Redhill Station - Extra Platform

[Deepgreen]

It was mentioned in the budget document, in a list of 8 stations, as linked in post #9. No details of what a share of £16m gives you, but it cant be nothing...

Thanks for that - given that the Platform 0 project has already started (albeit tentatively) and therefore should not have been included in a budget statement now, I suspect that the approximately one-eighth share of the £16m will be the Solum project, as per the example at Epsom, which provided a new ticket hall as the basis for a large development above the station. The layout of the station, however, remained the same, and with the same inadequate facilities - i.e. only 4 ticket gates and the same leaking subway which only needed a cheap drip tray to be installed to resolve, rather than the now-permanent three or more yellow hazard boards where the water drips!

 

[Minstral25]

Will be interesting to see what a share of £16m buys - platform 0 costs £50m apparently.

Perhaps some extra ticket machines - queues were out the door again this morning.

 

[Deepgreen]

Will be interesting to see what a share of £16m buys - platform 0 costs £50m apparently.

Perhaps some extra ticket machines - queues were out the door again this morning.

What you will get will be some re-tiled walls in places, no treatment to ceilings to cure/divert any water ingress there may be, a new tiled floor in the ticket hall and a load of half-baked cosmetic finishes. The actual railway facilities will remain the same. I'm not bitter - I used to live in Epsom and it was horrible, both in execution and result!

 

[JonathanH]

Will be interesting to see what a share of £16m buys - platform 0 costs £50m apparently.

Perhaps some extra ticket machines - queues were out the door again this morning.

Why? There are some journeys, admittedly only in the London direction, for which contactless actually works out cheaper, especially in the peak returning off-peak.

In the other direction, Southern ought to also make it slightly more advantageous to use Pay-as-you-go on the Key to just get people used to it.

Then they might have shorter queues.

 

[Deepgreen]

On the subject of Redhill, it has now been nearly four months since the train indicator on platform 2 (north end) worked. Southern repeatedly claim that it will need a track possession to repair it, which I find absolutely astounding (they don't state whether this is to have the traction current off, to allow a ladder to be erected within 6 feet of the platform edge or for signalling/train ID information feed purposes). The one further south on the same platform is fine, so why can't a feed be run from that to the failed unit, or replace the failed one? It's ridiculous that it takes many months to repair a small piece of kit like this, when, for example, London Underground manages to repair them almost always on the same day/night, while running a much more intensive service.

Every time I complain about it Southern's Customer Services simply say that they have reported the fault to the Station Manager, but I would have hoped that the Station Manager would have reported it long, long ago anyway! A farce.

 

[tsr]

On the subject of Redhill, it has now been nearly four months since the train indicator on platform 2 (north end) worked. Southern repeatedly claim that it will need a track possession to repair it, which I find absolutely astounding (they don't state whether this is to have the traction current off, to allow a ladder to be erected within 6 feet of the platform edge or for signalling/train ID information feed purposes). The one further south on the same platform is fine, so why can't a feed be run from that to the failed unit, or replace the failed one? It's ridiculous that it takes many months to repair a small piece of kit like this, when, for example, London Underground manages to repair them almost always on the same day/night, while running a much more intensive service.

Every time I complain about it Southern's Customer Services simply say that they have reported the fault to the Station Manager, but I would have hoped that the Station Manager would have reported it long, long ago anyway! A farce.

It looks like a couple of opportunities might have been missed, maybe only one, to repair this during an existing possession of the line through Platform 2; I suspect this is due to contractor availability more than anything else. The reason this is only a couple of opportunities is because movements apparently do need to be stopped because of the proximity to the running lines. The old, dysfunctional DMI is likely to be heavy/awkward to manoeuvre and this probably will mean the workforce is at significant risk of coming into contact with any train using Platform 2. Unfortunately this line needs to be open 24/7 except for essential track/safety maintenance and as such it is simply not possible to close it for long enough overnight or at any other time to do the work. Therefore any maintenance of systems such as CIS has to fall into line with this. Compared with the Tube, where there is little or no overnight service and tunnels are regularly completely closed to traffic, Redhill and other major stations (especially those with limited platforms and run-round/freight routings) are pretty difficult to operate in this regard.

AIUI the Group Station Manager is well aware of this issue and working with all involved to find a suitable time for contractors to replace the screen. In fact I believe they are now responding directly to some customers who have raised this. Everyone who works at Redhill knows how annoying this is and the will power is there to fix it, just not the operational possibility! There is a series of overnight possessions of lines via Redhill in a couple of weeks' time on weekday nights, so hopefully a replacement can be scheduled then.

 

[Deepgreen]

It looks like a couple of opportunities might have been missed, maybe only one, to repair this during an existing possession of the line through Platform 2; I suspect this is due to contractor availability more than anything else. The reason this is only a couple of opportunities is because movements apparently do need to be stopped because of the proximity to the running lines. The old, dysfunctional DMI is likely to be heavy/awkward to manoeuvre and this probably will mean the workforce is at significant risk of coming into contact with any train using Platform 2. Unfortunately this line needs to be open 24/7 except for essential track/safety maintenance and as such it is simply not possible to close it for long enough overnight or at any other time to do the work. Therefore any maintenance of systems such as CIS has to fall into line with this. Compared with the Tube, where there is little or no overnight service and tunnels are regularly completely closed to traffic, Redhill and other major stations (especially those with limited platforms and run-round/freight routings) are pretty difficult to operate in this regard.

AIUI the Group Station Manager is well aware of this issue and working with all involved to find a suitable time for contractors to replace the screen. In fact I believe they are now responding directly to some customers who have raised this. Everyone who works at Redhill knows how annoying this is and the will power is there to fix it, just not the operational possibility! There is a series of overnight possessions of lines via Redhill in a couple of weeks' time on weekday nights, so hopefully a replacement can be scheduled then.

Thanks for a full response - far more than I have been able to get out of Southern! Having checked RTT, the overnight use of platform 2 would seem to be slight (nothing regular between about 0130 and 0415), and the possible tiny number of 'ad hoc' trains could be re-routed via platform 1 (which has nothing regular between 0055 and 0520) to give a window of opportunity of nearly four hours on any night to remove the old screen and similar on another night to install the replacement. At least that's how it looks, but I may have overlooked something. Is it really not possible to have the flexibility to use platform 1 for all the overnight movements, bearing in mind platform 3 is available and the through roads can be used for passing movements, thus leaving platform 2 free for a few hours to work (not directed at you, by the way)?

I'd also say that if I was the GSM, I would by now have provided a poster or two as to what the problem was and how a resolution was being sought, rather than just leaving it broken for nearly four months with no explanation. The screen further along the same platform in the waiting shelter was also broken for months without explanation and has only recently been repaired, and that is nowhere near the track, being within a room, easily reachable without a ladder and can be carried with one hand. But then, the TOCs do all understand how important good information is, or at least that's what they trot out (Southern included) every time a complaint is made!

 

[Sunset route]

Redhill yard and associated connections were signed out of use at 01:00 26/04/16 ready for the alterations.

Talking of the alterations after looking at a copy of the scheme plans it looks like we are also losing the GPO dock and the switch, which were definitely not mentioned at the meeting with the sponsor and the design team.

 

[Deepgreen]

Redhill yard and associated connections were signed out of use at 01:00 26/04/16 ready for the alterations.

Talking of the alterations after looking at a copy of the scheme plans it looks like we are also losing the GPO dock and the switch, which were definitely not mentioned at the meeting with the sponsor and the design team.

Interesting - thanks. I don't suppose the plans can be shared here (or via a private message)?

I wonder what the rationale behind the removal of the ex-GPO bay is - is there to be housing along there, or is it to allow the conversion of the ex-GPO 'bridge' into a much-needed passenger bridge (I know the answer to the latter!)? Presumably the consultation made no mention of it because it is not used for passenger trains.

 

[hwl]

Interesting - thanks. I don't suppose the plans can be shared here (or via a private message)?

I wonder what the rationale behind the removal of the ex-GPO bay is - is there to be housing along there, or is it to allow the conversion of the ex-GPO 'bridge' into a much-needed passenger bridge (I know the answer to the latter!)? Presumably the consultation made no mention of it because it is not used for passenger trains.

Wouldn't it then leave 3 tracks under the footbridge to the north which could then be realigned to have P1 as 4th track and through platform again post south junction remodelling? (solves the overlap issue long term???)

 

[Deepgreen]

Wouldn't it then leave 3 tracks under the footbridge to the north which could then be realigned to have P1 as 4th track and through platform again post south junction remodelling? (solves the overlap issue long term???)

Perhaps, but that realignment would involve a 'kink' in the formation which, at the very least, would presumbaly slap a significantly lower PSR on the through roads.

 

[Minstral25]

Interesting - thanks. I don't suppose the plans can be shared here (or via a private message)?

I wonder what the rationale behind the removal of the ex-GPO bay is - is there to be housing along there, or is it to allow the conversion of the ex-GPO 'bridge' into a much-needed passenger bridge (I know the answer to the latter!)? Presumably the consultation made no mention of it because it is not used for passenger trains.

I suspect it is to remove an asset that costs money to maintain (2/3 points and signalling as well as the track and embankment). Hope they find somewhere for the 455 to stable overnight.

The "GPO" bridge may become important with the southern "Bay" location being platform 1 rather than Platform 0. There is significant local concern that the subway could be dangerous in certain situations due to overcrowding (i.e. during last minute platform changes) and it was surprising to hear that GTR have significant reservations about the layout as well.

 

[Deepgreen]

I suspect it is to remove an asset that costs money to maintain (2/3 points and signalling as well as the track and embankment). Hope they find somewhere for the 455 to stable overnight.

The "GPO" bridge may become important with the southern "Bay" location being platform 1 rather than Platform 0. There is significant local concern that the subway could be dangerous in certain situations due to overcrowding (i.e. during last minute platform changes) and it was surprising to hear that GTR have significant reservations about the layout as well.

Indeed - the subway is already pretty dire, with the bottle-neck dog-leg staircase from platform 3, the disused ramp by the foot of the stairs, then the local management's apparent complicity in having a coffee stall advertising 'A' board standing right by the foot of the stairs to platforms 1 and 2, along with the train information screen at the same point, simply inviting people to congregate at the foot of the stairs (I find it incredible that the local station management seem to be content to run the place like this!).

The crush of people trying to get across to make connections with, for example, GWR trains is currently severe at times, not to mention incredibly annoying when it leads to a missed connection.

 

[tsr]

Thanks for a full response - far more than I have been able to get out of Southern! Having checked RTT, the overnight use of platform 2 would seem to be slight (nothing regular between about 0130 and 0415), and the possible tiny number of 'ad hoc' trains could be re-routed via platform 1 (which has nothing regular between 0055 and 0520) to give a window of opportunity of nearly four hours on any night to remove the old screen and similar on another night to install the replacement. At least that's how it looks, but I may have overlooked something. Is it really not possible to have the flexibility to use platform 1 for all the overnight movements, bearing in mind platform 3 is available and the through roads can be used for passing movements, thus leaving platform 2 free for a few hours to work (not directed at you, by the way)?

Sorry, this is a very delayed reply!

If a power isolation is now required for those involved in the replacement, I can see why they have not been able to just block / take possession of the Platform 2 line. AIUI the power isolation arrangements are such that you usually need to take the platforms together, some of the Reigate route, and some of the Tonbridge route. The main lines through the station are separate, from what I gather. I'm not normally involved in power isolations during possessions so I may be wrong.

Platforms 1 & 2 may be and indeed have recently been used for both Up and Down movements for overnight passenger services, including a handful of non-stop trains. Generally speaking they can only really have line blocks taken between trains 0200-0400, allowing for the possible late running of 2A04, early presentation of 2A09 past Earlswood North Junction, and a few other movements. Even those are subject to restrictions with Thameslink testing/ECS moves, weedkiller and RHTT services, recent ultrasonic testing train runs and the odd freight run-round path. In fact maintaining the Up lines as open through Redhill has been a slightly contentious issue over the last week or two, with some engineering work having had to take place outside the planning rules and also some rather bitty requirements to allow the ultrasonic testing to take place at awkward hours. As for Platform 3, I'm afraid as it can only be accessed from the North of Redhill or via shunts, it's hard to operate it as a Northbound platform!

This week I note that so far the screen has not been fixed, or at least not if I remember correctly, but there are overnight possessions so this may be the solution. If not I will be very interested as to when this work can actually be done!

I'd also say that if I was the GSM, I would by now have provided a poster or two as to what the problem was and how a resolution was being sought, rather than just leaving it broken for nearly four months with no explanation.

This I agree on. I'm not sure if there's enough poster space to allow for all posters to be displayed in accordance with GTR's new quality auditing standards, but if there is (and I reckon that is probably the case), it would have been a good idea.

The screen further along the same platform in the waiting shelter was also broken for months without explanation and has only recently been repaired, and that is nowhere near the track, being within a room, easily reachable without a ladder and can be carried with one hand. But then, the TOCs do all understand how important good information is, or at least that's what they trot out (Southern included) every time a complaint is made!

I head various explanations about that one, but it was unfortunate. I'm not sure that information about the fault was relayed correctly to those actually needing to arrange the repair, but that's just hearsay and I am not able to say for certain.

Redhill yard and associated connections were signed out of use at 01:00 26/04/16 ready for the alterations.

Talking of the alterations after looking at a copy of the scheme plans it looks like we are also losing the GPO dock and the switch, which were definitely not mentioned at the meeting with the sponsor and the design team.

Loss of the GPO [Post Office] Dock has been in the very small print of notices issued to some passenger TOC staff for a not inconsiderable time. Probably in the region of a month or more. It's odd that you haven't heard about it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect it is to remove an asset that costs money to maintain (2/3 points and signalling as well as the track and embankment). Hope they find somewhere for the 455 to stable overnight.

If needs must, the 455 could theoretically be stabled in Platform 1, but I'm wondering if it could be allocated to any of the Up Tonbridge Sidings. Not sure on that one, as those are already extensively used overnight.

The "GPO" bridge may become important with the southern "Bay" location being platform 1 rather than Platform 0. There is significant local concern that the subway could be dangerous in certain situations due to overcrowding (i.e. during last minute platform changes) and it was surprising to hear that GTR have significant reservations about the layout as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the space taken by the bridge is being looked at, but for a replacement bridge at some point. The problem is that I somehow doubt that bridge is suitable for numerous passengers running through it to get their connections - I've not been in it, but I should imagine it would require extensive access works, lighting installations and refurbishment, as well as structural assessments. Also, it would not span across to Platform 0, which means you would have an awkward flow of passengers who had taken the wrong route to said platform, running down the Platforms 1/2 island to get to the subway. Gatwick Airport has an equally awkward situation with Platform 7 only being able to be accessed from one of two bridges, and nobody in their right mind wants a repeat of that!

Indeed - the subway is already pretty dire, with the bottle-neck dog-leg staircase from platform 3, the disused ramp by the foot of the stairs, then the local management's apparent complicity in having a coffee stall advertising 'A' board standing right by the foot of the stairs to platforms 1 and 2, along with the train information screen at the same point, simply inviting people to congregate at the foot of the stairs (I find it incredible that the local station management seem to be content to run the place like this!).

The crush of people trying to get across to make connections with, for example, GWR trains is currently severe at times, not to mention incredibly annoying when it leads to a missed connection.

I've always wondered about this. As I've been typing this post, I have wondered if some of the space to the back of Platform 3 could be used to create a better set of stairs down into the subway, or maybe some sort of ramp down into the subway could be created. Perhaps the real secret could be in getting the NDL to 3tph, increasing the number of connections meaning people are less concerned about missing them, thus reducing people running for one of just two irregularly-spaced trains per hour.

I do think it's hard to position a screen in the subway to make sure it is easily visible, sufficiently detailed and usable for most cross-platform connections. I'd rather leave it to those more expert than I am to decide where to put it!

 

[Deepgreen]

Sorry, this is a very delayed reply!

If a power isolation is now required for those involved in the replacement, I can see why they have not been able to just block / take possession of the Platform 2 line. AIUI the power isolation arrangements are such that you usually need to take the platforms together, some of the Reigate route, and some of the Tonbridge route. The main lines through the station are separate, from what I gather. I'm not normally involved in power isolations during possessions so I may be wrong.

Platforms 1 & 2 may be and indeed have recently been used for both Up and Down movements for overnight passenger services, including a handful of non-stop trains. Generally speaking they can only really have line blocks taken between trains 0200-0400, allowing for the possible late running of 2A04, early presentation of 2A09 past Earlswood North Junction, and a few other movements. Even those are subject to restrictions with Thameslink testing/ECS moves, weedkiller and RHTT services, recent ultrasonic testing train runs and the odd freight run-round path. In fact maintaining the Up lines as open through Redhill has been a slightly contentious issue over the last week or two, with some engineering work having had to take place outside the planning rules and also some rather bitty requirements to allow the ultrasonic testing to take place at awkward hours. As for Platform 3, I'm afraid as it can only be accessed from the North of Redhill or via shunts, it's hard to operate it as a Northbound platform!

This week I note that so far the screen has not been fixed, or at least not if I remember correctly, but there are overnight possessions so this may be the solution. If not I will be very interested as to when this work can actually be done!



This I agree on. I'm not sure if there's enough poster space to allow for all posters to be displayed in accordance with GTR's new quality auditing standards, but if there is (and I reckon that is probably the case), it would have been a good idea.



I head various explanations about that one, but it was unfortunate. I'm not sure that information about the fault was relayed correctly to those actually needing to arrange the repair, but that's just hearsay and I am not able to say for certain.



Loss of the GPO [Post Office] Dock has been in the very small print of notices issued to some passenger TOC staff for a not inconsiderable time. Probably in the region of a month or more. It's odd that you haven't heard about it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If needs must, the 455 could theoretically be stabled in Platform 1, but I'm wondering if it could be allocated to any of the Up Tonbridge Sidings. Not sure on that one, as those are already extensively used overnight.



I wouldn't be surprised if the space taken by the bridge is being looked at, but for a replacement bridge at some point. The problem is that I somehow doubt that bridge is suitable for numerous passengers running through it to get their connections - I've not been in it, but I should imagine it would require extensive access works, lighting installations and refurbishment, as well as structural assessments. Also, it would not span across to Platform 0, which means you would have an awkward flow of passengers who had taken the wrong route to said platform, running down the Platforms 1/2 island to get to the subway. Gatwick Airport has an equally awkward situation with Platform 7 only being able to be accessed from one of two bridges, and nobody in their right mind wants a repeat of that!



I've always wondered about this. As I've been typing this post, I have wondered if some of the space to the back of Platform 3 could be used to create a better set of stairs down into the subway, or maybe some sort of ramp down into the subway could be created. Perhaps the real secret could be in getting the NDL to 3tph, increasing the number of connections meaning people are less concerned about missing them, thus reducing people running for one of just two irregularly-spaced trains per hour.

I do think it's hard to position a screen in the subway to make sure it is easily visible, sufficiently detailed and usable for most cross-platform connections. I'd rather leave it to those more expert than I am to decide where to put it!

Many thanks for all this - very detailed and better late than never! I had thought that the only restriction to working on platform 2 was the physical one of the workers not coming into contact with passing trains, rather than that of falling on a live rail that is on the 'off-side' anyway. BTW, I meant that platform 3 is available as a down route, not up, allowing 1 to be for up workings.
I despair about this ever being done - if the current possessions have not already been earmarked for it (rather than simply trying to slot the work in at the last moment), that's yet another chance gone, demonstrating a low priority for the work and a lack of will to plan for it.
As for the GTR policy on poster sites, if displaying very important railway-related information such as this cannot be accommodated, something is wrong with the policy! What's wrong with a free-standing sign/board - they're quite happy to have one for the coffee stall at the safety-critical location of the foot of the stairs!?

Thanks again.

 

[Sunset route]

Platforms 1 & 2 may be and indeed have recently been used for both Up and Down movements for overnight passenger services, including a handful of non-stop trains. Generally speaking they can only really have line blocks taken between trains 0200-0400, allowing for the possible late running of 2A04, early presentation of 2A09 past Earlswood North Junction, and a few other movements. Even those are subject to restrictions with Thameslink testing/ECS moves, weedkiller and RHTT services, recent ultrasonic testing train runs and the odd freight run-round path. In fact maintaining the Up lines as open through Redhill has been a slightly contentious issue over the last week or two, with some engineering work having had to take place outside the planning rules and also some rather bitty requirements to allow the ultrasonic testing to take place at awkward hours. As for Platform 3, I'm afraid as it can only be accessed from the North of Redhill or via shunts, it's hard to operate it as a Northbound platform!

If needs must, the 455 could theoretically be stabled in Platform 1, but I'm wondering if it could be allocated to any of the Up Tonbridge Sidings. Not sure on that one, as those are already extensively used overnight.

The use of platforms 1&2 for both up and down trains especially overnight on Saturdays would normal be for single line working at any other time other than Saturdays then it would because of line Blockages or S&T maintainance.

The 455 that stables overnight in the GPO dock acts as a crew taxi for the Redhill drivers after they have worked the unit down to Caterham.

 

[Minstral25]

TSR excellent post - thank you.

A couple of Questions/Points

I don't think the 455 could be allocated to the Tonbridge Sidings as I IIRC they are diesel only, and the Tonbridge loop which has power stables a 12 car 377 rake overnight.

The Subway issue is not PLatform 3 but how to get people from the new platform 0 to platform 2 when a peak train is replatformed at the last moment. In the peak each train at Redhill can take up to 500 passengers, so if at last minute their train goes into platform 2 instead of 0, then 500 people need to rush down the steps and across to platform 2 - that is considered potentially very dangerous. If like last week on Tuesday a whole train was decamped from platform 1 to one in platform 2, then we could be talking excess of a thousand people going through that small subway in future rather than cross platform.

The GPO Bridge would need replacing as it is not suitable for passengers and any replacement would need to extend to platform 0. It's more about the position being there for footings rather than the bridge itself.

 

[MarkyT]

The Subway issue is not PLatform 3 but how to get people from the new platform 0 to platform 2 when a peak train is replatformed at the last moment. In the peak each train at Redhill can take up to 500 passengers, so if at last minute their train goes into platform 2 instead of 0, then 500 people need to rush down the steps and across to platform 2 - that is considered potentially very dangerous. If like last week on Tuesday a whole train was decamped from platform 1 to one in platform 2, then we could be talking excess of a thousand people going through that small subway in future rather than cross platform.

I agree that if a transfer of an entire trainload of passengers from #0 to #1 or #2 takes place there would be a congestion problem in the subway. However I think that will be significantly less likely due to the provision of the extra platform. The main reason a Southern train swaps between #1 and #2 today is because of an unexpected GWR train in or approaching the booked platform. If #0 is only ever normally used for London trains, there's very little probability of it being blocked by anything else.

The GPO Bridge would need replacing as it is not suitable for passengers and any replacement would need to extend to platform 0. It's more about the position being there for footings rather than the bridge itself.

I think at Croydon the new footbridge was built on the foundations of the old Post Office conveyor bridge. As you say a similar approach could apply at Redhill.

 

[Phil.]

I suspect it is to remove an asset that costs money to maintain (2/3 points and signalling as well as the track and embankment). Hope they find somewhere for the 455 to stable overnight.

This is what happens when the bean counters take precedence over the operators. It may very well come back to bite them.
The "GPO" bridge may become important with the southern "Bay" location being platform 1 rather than Platform 0. There is significant local concern that the subway could be dangerous in certain situations due to overcrowding (i.e. during last minute platform changes) and it was surprising to hear that GTR have significant reservations about the layout as well.

............

 

[Deepgreen]

I agree that if a transfer of an entire trainload of passengers from #0 to #1 or #2 takes place there would be a congestion problem in the subway. However I think that will be significantly less likely due to the provision of the extra platform. The main reason a Southern train swaps between #1 and #2 today is because of an unexpected GWR train in or approaching the booked platform. If #0 is only ever normally used for London trains, there's very little probability of it being blocked by anything else.

I think at Croydon the new footbridge was built on the foundations of the old Post Office conveyor bridge. As you say a similar approach could apply at Redhill.

However, an alternative to the subway is needed already, rather than just as a result of the provision of platfrom 0, not least owing to congestion on the narrow stairs from platform 3, which causes a large block of passengers trying to get off the platform and makes it very hard for passengers trying to get to the platform to board their train. This is just during normal service conditions, and would be hugely worsened in a de-trainment/platform swap.

It's not immediately obvious where else a useful bridge at Redhill could be placed anyway. Surely it's not beyond possibility to use at least part of the current structure as a basis?

 

[Minstral25]

I agree that if a transfer of an entire trainload of passengers from #0 to #1 or #2 takes place there would be a congestion problem in the subway. However I think that will be significantly less likely due to the provision of the extra platform. The main reason a Southern train swaps between #1 and #2 today is because of an unexpected GWR train in or approaching the booked platform. If #0 is only ever normally used for London trains, there's very little probability of it being blocked by anything else.

Platform 1 will no longer be a through platform so no replatformed trains will decamp from #0 to #1 or from #1 to #2.

It will only happen between #0 to #2 which requires going through the subway, hence the initial point

The sense would have made platform 1 a through platform and platform 0 a bay, but sense doesn't work with signal interlocking apprently

 

[MarkyT]

Platform 1 will no longer be a through platform so no replatformed trains will decamp from #0 to #1 or from #1 to #2.

It will only happen between #0 to #2 which requires going through the subway, hence the initial point

The sense would have made platform 1 a through platform and platform 0 a bay, but sense doesn't work with signal interlocking apprently

I think what is being built is what is practical, given the constraints of the layout, in which I'm supposing NR don't want to prematurely renew any turnouts and crossings, and the signalling, which, given the old relay signalling is being retained for now, can only take minor layout variations and simplifications. Platform #1 remaining as a 12-car through platform would not work well without a major remodelling of the south junction, as a 12 car standing there would completely block access to and from #0 for GWR trains. #1 is difficult to lengthen at the north end, with only limited width of formation available, not to mention difficulty designing entirely new junctions at that end with clear or swingable overlaps for operational flexibility. For the new #0, 12-car length is more easily obtained, it being an outside platform face with it's track connections already a little further out at the north end. I expect NR are planning to align a future major junction track renewal with eventual resignalling of the area, in which case a more rational layout can be developed in line with the south east route plan aspirations. At that point, it MIGHT be possible to restore #1 as a through platform, although it may not be necessary.

I like the idea of a second pedestrian crossing perhaps on the site of the GPO bridge. That could align with a redevelopment of the greater GPO site including a new east side station entrance. Removal of the down side bay/PO dock could assist with making room for this. The main west side concourse could also be moved to align with such a new bridge, with the existing subway demoted to a secondary platform transfer and exit facility connected via a passageway alongside #0 to the new concourse.

 

[Phil.]

I shall be back in Redhill on Monday. I think that I'll have a little mosey round to see if I can envisage what this is going to look like - I fear the worst!

 

[Deepgreen]

Assuming the overnight possessions mentioned by TSR a couple of weeks ago are now underway, it's both disappointing and somehow depressingly predictable that the defective train information screen on platform 2 shows no signs of anything happening to replace it. I still find it astounding that there has been no local information or apology about the situation at all, after nearly five months of failure! Redhill's local management are seriously lacking in passenger-focus. Assuming that this latest opportunity to do the work has now slipped by like the previous ones apparently did, one wonders if it will ever be done or if anything will ever be communicated to passengers about it - or will it just sit there and be ignored 'forever'?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I like the idea of a second pedestrian crossing perhaps on the site of the GPO bridge. That could align with a redevelopment of the greater GPO site including a new east side station entrance. Removal of the down side bay/PO dock could assist with making room for this. The main west side concourse could also be moved to align with such a new bridge, with the existing subway demoted to a secondary platform transfer and exit facility connected via a passageway alongside #0 to the new concourse.

Just after the 'Solum Regeneration' project has finished its expensive, but merely cosmetic stuff!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Back at Redhill today after a long weekend and the platform 2 sign still stares blankly at us! Presumbly the overnight possessions have again passed without anything being done - this really is turning into a farcical situation; a fundamental piece of passenger information equipment broken for over five months and with absolutely no communication from the station management about the issue! As a matter of principle, I wrote to my MP a while ago, given Southern's obvious lack of concern about this and many other maintenance issues, and he simply replied that he has passed the complaint onto Southern - utterly useless! It astounds me how can a major station like Redhill be mis-managed so comprehensively for so long!

The track in the engineer's siding fan on the inside of the Reigate curve is now about half lifted and stacked for removal. Presumably this will be done (very awkwardly down a steep embankment) by road now that the whole network of loops and sidings here has been officially taken out of use? Why it could not be removed by rail before official decommissioning is beyond me, but then the modern railway seems to prefer road transport when it can get away with it.

A somewhat 'ranty' post, I'm afraid, but Redhill is proving to be extremely exasperating.

 

[Minstral25]

I think what is being built is what is practical, given the constraints of the layout, in which I'm supposing NR don't want to prematurely renew any turnouts and crossings, and the signalling, which, given the old relay signalling is being retained for now, can only take minor layout variations and simplifications. Platform #1 remaining as a 12-car through platform would not work well without a major remodelling of the south junction, as a 12 car standing there would completely block access to and from #0 for GWR trains. #1 is difficult to lengthen at the north end, with only limited width of formation available, not to mention difficulty designing entirely new junctions at that end with clear or swingable overlaps for operational flexibility. For the new #0, 12-car length is more easily obtained, it being an outside platform face with it's track connections already a little further out at the north end. I expect NR are planning to align a future major junction track renewal with eventual resignalling of the area, in which case a more rational layout can be developed in line with the south east route plan aspirations. At that point, it MIGHT be possible to restore #1 as a through platform, although it may not be necessary.

I like the idea of a second pedestrian crossing perhaps on the site of the GPO bridge. That could align with a redevelopment of the greater GPO site including a new east side station entrance. Removal of the down side bay/PO dock could assist with making room for this. The main west side concourse could also be moved to align with such a new bridge, with the existing subway demoted to a secondary platform transfer and exit facility connected via a passageway alongside #0 to the new concourse.

Redhill has suffered from underdevelopment for some time whilst having some of the highest fares into London from Surrey/Sussex. Regular major delays with trains caused fully by the poor layout. Trains swap platforms without a GWR train in sight with regularity, especially in the peak when a London Bridge/Thameslink train is delayed in the platform as a Victoria train is due in the same platform for example.

Redhill station needs a complete reconfiguration as a modern capable through station and this badly planned cheapskate job should not be done as it will create permanent damage to the potential future plan.

The South points are due for replacement within 10 years anyway (was scheduled 2022/4) so why not do a proper job for the future now instead of ruining any chance of a decent solution in 8 years time because you've built platform 0 where you need to extend platform 1.

There is no question from a passenger perspective that Platform 1 needs to be a through platform and platform 0 is better as a terminating platform.

The New East Side entrance and car park is already agreed and approved. We are waiting for SOLUM regeneration to start work on it - none of it is in the sorting office area which is not AFAIK planned to be moved any time soon.

 

[talldave]

..
The track in the engineer's siding fan on the inside of the Reigate curve is now about half lifted and stacked for removal. Presumably this will be done (very awkwardly down a steep embankment) by road now that the whole network of loops and sidings here has been officially taken out of use? Why it could not be removed by rail before official decommissioning is beyond me, but then the modern railway seems to prefer road transport when it can get away with it.....

Would that be using rail replacement buses ?

As for the lack of repairs, it reinforces my view that Southern don't give a toss about passengers - we're just an irritation that get in the way of them playing with their train set.

 

[Deepgreen]

Further advanced with the track removal than I thought as I discovered on my return journey yesterday. Most of the fan and the loops now gone. Photo attached.

 

[Deepgreen]

Nearly all the track lifted now, and stacked awaiting removal from the 'fan' end of the site.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
STILL no progress with the broken screen replacement on platform 2! After another huge delay in even obtaining any response from Southern (still waiting), I have now written to Passenger Focus, but hold out little hope of anything constructive coming from that direction. Several possession opportunities have now passed with nothing being done at all. Also, still no local explanation or apology for this five-months-long fault - the attitude of the station management defies belief!

 

[greaterwest]

Nearly all the track lifted now, and stacked awaiting removal from the 'fan' end of the site.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
STILL no progress with the broken screen replacement on platform 2! After another huge delay in even obtaining any response from Southern (still waiting), I have now written to Passenger Focus, but hold out little hope of anything constructive coming from that direction. Several possession opportunities have now passed with nothing being done at all. Also, still no local explanation or apology for this five-months-long fault - the attitude of the station management defies belief!

I've been reading on Twitter about this, it's been reported several times and "logged", the issue being something to do with the location (what a load of rubbish!) & they've now taken to ignoring any further tweets on the matter.

It seems that they need a full line block to replace the wiring under the track (!) and that this won't be done any time soon because of the "stock movies all night".

See here: https://twitter.com/kevinrussell878/status/727515322853392386

 

[Deepgreen]

I've been reading on Twitter about this, it's been reported several times and "logged", the issue being something to do with the location (what a load of rubbish!) & they've now taken to ignoring any further tweets on the matter.

It seems that they need a full line block to replace the wiring under the track (!) and that this won't be done any time soon because of the "stock movies all night".

See here: https://twitter.com/kevinrussell878/status/727515322853392386

This whole saga is utterly bizarre. Southern (Redhill management in particular) seem to have no interest or pride in fault-fixing whatsoever. I had been told previously that it was simply the proximity of the track that meant that a possession would be required to prevent workers who are removing the indicator from accidentally falling onto the adjacent track. There are very few movements overnight anyway, and all of those could be re-routed through platform 1 (the other side of the wide island) to give several hours clear on platform 2 for the work. In any case, there have been several possessions recently, all of which have been missed for undertaking this work.

Then there is the question of the alleged wiring renewal under the track - what??!! There is another working indicator about 100 metres away on the same platform which shows exactly the same information at all times - just connect to/extend from that - what wiring under the track is there to be renewed?

In addition to this fault, the departures summary screen in the waiting room had been broken for about four months before it was finally fixed and that is within an enclosed room nowhere near any danger and is about the size of a small TV!

At no point during the five months-plus that these faults have existed has there been any apology or explanation locally - what the hell does the local management do?!