limitations decide where trains go and their routing unless you want to reduce the number of services overall or want to start shortening services.
Two things about running the Redhill service on the slows – 16tph South of East Croydon shouldn’t be a problem and 10tph south of South Croydon is in theory not at all congested.
* something has to stop at Purley to provide local connections and that means at least 4tph of Redhill’s service should be on the slow lines.
* the biggest problem seems to come in times of disruption when platform 6 is blocked by a splitting train and the next one can’t access the platform – some sort of redesign to have a through siding north of Purley would appear to go a long way to solving this problem.
East Grinstead trains were presumably 9-car length before electrification given the 3-car length of most of the units used at the time? Either way, there is a long standing service from East Grinstead to Victoria.
To say the Victoria service from the Redhill line has been ‘ruined’ is somewhat Redhill-centric. There are some people who have benefited from the change – not least my colleagues in Reigate who (in theory at least) can plan around a direct train to Clapham Junction every hour. Passengers in Redhill actually have a good connection via the Peterborough service to Victoria and back with same / cross platform changes at East Croydon so they don’t have to restrict themselves to the 4-car trains. The fact that these trains even carry a portion for Earlswood and Salfords in the peak was a later amendment to the original plans – Victoria can be reached by a change of trains at East Croydon quicker than using the portion train.
If it wasn’t for the two terminal problem and people’s expectations of fast and slow direct connections to every possible destination the whole South Central network would be simpler. Some people have to accept a compromise. Presumably making those compromises more palatable is what the work at Windmill Bridge is about.
Re NGH,
No, politicians decide where trains go, then the infrastructure tries to cope. Wimbledon loop is a prime example – there is no infrastructure reason that line should ever go through the Thameslink core, but there is clearly a political one.
As I commented earlier, Stoats Nest will probably get grade separated at some point. BML needs one up slow to up fast grade separation now and one later, and to provide it later at Selhurst is impossible without incurring most of the cost anyway. The grade separation does just about work at the intersection bridge, but works much better between Coulsdon South and Stoats Nest.
Do more trains need to run via Redhill (potentially not stopping at any of the intermediate stations – e.g. fast Gatwick to East Croydon) to justify the cost of a Stoats Nest Flyover or can it be justified on Redhill route traffic alone?
JP
but works much better between Coulsdon South and Stoats Nest.
You’ve put your finger on the hopefully-solvable problem: Managing to do this without taking any non-railway land …….
JohanthanH – agreed – one terminal per route with one change to the other terminal should be our goal – and on SE where there is sometimes a third terminal. The ability of the interchanges to cope needs to be properly addressed. East Croydon, Norwood Junction, West Croydon and Sutton perhaps being the obvious ones. On SE Lewisham is the main one that needs attention, Peckham Rye being another.
This smells to this reader of being a proposal based on the most upfront funding the sponsors think they can secure. The proposal reads as high risk with multiple opportunities for overruns in terms of time and cost – signalling being a good example. At the very least, NAO or the Department of Transport should mandate an independent project risk assessment to determine the likelihood that this project will be delivered to plan.
It is also a plan without clear, quantised goals. For instance the key metric is missing of what increase in passenger numbers it will deliver on key journeys both directly (nil I presume? ) and indirectly contingent on further investment on rolling stock or improvements to other sections of BML.
It is possible that the proposed layout is a good one but without a much clearer, preferably quantised, statement of risk and reward it is very hard to back this proposal.
@Kate. Your sense of smell is being inappropriately employed. You also admit yourself that you base at least some of your comments on presumption.
What you say suggests that you have not been following this series of articles. There is a lot to absorb.
The project is at too early a stage to provide the data that you are asking for. Certainly a great deal has been done to get to the current stage. Non-the -less, much still needs to be done to provide what you are asking for.
My understanding ‘in a nutshell’ is :-
1 As a result of longer trains and more frequent services the BML is so heavily loaded that when anything goes even slightly awry the effects are felt across many connected lines, affecting vast numbers of people over a wide area.
2 There are a small number of pinch points (bottlenecks) which are more highly stressed than the rest of the BML. These articles have examined each stress point in turn and asked ‘What would be the effect of dealing with this particular problem area?’.
3 As the focal point at which Services from both Victoria and London Bridge merge, the area that is more highly stressed than any other by current services is the combined Selhurst Triangle and East Croydon Station. This is because the Croydon area infrastructure was designed for the rolling stock and services of the 1980’s. As a result the current 12 carriage trains block junctions and both that and the number of fast platforms at Croydon East limit the number of trains that can pass through the area.
4 Dealing with any other area before the Croydon area would have a limited effect and be a waste of time and money. Conversely, Dealing with Croydon Area will have an immediate beneficial effect on the reliability of current services, will allow an increase in services and will make other interventions more cost effective.
5 Signalling assets in the Croydon area are due for renewal. Because the cost of resignalling is so great, failure to restructure infrastructure before resignalling would lock the current inadequate structure for another thirty to forty years and condemn the passengers of a vast area to increasing chaos.
6 It’s too soon to say what the cost will be. They are still working on details to get the most out of what is done.
You wrongly state that ‘It is also a plan without clear, quantised goals.’. Because of knockon effects, the current number of people affected when things go awry is more than the 300,000 who use the line. By the time that this project is fulfilled there will be many more who will benefit from more reliable services and from the capacity for more services.
The questions that you ask, and many more also, are occupying the minds of those working on the project. When it gets to the proper stage (end of GRIP4?) only then can we expect answers to all these questions. Before then, whatever you hear can be only approximate for the sake of preparing applications for funding.
Re: Upper Addiscombe Bridge. I recall a bridge somewhere (I think it was in the NE of London) which was built one half at a time. There seems to be sufficient space to build the Northern half of the new bridge before reducing the width of the current bridge in order to build the Southern half of the new one. If this can be achieved it would mean that, at worst, there would be one way traffic for the duration of the bridge build. I doubt that Gloucestor Road would need to be closed any longer than with any other technique.
There was a notice on the displays at London Bridge about a Norwood Junction consultation this morning.
The link to Network Rail Page
Went to one of the Norwood Junction consultation meetings. Not much to report. Track layout confirmed as two island platforms serving slow and semi-fast trains. Two through lines will be available for fast trains. Full step-free access will be provided via one of the two new footbridges. Existing station buildings will stay largely as present though may be internally reconfigured.
The work means that most platforms will be demolished but there will be some limited reuse. Work will basically go from east to west but is slightly complicated by the need to get one overbridge in use early on.
All done within permitted development except for the usual right of council’s to have a say on materials used and visual appearance so no public inquiry. Not yet funded so dependent on new transport minister but expected to be approved. Work could start in 2021 and is expected to take less than three years.
Mention was made of supporting 6tph London Overground to West Croydon. This may also require early works at Cottage Junction prior to the main reconfiguration in the Selhurst triangle.
Pedantic of Purley @ 18 June 2019 at 09:42
“dependent on new transport minister but expected to be approved”
Is there a record of Chris Grayling approving anything?
PoP
Which means that the layout diagram(s) in “Study in Sussex” will have to be revised, with two “fast” tracks having no platforms, I think?
Alan Griffiths,
Yes, he has approved a lot of things. Including awarding a ferry contract to a company that has never run a ferry. Rumour is that we will soon see him awarding a rail contract to a company that has never operated a railway.
Greg Tingey,
We tend not to update articles other than for corrections of something that was wrong at the time. The articles represent how things were at the time of writing.
The is not much reason to do an update. A up-to-date description has been given. We do not know all the details of the planned future layout like the location of points so a diagram wouldn’t be that meaningful. I don’t believe, even now, it is finalised. And if we were to do to every article then we would have no time for anything else.
@PoP
“dependent on new transport minister ”
Do you know something we don’t? There is a precedent for a Transport Minister to serve under two consecutive Prime Ministers – Ernest Marples, under both Macmillan and Douglas-Home.
@timbeau: And I thought Transport Ministers were like London Buses?
Marples! That old devil… Friend of Tarmac and his own back pocket.
Alex, you’re surely not suggesting there was something dodgy about Marples Ridgeway getting the contract to build the M1?
@SHLR
The present Transport Secretary is the 52nd to hold the post since it was first created in 1919, under Lloyd George – that makes an average tenure of 23 months. He will have been in post for three years next month. There have been nineteen Prime Ministers in that time.
Pedantic of Purley @ 18 June 2019 at 14:18
Know what you mean, but I was thinking of Transport & Works Act Orders for railway projects.
Remodelling of Manchester Oxford Road, so that the platforms are long enough for 5-car trains, and the extra pair of through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly come to mind.
These two projects are crucial for a huge area of northern England. Allegedly his reason for sitting on approval is to examine the case for signalling good enough for as many trains as run between Blackfriars and St Pancras.
The video added to this page today is worth a viewing
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/sussex/upgrading-the-brighton-main-line/unblocking-the-croydon-bottleneck/