It was not our intention to write another full article on the long-term developments planned at East Croydon. As far as we could see the overall plan was almost finalised and little new was expected to come out of the consultation planned the first half of 2020. However, the most recent consultation details include a lot of changes.
Indeed, the information available is now far more detailed, which gives us a reason to look one more time at the plans for East Croydon. Also influencing our decision to revisit this is COVID-19. This has meant that the requirement for short and medium term enhancement schemes is questionable and it is only the long term schemes – especially the long term schemes that have already had a considerable amount of work carried out – that can meaningfully be reported on. Only they have a business case that isn’t completely distorted by the impact of the virus.
A name for the scheme at last
For years we have struggled with what to call the scheme to remodel East Croydon station and junctions north. Last year the overall scheme was announced as the Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme (CARS) but that included work at Norwood Junction station, which could be carried out within the railway boundary under permitted development rules. What was needed was a name for the part of the scheme not covered by existing development rights and therefore liable to a public inquiry.
The scheme in question now has a formal name. It is ‘the East Croydon to Selhurst Junction Capacity Enhancement scheme‘. This is a little long-winded perhaps, but at least it describes its purpose very clearly in one sentence. Note that its objective is increasing capacity. It is not about rebuilding East Croydon station. Work on the station is a consequence of the scheme, not a primary objective.
A tweak or a fundamental revision?
At first glance, the latest details given suggest a much-revised scheme. Indeed, many media articles have reported it this way with the general headline that East Croydon station is to move 100 metres to the north. The Network Rail project team deny that anything much has changed and say this was the plan all along. This is largely, but we would argue not entirely, true. Another way of looking at it is that various relatively small changes have been made which Network Rail may not consider to be especially significant but, from the public perspective, suggests a scheme that passengers will find considerably different from that which has appeared or been implied before in consultations.
The actual changes
As far as we can tell, there are three changes of significance. They are:
- An eighth track under Windmill Bridge (up from seven).
- A conflict free route from the Victoria Down Fast to the Down Slow at East Croydon has been added (in fact there was always passive provision for this, although this fact was not generally made public).
- East Croydon station appears to have moved 100 metres to the north compared to previous plans. More accurately, the platforms now have a common alignment and existing main station entrance has been replaced by an upgraded entrance around 100 metres to the north of it.
We will look at these in more detail.
Windmill Bridge and the surrounding area
Windmill Bridge (also known as St James’ Road Bridge) was always going to be a major part of the capacity enhancement scheme. The road-over-rail bridge currently supports five tracks. It was going to be seven and is now going to be eight. By adding a final eighth track, the plan has avoided some undesirable conflicting (and potentially capacity and reliability reducing) movements between Selhurst and East Croydon station.
In terms of land take, the extra track is not that significant as it does not require any major re-thinking on the design of the bridge. What has changed, or at least now been brought to the public’s attention, is the requirement to close the southern end of Gloucester Road. This road runs roughly parallel with the railway at railway level, before rising on a ramp to form a T-junction with the road over Windmill Bridge.
Network Rail argue that plans to close this road are nothing new, but the details of these plans certainly weren’t well known. Even less clear previously (and still not immediately obvious) is the fate of around thirty former railwayman’s cottages in Gloucester Road backing on to the railway. It was clear in the past that at least one of these would have to be demolished and that others would, as a minimum, have a reduced garden.
What is now apparent, but perhaps technically not a change of plan, is that all these cottages will now need to be acquired and demolished. This is clear because the land is marked as essential for construction. The buildings have to go, even if some of the land can subsequently be made available again for housing once the scheme is complete.
Thirty or so cottages might not sound like a big deal, but the general principle adopted with construction projects in the public interest is to avoid taking private domestic property whenever possible. Thirty domestic properties is actually quite a lot for a railway enhancement programme involving no additional route mileage. Business premises, which form the bulk of the site, are generally not so well protected from compulsory purchase orders as the prevailing attitude is that businesses can be compensated for the inconvenience with no undue hardship caused.
The need for the destruction of so many domestic properties could go some way to explain why it took so long to come up with a plan to eliminate the bottleneck at East Croydon. Unless it is accepted that a considerable number of domestic properties need to be compulsorily purchased, a scheme would only provide marginal benefit. The only alternative is going to the extreme lengths of proposing a long tunnel emerging south of Purley – which was what Network Rail proposed about a decade ago.
Bridge reconstruction
Network Rail have now made it a lot clearer how they intend to reconstruct the bridge and have produced an excellent animation which includes this.
It was always clear that the intention was to ‘boom over’ or launch the new bridge. This is now quite a common practice. The big advantage for Network Rail is that you don’t have to close the railway to do it. So common is this practice now that just over a mile away from Windmill Bridge is Tennison Road bridge which was installed in the same manner a few years ago. An even closer example is the recent foot overbridge at East Croydon station which was installed in a like manner.
What complicates things at Windmill Bridge is that it is impractical to close the road for a long period to enable the offline bridge construction to take place. There are other factors too. Network Rail have obtained ownership of a worksite in the south-west corner of the bridge and there is also a desire to maintain at least pedestrian and cycle access at all times. Furthermore, the revised road layout has to comply with modern highway standards which makes locating the new bridge in any location other than the same one as the old bridge an impractical option.
Windmill Bridge is actually the only crossing point between the previously mentioned Tennison Road bridge and East Croydon station foot overbridge. This highlights how vitally important it is to maintain at least pedestrian access (and preferably cycling access) during the time that the bridge is out of use to motor traffic.
The solution that Network Rail have proposed is to slide the bridge in two stages. The first stage places it parallel but slightly to the south of the final position and the second stage slides it north so it sits where the existing bridge resides.
Although engineers nowadays are highly skilled at installing new bridges without closing the railway, they have yet to find a means of removing old brick bridges without a railway closure. So the sequence is a follows:
- Build temporary trestles to support the new bridge just south of the existing bridge
- Boom across the new bridge to rest south of the existing bridge onto the temporary trestles
- Open new bridge in its temporary position with temporary approaches for pedestrians and cyclists only
- Close existing bridge and demolish
- Build two outer piers for the new bridge to rest on
- Boom new bridge into position
Note that the new bridge in its final position, like Tennison Bridge, will not need any intermediate pier supports between the railway tracks.
Below is an excellent video from Network Rail. Three minutes into it is an animation that shows, far better than words can, how of how the bridge will be put into place should the scheme go ahead.
The plan was always to make the final in-place bridge more friendly to pedestrians and cycling, but now there is also talk of pedestrian and cycle routes beneath the bridge parallel to the railway. For cyclists in particular this is potentially a major advantage as the A222 (Windmill Bridge Road) is quite a barrier for cyclists wishing to go from north to south or vice-versa.
Eighth track completes the set
One weakness with the earlier proposals was that most rail routes were conflict free, with the notable exception of trains on the fast lines from Victoria crossing over to the slow lines at East Croydon and continuing southwards on the slow lines. These would include trains heading to East Grinstead, which cannot remain on the fast lines as they need to access the junction at South Croydon via the slow lines.
Network Rail had known this remaining conflict would be a weakness, but modelling showed that the proposed arrangement would work. Nevertheless, it was one of those situations where it just felt wrong. Its omission destroyed a certain symmetry with track layout and it is intuitive to think that, if East Croydon station will have eight platforms, it makes sense to have eight tracks under Windmill Bridge.
It seems Network Rail have revisited their plans and decided to incorporate the eighth track from the outset. This has clearly made incorporating this into the footprint available even more challenging, but Network Rail have succeeded in producing a workable layout with eight tracks and no pinch points. Inevitably it will be a layout with compromises. For example, provision is made for overhead electrification should that ever be required in the future, but clearances will be tight. Also, the gradients are acceptable, but it would have been desirable if these could have been reduced. It is easy to forget that the Brighton Main Line is also a freight route with regular freight workings.
East Croydon station changes
To the average member of the public travelling by train, all that is important is knowing what East Croydon station will look like and what services will be offered. The station appears to be radically different than proposed before but, in a sense, not that much has actually changed.
On the previous iteration of the scheme, the new platforms 1-4 would have been set to the north of the new platforms 5-8 (existing platforms 3-6). This is largely because it is only possible to get a maximum of seven tracks under George Street railway bridge outside the current main station entrance. So, it seems fairly sensible to move the new platforms 5-8 so that they line up with new platforms 1-4. This immediately produces the benefit that Network Rail will not be so tightly constrained by land boundaries as they would be if the platforms reached almost as far south as the current station entrance.
Possibly one of the biggest advantages of moving the centre of gravity of the station further to the north is that it provides an opportunity to retain the relatively-new wide station foot overbridge complete with lifts. This has been rather cleverly incorporated into a new entrance to the station. This bigger station entrance means that the existing station entrance can be abandoned and a large open space created in front of the new, more substantial, station entrance.
The existing entrance goes
One perceived downside of this new plan is that it involves the demolition of the 1992 Network SouthEast glass atrium that is the current main station entrance. A life of around 30 years for a station building suggests a failure of planning, but sometimes circumstances come along which mean it makes sense to demolish. Abbey Wood is an obvious example of another, relatively new station building being rethought for a greater benefit.
As much as anything, the need to demolish the big glass atrium and replace it with a glass atrium that is even bigger is an indication of how much rail traffic has grown at East Croydon.
The oversite building – abandoned
One thing that will probably go down well with users of the new station is the lack of oversite development. Network Rail seemed to have bowed to the inevitable here, because it was largely unbuildable. Or rather, it could be built, but was starting to raise formidable challenges – particularly when it came to a construction plan that was consistent with keeping the railway open.
Residents of Croydon in general will be relieved that additional tall buildings will not now be built. In recent years, the station has become increasingly surrounded by them and a low-rise station will go some way to avoid even more of a Manhattan look. It will also provide some much-needed open space.
The Piazza that could be even bigger
Perhaps the most dramatic change to the scheme is the amount of open space created, with the new station main entrance on one side and the existing tram stop on the other. This is clearly not going to please everyone.
Large open spaces, sometimes amounting to full continental-style piazzas, are very much the in thing. King’s Cross now has a dramatic open setting and even London Bridge has some open space outside its Tooley Street entrance. Visually, the proposed one at East Croydon will probably be fairly attractive, even if Network Rail plan to have small retail outlets on three sides of a large light well allowing daylight below. The piazza will also give a feel of spaciousness – something the existing East Croydon station is severely lacking.
What is frustrating is that the area between the station entrance and tram stops could potentially be an even larger welcoming open space. The retail units could be relegated to the extremities – as they are at King’s Cross.
For Network Rail though, this presents a problem. The trackwork that needs to be rebuilt below this potential piazza is complex and already this is a bit of a construction logistics nightmare. Full decking over is awkward and would add considerable cost to the scheme, making Network Rail concerned that this would impact on the scheme’s overall viability.
Interchange with buses and trams
One downside of the scheme is that interchange with buses and trams is not going to be anywhere near as convenient as today. That said, in fine weather this shouldn’t prove too much of an issue and the separating space is needed. In recent years there has been a trend not to make interchanges too convenient with only a nominal interchange distance. This is because of the issue of crowd build-up when problems occur and the difficulty of managing that in a confined space.
A plus point could be that at the moment, when East Croydon gets shut down due to a suspicious package or other incident, it tends to be a shutdown of both trains and trams (and sometimes buses too). If there is some distance between the tram stop and the railway station the perhaps future shutdowns will not be so severe.
Future interchange options
Clearly, with the proposed piazza, both Croydon Council and TfL are going to show a major interest in the design of services outside the station. The word is that they are not against the revised proposals, but see the need to get involved in order to take advantage of the opportunities made available. One obvious issue is the lack of a covered route from the station to the tram stop. More positively is the possible opportunity to revise East Croydon’s tram layout to cater for four tracks with two wide island platforms and hence better interchange arrangements between different tram routes.
Taking speculation to extreme lengths, one wonders if there is an opportunity for a tram loop around the piazza so that some tram passengers could pick up the tram from almost outside the station. This would fit in with the long term plans for trams to have increased frequency on the Wimbledon route and, to avoid too many trams in the town centre, turning some of the New Addington trams at East Croydon. This was the idea of the now-defunct Dingwall Road loop. It must be emphasised that nothing has yet been officially suggested as a way to tackle interchange issues at the revised East Croydon station.
Urban Realm
Just as nothing is decided regarding interchange options, nothing has been decided about urban realm. Traffic-free drawings of the area surrounding East Croydon station portrayed in the consultation are pure speculation. Network Rail’s consultation page seems to suggest that Dingwall Road would be pedestrianised, but this appears to be on the basis that nothing definite is known but Network Rail need to show something.
Another new entrance
The revised plans show a new entrance for the station in Lansdowne Road, north of the existing entrance which is reached via Caithness Walk. This would be linked at ticket hall level with the new main entrance. The proposal for this additional entrance is not new, but has more significance now that the station will only have two entrances.
One problem for Network Rail is anticipating how big the entrances need to be. With COVID-19 probably delivering the final coup de grâce to the proposed town centre shopping development in Croydon – originally intended to be complete in 2018 and not yet started – no-one really has any idea how Croydon will develop over future years. All Network Rail can do is make each entrance large enough for the maximum number of expected people.
Additional Services
Looking at the physical aspects of the scheme, it is easy to forget that the purpose is to increase capacity. According to the consultation, this scheme will result in an extra two trains per hour to Victoria, an extra two to London Bridge (terminating) and an extra two Thameslink services.
Of course, on the modern railway, schemes potentially increasing capacity do not necessarily mean that the increased capacity is used. And, because it is subject to a separate consultation led by the DfT and TOCs, which services (if any) will benefit is a matter of separate discussion. It is important to point out that, if the scheme goes ahead, East Croydon and the surrounding junctions will no longer be the limiting factor. If further capacity enhancement schemes went ahead (e.g. at Clapham Junction), then East Croydon could accommodate any extra services that could be provided.
The hidden extra two trains per hour
If the scheme went ahead it would enable a total of an extra 6tph through East Croydon. That may not sound like much, but with each 12-car train potentially carrying between 1000 and 1500 extra people, that is a lot of increased capacity.
Not so important in terms of overall capacity but important in terms of better service, is the potential to run an extra 2tph on London Overground to West Croydon. Running 24tph on the East London line has long been a cherished dream of TfL. Long term, the challenge is to get 6tph to West Croydon (with 3tph continuing to Wallington to terminate there due to limited turnback capacity at West Croydon).
The scheme, if implemented, will make it possible for TfL to run 6tph to West Croydon, but the necessary trackwork would not be implemented until stage 2 (of 3) of the construction scheme, so would not happen until the late 2020s at the earliest.
The Thameslink quandary
The statement that the scheme will enable an extra 2tph on Thameslink through East Croydon raises some interesting questions. Thameslink allows for a maximum of 24tph through central London and all these slots are spoken for, although not all of them are yet in use. The only way you can get an extra 2tph Thameslink service through East Croydon is by removing it from elsewhere.
The obvious service to divert is the 2tph Thameslink service through London Bridge to Rainham. This was very controversial at the time but seems to have settled down and works well. It is, however, only an 8-car service, so it would be good if it could be replaced by a 12-car one. Of course, extra carriages would have to be ordered.
The problem with diverting the Rainham service is that it is established and could well be regarded as an unexpected success. The feared problems in introducing it haven’t materialised and, as it utilises otherwise unavailable paths (due to limited capacity at Cannon St), it would be difficult to provide a replacement service.
Another option is to not implement the proposed Thameslink Cambridge – Maidstone East service and divert that to run via East Croydon. Politically this might be difficult. Not only that, but a new depot at Chart Leacon in Ashford is being built for maintaining the trains that would run this service. Due to platform length restrictions, north of Hitchin semi-fast Thameslink services to Cambridge are currently only 8-cars long so this would not be an ideal candidate.
The third alternative is reduce the number of Thameslink trains running via Elephant & Castle by 2tph. To those at London Reconnections there is an obvious choice: those that run via the Wimbledon loop. This would be a huge reliability improvement. Currently there are 2tph through Wimbledon loop services in each direction. However, this service was controversially retained to satisfy popular demand, despite it not being Network Rail’s original intention to run such services after Thameslink rebuilding was complete. It would remain challenging politically to remove 50% of this through service despite the considerable operational benefits.
The remaining possible services to be culled to provide more Thameslink services through East Croydon are the ones to Orpington and Sevenoaks (both via Elephant & Castle).
Disruption during construction
Those who have endured reconstruction of Blackfriars or London Bridge for many years will be relieved to know that services should not be greatly affected by construction work. The crucial area is East Croydon station and the designers believe they can keep five platforms open at all times. Unlike at London Bridge, the total number of platforms is being increased. This has a huge benefit in that you can build a new platform (the new platform 1) and then effectively have three platforms out of service during construction. Once platform 1 is complete platforms 2 (as yet unbuilt), 3 and 4 are taken out of service and reconstruction commences. Then 2 comes in service and 5 goes out of service and so on.
If East Croydon temporarily had five platforms, these would almost certainly be used as Up Fast, Reversible Fast, Down Fast, Up Slow and Down Slow. Note that because of signalling restrictions due to a lack of a safe signalling overlap, today’s reversible platform 5 cannot be effectively used as a through route in the up direction. As a result, platform 4 is effectively the only up slow line.
Although East Croydon today is nominally a station with six through platforms, platform 5 is not timetabled for many through trains. Its leading role at present seems to be to allow trains from Milton Keynes to terminate, and to enable slicker operation with a short notice platform alteration when southbound slow trains are bunching up. The proposal is to terminate the Milton Keynes trains short of East Croydon – probably at Selhurst (using the depot to terminate and commence the return journey) or West Croydon. Not mentioned as a possibility is to run the trains through to South Croydon (where they originally terminated) or even Sanderstead. Presumably the desire is to avoid them adding to the traffic at East Croydon even as trains that are not terminating.
Is the scheme still needed?
With COVID-19 still in the air some would question the need for such a scheme. Even if we get over the current situation, it is argued that commuting and other travel habits will have changed forever.
Whilst it may be true that COVID-19 could change attitudes permanently, the probable result would only be to accelerate existing trends when it comes to working from home and working more flexibly. All the evidence so far points to this causing people to commute for fewer days a week, but this is offset by a rise in longer distance commuters who are prepared to pay the price of a longer, but less frequent, commuter journey in order to live in what they see as a more desirable area. As such it is expected that the demand for commuting through East Croydon will remain high. COVID-19 has also taught us that the latent demand and desire to travel for leisure has not reduced.
Whilst it might be foolhardy to fully commit to this scheme in 2020, it would make sense to continue to develop it, given how much work has already been done. There is still a long way to go before there are ‘shovels in the ground’.
It also has to be borne in mind this scheme is probably a one-off opportunity. Signalling needs replacing in the next few years and Network Rail has already acquired a lot of land that it cannot hold onto indefinitely. If this scheme did not go ahead it would be extremely hard to increase the capacity of the Brighton Main Line in future and, with East Croydon the critical bottleneck, schemes elsewhere would just not achieve the necessary result.
Next stage
Because of COVID-19 and the lack of face-to-face consultation, the consultation period is longer than normal, ending on Sunday 20th September 2020. Once Network Rail have received their responses, they will prepare a Transport and Works Act submission and apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Transport and Works Act Order. It is expected that there will be a public inquiry in 2022. Passengers would start to see benefits by 2028 but the full scheme is not expected to be complete before 2033.
The Network Rail consultation page can be found here. It is very detailed with many detailed maps, diagrams and images as well as animated videos. All images in this article have been taken from the Network Rail consultation pages. Our apologies for the lack of accompanying area pictures. This is due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. Thanks, as always, to ngh for the updated track diagram.
Like what you have read? LR is community funded! You can back us on Patreon here. Every little helps…
Typo: “2pth Thameslink service” [Corrected. Thanks. PoP]
Good article. The blue worksite seems to be a lot larger than the 13 ‘cottages’ mentioned, I can see a lot of housing being put there afterwards.
[Should have read two dozen throughout. But that is just the domestic buildings – and we now think this is inaccurately low. The bulk of the site is currently in commercial use. PoP]
Really?
Anpother 13 years before complettion?
Apart from the really unfortunate necessity (?) of the cottage demolition, I cannot see any serious objection to this scheme – which appears better than previous iterations.
IF the householders are bought off with truly generous terms, who is actually going to object to this?
The two dozen cottages seem to become a baker’s dozen later…
OK. That one got through all the proofreading. Now consistently two dozen.
It was originally thought to be thirteen until recently. That was the named cottages seen on the map. Then it became clear that Network Rail were planning to take an enormous contiguous area for construction and the initial supposition was that the number had conservatively increased to around 24. However Jonathan Roberts is now suggesting I am significantly undercounting the level of destruction.
Update: After a good look at Google Streetview I now reckon that around 30 domestic properties are involved and the text has been amended accordingly.
PoP
Bing Maps Aerial View might be a better option, perhaps?
Try starting from here
You can move around, once you have a window open.
Certainly looks as though the most southerly terrace block of cottages will have to go …..
Is the Victoria Down Fast to Down Slow correctly drawn? At the moment I can only see a connection south of East Croydon or a rather unlikely connection between Vic Up Fast and Down Slow.
Smitham 43
It is – just – it’s very confusing & you have to llok very closely – it’s the “purple” line – which is easily confused with the opposite-direction “red” one up slow-to-fast which crosses underneath at almost the same point.
Incidentally, if we live long enough to see this completed, it’s going to take some time to grice all those different connections (!)
Smitham 43,
As Greg says, it is correct. However it is confusing and took me a while to work it out and Jonathan Roberts thought it was wrong as well. We are hoping ngh can make some improvements in this area and add one or two features mentioned in the text.
[Improved track diagram now replaces original. PoP]
Have I read the diagrams correctly? It looks as though there are parts of the “over and under” junction work that requires three levels. It seems to me that such a provision is pretty unusual.
100andthirty,
Correct. You need three levels to make it work. Makes the gradients really challenging though.
Any suggestion to make changes to the tram layout where it crosses the railway must I feel be treated with severe caution.
I do not recall all the detail, but the George St bridge over the railway comprises several sections, all rather old. From a tramway alignment viewpoint, the vertical curvature through the section over the railway is challenging and, for the designers, the pointwork layout at the west side in particular was extremely difficult to achieve. Part of this was down to the interaction with the road layout and this of course could be more readily resolved as part of a large scheme. Furthermore, in order to achieve an acceptable vertical profile, and to avoid too much weight being placed on the existing structure, the track construction in the platform area is to a special design, shallower than elsewhere. If I remember correctly, it uses a relatively uncommon lesser-depth rail section.
I have no idea whether changes could be made without disturbing the bridge structure, but it would clearly not be a quick or cheap task. The bridge will have to be tackled some time but I can well understand why it would not want to be brought into the current scheme!
I hardly think a reduction of two trains per hour in the Wimbledon loop service represents a good deal for Londoners. At present it operates with four trains operating as two trains per hour in each direction providing a 30 minute frequency per direction. Removing two trains per hour would reduce the service to one train per hour per direction. That would result in 60 minute frequency on an inner suburban route. Arguably the service should have been ramped up to 4 trains per hour by direction which would have given a 15 minute service. Given how heavily patronised it is any suggestion of a 60 minute frequency is frankly risible.
RichardB,
I hardly think a reduction of two trains per hour in the Wimbledon loop service represents a good deal for Londoners.
No reduction was ever suggested. I would agree a reduction of two trains per hour in the Wimbledon Loop would hardly represent a good deal for Londoners.
All that was suggested was that instead of returning via the Thameslink core, some services terminated at Blackfriars having gone round the loop and start from Blackfriars before going round the loop. The frequency of the Wimbledon loop would be unaltered but reliability would improve. This would free off two paths an hour through the core for additional East Croydon services.
@ Pedantic of Purley Ah that was not evident to me when I made my original comment. Interesting though that the original Network Rail proposal of four trains per hour in each direction in the loop (15 minute frequency) but all terminating at Blackfriars is off the table.
Only getting 6tph of extra services at East Croydon out of ten years of construction really doesn’t look like a great return on investment. What of the attempt to get more inner suburban links into East Croydon? At present, there are many direct links between East Croydon and the inner London suburbs which aren’t possible and prevent the Railway taking people between the various locations in South London and further out.
Moreover, while the development looks promising, the problem of capacity through South Croydon and around Purley on the slow lines remains. South Croydon has a really slow turnout and there really ought to be some development at Purley to hold a train outside the station when the coupling process hits disruption that doesn’t end up with Redhill line trains queuing up.
It might only be an extra 6tph in the timetable, but there could also be big gains in reliability. As for the other problems elsewhere, that’s what always happens, whenever you deal with the worst bottleneck.
Did the Study in Sussex series ever actually reach Sussex ot did it stall at Croydon?
My main issue with this scheme will be the years of ongoing disruption to the BML with likely numerous week end closures and extended closures over the likes of Christmas and Easter and any and all bank holidays for apparently little actual benefit in terms of additional services.
We are about to have with 2 years of disruption and reduced service due to the works to redevelop the station at Gatwick (which would surely merit an article in this series)
@JonathanH
6tph adds up to a lot of services across the day, even just across the 3h extended peaks it’s another 36 trains. Plenty of stations don’t even get that many in a week.
But beyond that the point is you can’t do anything else to increase the capacity of the whole line until you’ve done this. Once this (and Gatwick) is out of the way the next big project will probably be Clapham Junction, some serious – and seriously overdue – work there could unlock more possibilities, but only by dealing with East Croydon first.
One quibble with this sentence: “Due to length restrictions, Thameslink services to Cambridge are currently only 8-cars long so this would not be an ideal candidate”. The current Thameslink trains between Brighton and Cambridge are 12-car. Have I misunderstood something ?
[No, I worded it badly. See ngh comment below. Wording now amended to make this clearer. PoP]
Re JIM R @ 08:59
Yes, this isn’t about the current TL Cambridge services that go through East Croydon (usually 12car) but other set of Cambridge services (with more stops north of the Thames especially stations with short platforms e.g. Foxton) that are 8 car and currently don’t make it through the core yet and could be diverted through East Croydon.
Possibly slightly academic as the 700 fleet doesn’t have the % in service rate required to enable 24tph to run through the core etc…
re PAUL @ 01:16
Exactly this is an extra 6tph until a Clapham Junction project, at which point it is another 4-8tph through Clapham (fast and slows) above that depending on what gets done at Clapham / elsewhere though not all of that would also go through East Croydon.
The triangle currently has many features designed for just 8 or 10 car trains that make running longer services more difficult (greater junction blocking issues etc) as covered in the earlier articles so running more 12car services (inc some Metro) and increasing capacity that way is then painless.
At present, the system for cars dropping off passengers at East Croydon, and for the considerable taxi trade, is the sharp turn off Cherry Orchard Road into Billinton Hill, past the Porter and Sorter, and round the corner to the taxi rank area. The exit is over the tram tracks, past the wedding cake, to the junction with Addiscombe Grove.
The diagrams show a cab symbol over a new ‘in and out’ road with entrance and exit on Cherry Orchard Road, while the new Lansdowne Road station entrance/exit has a car symbol over what appears to be a service road.
Is it intended that cabs and ‘drop offs’ are to be separated? It would seem odd if a main station exit did not have cabs within easy reach.
@JonathanH. Reliability is really important and as a regular user of trains crossing from slow to fast lines between East Croydon and Selhurst I can confirm that there’s plenty of time to watch the flowers grow from stationary trains.
ngh has pointed out there is a really good 3D perspective of the junctions and I have added it to the article. In part this is to enable viewers to visualise the triple tiers of track which makes this proposal possible.
Brighton Reader,
A fair comment.
I could point out that Network Rail thinks that practically all the Brighton Main Line is in Sussex. Actually not but practically all of it is in Network Rail’s Sussex Region which covers considerably more than Sussex.
This series was never meant to dwell so much on the London area but events changed all that. Taking on large projects at home (especially during lockdown) has limited the considerably time necessary to write just one instalment. Furthermore, I am only now beginning to feel fully comfortable with WordPress’ enforced editing changes. Ultimately it is much better and quicker than before but has involved a considerable learning curve to understand how to use it effectively. This especially applies to larger more complex articles.
The plan still is to have an article on each of: Stoats Nest Junction, Redhill, Reigate (some interesting proposals recently to consultation earlier this year), Gatwick Airport, Three Bridges and Balcombe Tunnel, Haywards Heath (possibly), Keymer Junction (possibly), and terminating at Brighton.
On the issue of disruption, I doubt if this will be much more than we already face given that much of the work will be off-line. Much of the work at Gatwick is really unavoidable due to the need to enlarge the passenger circulating area. As it turns out, it was extremely fortunately timed with work planned to end in 2023 which is when the airline industry predict they will be getting back to normal. On the downside, social distancing has made construction a bit more challenging.
However much did that promo video cost to make? It’s so impressive the way it makes it look like a model railway.
I love the ‘frosting of snow’ effect on everything, notwithstanding its use to highlight the proposed works and their relation to the urban fabric.
We seem to have duplicate pictures captioned “Complex of junctions at Selhurst with Windmill Bridge in the foreground” …..
[Oops. Obviously I am still find the latest WordPress editor challenging. Second image now deleted. PoP]
Warning – Nerd alert! I think you might have a couple of cross-overs the wrong way round in your line diagram, A down slow from Victoria would conflict with a fast from Victoria switching to the slows, before they got to East Croydon, It would make much more sense if the pair of cross-overs between the Down slows were the other way round. This would allow the Down Slow from Victoria to switch to the line to Platform 8 (just by the “C” of Cottage Bridge), whilst the Down Fast-to-slow from Victoria could go into Platform 7. The other cross-over of that pair would have to be the other way round too – to balance it out. Looking at the 3D visualisation, that’s the only reason I can see that the Down Slow and the Down Fast-to-slow from Victoria run parallel when they meet at the end of their viaducts, and do not merge immediately.
Re NOTTINGHAM59 @ 23:32
I think not 😉
You are right in that they will conflict but that is an overall design choice as it is easily the least worst solution. Have a think about everything from London Bridge too!
It would but it causes a huge number of issues too!
Have a detailed think about the number of services (and potential services), their pathings as well as where the potential extra capacity capacity is to the south of East Croydon (effectively on the fasts) and the future role of P6&7 as acting as a turn back platforms for services from the north (including ECS from the reinstated Norwood Down Sidings).
Overall the aim of P8 is give down slow trains not terminating at ECR the clearest run possible, and the majority of them are and will be from London Bridge (that eastern most track is already a mix of London Bridge DF–>DS and DS–>DS) . Therefore getting the future additional stopping / ECS services that terminate at P6/7 out of the way as quickly as possible gives a clearer run through P8 for the others. (Sidings to P6 reverse then to Victoria for the evening peak will be very useful given Selhurst depot exit limitations much improved in this design iteration).
An overall aim has been to have 2 longer than full train length track circuit blocks and compliant overlaps in between lines in the junction area, this is particularly tricky for the London Bridge DF–>DS (and needed to stop the London Bridge Down fast further north being blocked or drivers seeing restrictive aspects) through to the eastern most track hence the need to keep Victoria services out of the way to achieve 2 TC blocks albeit shared with London Bridge DS–>DS and ECS ex. sidings.
In addition to the down London Bridge issues the extra length of parallel running then allows the VIC DF to DS (which has an otherwise comparatively short “separate” length) to have 2 longer than full train length track circuit blocks and compliant overlaps like most the other lines through the rabbits’ warren. The effect (benefit) is that if you do have to stop a train in the “middle” it doesn’t then affect following services doing different moves, a major performance benefit.
The additional proposal of a grade separated Victoria DF –>DS route isn’t just about Victoria services but significantly about the performance of all ex-London Bridge services to East Croydon including the fasts.
Worth a look back at some of the older East Croydon articles and the comments:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/east-croydon-revisited/
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/a-study-in-sussex-part-14-the-beginnings-of-big-changes/
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/study-sussex-part-7-east-croydon/
& Norwood Junction (previous design iteration)
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/study-sussex-part-13-norwood-junction/
Note: ECS is Empty Carriage Stock i.e. train not in service.
Error correction:
The references to “Windmill Road” should refer to “Windmill Bridge Road” or just “Windmill Bridge”. Confusingly for any local delivery drivers, both exist as separate roads in Croydon; Windmill Road is actually part of the A213 about a kilometre NW along the A222 from Windmill Bridge Road.
[I was very aware of this issue and thought I had avoided any references to Windmill Road. However it seems one reference was made but is now corrected. I think that was the only one. PoP]
@Nottingham59: you mean the merging of the slow and the ‘fast to slow’ from Victoria?
@100andthirty: You’re right that there are three superimposed tracks, but there are actually four levels. See 02:34 in the video. The West Croydon to Norwood line is below everything else (let’s call it level -2). It passes under the West Croydon-Selhurst lines (level -1), above which you will find the Up and Down East Croydon-Selhurst lines next to each other, at different heights.
There’s an article on LR about East Croydon. Normality has returned. Yay.
@Albert J. P.:
Your “levels” aren’t very level (or aren’t very distinct in height). I think the top two “levels” you refer to are the Up Slow and the Down Fast to Slow. Looking at various 3D visualisations, it looks like these are at a fairly similar height where they cross over the Selhurst-West Croydon tracks, with the Up Slow having climbed a fairly steep gradient from where it passes under the Down Fast to Slow. So depending on the exact gradients, I think I’d probably call it somewhere between 3 and 3.5 levels.
By coincidence I found this video of the footbridge at East Croydon being installed in 2013
https://youtu.be/8paAMYx-AzI
Terrific article, LR. Comprehensive and very informative. Thank you.
@Albert JP: “you mean the merging of the slow and the ‘fast to slow’ from Victoria?”. Yes, that’s it exactly. To see what I mean, think about the morning peak. If you’re going to run the Reversible Slow northbound, you need to be able cope with two slow Up trains arriving and departing simultaneously from platforms 5 and 6 towards London. With the current layout, these two trains can go under Windmill bridge side-by-side on tracks 5 and 6 and then go to any two of the three routes: Victoria Up Slow; Victoria Up Slow-to-Fast; London Bridge Up Slow. But you don’t have that routing flexibility the other way in the evening peak, when you want to run the Reversible southbound. You can’t run trains simultaneously on the Victoria Down Fast-to-slow and Victoria Down Slow. To see what would happen, see the NR animation at 2m54s. The far train is on the Vic Fast. The nearer two are on the Vic Slow and Vic Fast-to-Slow and are about to collide.
@NGH: Thank you for your detailed explanation. Obviously, if NR plan to have that layout then the diagram in the article is correct, though I am surprised that the plan is to have fewer crossovers between the down slows (lines 7 and 8), than there are between the up slows (line 5 and 6). But I guess they could increase flexibility later by converting the cross-over near “Cottage Bridge” into a scissors crossing without affecting the lengths of any track circuit blocks.
Also, I hadn’t appreciated the desire to increase the number of reversals at ECR, terminating at platform 6 & 7: it makes a lot of sense to be able to support a more frequent metro-style service on the slow lines from Victoria and/or from London Bridge.
But that makes it even more of a shame that the new layout forces the new Vic Down Fast-to-Slow route to cross this terminating traffic on the flat.
With the massive increase in capacity north of East Croydon, the pinch point will become the five track section between ECR and South Croydon. To get full use out of the Slow Reversible in the evening peak, you need to be able to run two down slows simultaneously.
But every train terminating at ECR will consume a Down path that could have fed the Reversible, and every train coming over the new Vic Down Fast-to-Slow viaduct heading to East Grinstead etc. will block a slows path from London Bridge, somewhere between ECR and South Croydon. And using spare fast capacity to feed the Slow Reversible from Platform 4 also requires crossings on the flat.
But as you say, maybe that’s just one of the compromises that had to be made. 🙂
Nottingham 59
Maybe.
But, unfortunately, even if one had even more money to spend (!) I don’t think there’s actual physical space for an extra track as far as South Croydon, not without horrendously expensive retaining walls & concrete embankment sides on the E & W sides, respectively.
A semi-tunnelled track on the E side?
Again, cost & time, whilst you are doing all the work already mentioned. Um.
Nottingham59, Greg,
We have looked at South Croydon in the past.
There is absolutely no need for more than two fast lines from East Croydon to South Croydon. Two tracks can easily handle all the requirements as trains either join and leave the fast lines at Stoats Nest Junction or continue fast all the way to Gatwick Airport (and even beyond sometimes) where there are more platforms. The occasional train makes a previous northbound stop and a next stop southbound at Horley.
The fast line platforms at South Croydon are rarely used and not essential giving some limited room to manoeuvre. Whilst having an extra slow line track or platform at South Croydon might well reduce delays, it won’t do anything for overall capacity because, as the current article makes clear, it is places like Clapham Junction or the limited terminating capacity at Victoria and London Bridge that is restricting things.
What South Croydon could really do with is a grade-separated junction but the topography around the station is absolutely awful and makes that very difficult to achieve. Alternatively, and equally difficult, it would be nice if the Oxted lines could be directly linked to the fast lines – as they were prior to 1983 when the fast and slow lines were switched over.
Against this, the philosophy of Network Rail was that money spent on Croydon Area Remodelling, the current scheme, is by far the most effective use of money and largely eliminates many of the South Croydon/Oxted lines issues.
So for six track East Croydon – South Croydon, it is probably doable but hard. In Network Rail’s eyes never say never but there are no plans to do this as it doesn’t really solve any existing or future foreseeable problem.
NR tell us that one of the things they got out of the responses to their earlier consultation was the desire to have as much as possible done at once. Stakeholders are anxious to avoid having to put up with the necessary disruption more than once. This is a major factor behind the revision to the scheme.
6tph is really 12tph when you consider both directions (unless they are terminating at East Croydon) -that is from the ‘to London’ perspective. So it is better than portrayed.
Enabling another 2tph to the ELL, plus the 3tph to Wallington 😉 – is a frequency gain for Croydon too, as pointed out.
And cheeky, but OBVIOUS – might I add that if they fixed/killed the Gatwick Express and integrated it into the normal Southern service – that would add 4tph to Victoria and 4tph to Gatwick/Brighton instantly.
So that adds up to 25tph – with a little reaching.
Solving Croydon bottleneck likely to take 12-15 years so as a quick fix why not re-route some services to reduce conflict÷
1. Most slow line services eg Caterham/Tattenham to run to/from London Bridge to reduce conflict at Selhurst.
2. All Thameslink services via Redhill to use slow lines to avoid conflict at Windmill Bridge Jct and Stoats Nest Jct.
3. Some mid-Sussex line services to/from London Bridge to re-route via Sutton and Dorking, so avoiding East Croydon.
Extend London Overground Crystal Palace to Clapham Jct. Via Balham and remove London Bridge – Victoria local service to free up more platform capacity at both London Bridge and Victoria.
I can email details if anyone interested. Peter Stanley
re: ngh 27th June @10.52
I’m mad as hell! The autumn weekday timetable has cancelled all Medway Valley services from Tonbridge to Maidstone West, so I’m expected to wait for nearly an hour on the down platform of Paddock Wood station, the coldest place in Christendom, on my return from London Bridge.
Now that the sidings at Chart Leacon, Ashford, are available, perhaps the final part of the Thameslink programme could be put in place to give a proper service between Maidstone East and the City via Chislehurst Junction?