Turnback at Rainham Kent

[eastwestdivide]

Southeastern are/were consulting on the timetable from August 2016. No mention of Gillingham services extended to Rainham. It did mention more Gillingham trains going to Abbey Wood due to Crossrail, but this was quickly removed when people commented that Crossrail was still 2 years beyond that.

However more Medway semi-fasts do look like diverting via Abbey Wood as a warm up for Crossrail, and I'd expect Rainham to be finished by August 2016, so the semi-fasts terminating there, and diverted from the Sidcup and Bexleyheath lines?

Don't the Medway semi fasts (CX-Gillingham) already run via Abbey Wood off peak and weekends? Or is this in the rush hour?

 

[Aictos]

On the topic of Strood, any idea when they will be finishing the various works there? Have asked South Eastern who didn't know, all I know is they've extended the island platform for the St Pancras Int/Maidstone West services to take 12 coaches although it does look longer then that.

Is this to run more longer services on the Medway?

 

[carriageline]

There are already trailing crossovers on both the Rochester and Maidstone sides of Strood station, so reversal in Pl.2 is fine. In fact it used to be a regular timetabled service for a while.
The Maidstone line crossover is used all the time by departing trains from Strood towards Maidstone. The Rochester line crossover is used at least by the 2331 empty coaching stock from platform 2 at Strood see http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/W21817/2015/06/23/advanced .

Whichever direction (Gillingham-Maidstone or vice versa), you still have to cross from an up to a down line at some point. Reversing in platform 2 only ties up one (up) platform while the train is in the platform, and then on departure you cross to the down line.

If this caused too much occupation of Pl.2, you could install a facing crossover on the Maidstone side of Strood, you could run Maidstone TO Gillingham services into Pl.1 (cross to down line before arrival), and Gillingham TO Maidstone services into Pl.2 (cross to down line after departure). This would also reduce confusion for passengers (always Pl.1 for Gillingham, Pl.2/3 island for Maidstone).

Flyover - maybe with unlimited funds, but realistically, no way, no need.

So you literally just repeated what I said

I'm from Medway, but don't know the TPH at strood as I rarely go down there. Reversing into/out of 2 is operationally a bit of a nightmare IMO. You could fit it in with the train paths just about, but it's not exactly flexible, and it's a complete PITA when the service is up the wall.

The ideal world would be to keep everything in 1 out of the way, and reverse it and over Rochester Bridge.
But I'm not sure there is room for a crossover (from platform 1 over towards Rochester) now they have extended the platform and added the new footbridge.

 

[ComUtoR]

Reversing into/out of 2 is operationally a bit of a nightmare IMO.

Its gone wrong a few times too.

 

[eastwestdivide]

So you literally just repeated what I said

I'm from Medway, but don't know the TPH at strood as I rarely go down there. Reversing into/out of 2 is operationally a bit of a nightmare IMO. You could fit it in with the train paths just about, but it's not exactly flexible, and it's a complete PITA when the service is up the wall.

The ideal world would be to keep everything in 1 out of the way, and reverse it and over Rochester Bridge.
But I'm not sure there is room for a crossover (from platform 1 over towards Rochester) now they have extended the platform and added the new footbridge.

Sorry, I didn't mean to "literally repeat what you said". I misunderstood - the "clog up 2 platforms" sounded to me as if you thought there wasn't room for a crossover from Pl.2, and you wanted to put one in under the footbridge (which stands on the platforms) also taking up space in platform 1:

...The fact there is no crossover or pointwork from platform 3 (Maidstone platform) to reverse down to Rochester. You could stick it in 2, but the reversal, then crossing over to the down line would then clog up 2 platforms while that happens.

And from my memory of strood the lack of space to put the crossover, and the fact they have just put the new bridge in where the points could of been...

Yes, there's no room to get from Pl.3 to the Rochester lines, even without the new bridge. I don't think the new bridge impinges on anywhere that you could feasibly put any crossings.

As for the service levels, currently 2 trains per half-hour round the curve from Rochester, occupancy somewhere between 6-10 mins in every 30, so room for one more to reverse plus freight paths (would probably need the flexibility to reverse in Pl.1 as well, hence my extra facing crossover suggestion).

Crossing from Pl.2 to whichever down line doesn't actually clog up 2 platforms, just prevents anything from departing Pl.1 in the down direction at the same time (or from Pl.3 if it's going towards Maidstone).

I'd be more worried about the impact on punctuality of 2 extra trains an hour over Rochester Bridge Junction, which already handles 3ph via Sole St and 4ph via Strood in each direction.

Anyway, I can't really see any of this happening.

 

[cav1975]

So - rusty rails at Rainham for the foreseeable future...........

 

[moggie]

Easter 2016 for the new signalling. December this year for the new station at Rochester on the old signalling.

Signalled move Strood P2 to RBJ. No plans for facing crossover on Medway line to get to P1 for reverse move. No wrong direction move Strood P2 to RBJ, only as today on the Down Nth Kent.

Rainham turnback will be usable from Easter 2016. No idea when the timetable introduces a service.

 

[StockControl]

My understanding has been that the new station at Rochester depended on Resignalling being completed and Rochester box being demolished to allow station to be completed.

 

[MarkyT]

My understanding has been that the new station at Rochester depended on Resignalling being completed and Rochester box being demolished to allow station to be completed.

The new station, in its final form with three platforms, requires a new track and signalling layout, and the changes could not have been considered using the existing life expired 1950s equipment. It is possible that two of the new platforms might be able to open alongside existing tracks before resignalling is complete with the third platform face mothballed awaiting the completion of the additional track and signalling connections which can only be provided under the new system. The footprint of the old signal box does not interfere with the new station construction or the final track layout.

 

[Aictos]

Regarding Rochester I can see they're building a new station with 12 car platforms but what is happening to the old station once the new one opens Dec 2015?

 

[MarkyT]

Regarding Rochester I can see they're building a new station with 12 car platforms but what is happening to the old station once the new one opens Dec 2015?

I think parts of the old layout and platforms are to remain to act as reversing sidings. Clearly the public entrance will be closed but access and some facilities may be retained there for train crew.

 

[StockControl]

Taken from recent conversation on Facebook old colleague of mine from Southeastern :- Partially open this December and the old station closes. Only two platforms to start off with. The signal box has to be demolished for the third platform to open. Resignalling should have been done over Easter 2015, but put back until Easter 2016 Meaning the old box at Rochester soldiers on.

 

[cav1975]

Taken from recent conversation on Facebook old colleague of mine from Southeastern :- Partially open this December and the old station closes. Only two platforms to start off with. The signal box has to be demolished for the third platform to open. Resignalling should have been done over Easter 2015, but put back until Easter 2016 Meaning the old box at Rochester soldiers on.

The new Rochester station opens on Sunday, I believe.