Great Western Coffee Shop

Is there any reason why **every** westbound Paddington - Bristol / South Wales HST has to use platform 4 at Reading? There are 2 westbound lines into and out of Reading, so why do all the trains queue up to use 4?

They don't always use Platform 4.
But it comes down to pathing and whether the signaller feel it would cause more delay or not, as the train would have to be brought down on yellow aspects for the crossing over to 8, and then out of 8 will need to cross over again back to the mainlines.
Platform 8 is commonly used by the slow Oxfords and also CrossCountry and other trains back to Paddington.

Also don't they have about 500 staff situated on platform 4, slamming those doors.

;D ;D ;D

500 staff to dispatch the same train as one person in cornwall and sell tickets to boot :'(

Just go to Reading and watch the procession of trains off Platforms 4 and 5.  No disrespect to any Cornish station or staff, but Reading does warrant the extra personnel.  500 may be a slight exaggeration though. :)

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the Reading Station Upgrade is to help resolve this issue so that hopefully the pathing into Reading will be suitable for there to be at least two platforms for fast trains from London to be easily used.  I haven't checked the plans but here's hoping!  Maybe someone else here knows?

I think another issue is that moving a trains platform from 4 to 5 or 8 currently also involves telling a lot of people they need to cross over the bridge etc (not good at the moment with the escalators being out of action to the concourse).  At busy times this probably causes a lot of hassle for everyone which is probably another reason just to stick to using 4.

At least trains to London are easily able to use either 5 or 8 which is v handy for the morning rush to London!

Boppy.

I have found a fairly recent 'plan' from the consultation document.  Under the new setup, the existing P4 will become P7, normal use by down trains to the Newbury route, and reversing XC services (these will cross to/from the reliefs west of the station via the bypass route under the flyover).
There are then two main islands for main line services, P8/9 for down and P10/11 for Up. Up services from Newbury will be routed to P10 or less likely to P11. 

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/Reading/5303_Reading%20Area%20Redevelopment%20Plan.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/Consultation/Reading/5303_Reading%20Area%20Redevelopment%20Plan.pdf)

However, in another more detailed engineering drawing I have, that seems to show the track alignment much more accurately, P9 and P10 will be aligned with the main lines outside the station, P8 and P11 will be loops.

Paul

Back in the 1890's when the 2-track "main" line was widened to 4, it was done by essentially building a parallel, separate 2-track railway - the "relief" line. Platforms 4,5 thus serve the main line, 8,9 the relief.

To use a different platform requires a conflicting crossing, stopping trains coming in the opposite direction as well. Safety requires signalling approach control, often stopping a train dead in front of the points to make sure the turn-out speed limit isn't exceeded. There isn't a slick way of doing this yet!

The new dawn promised at the General Station basically (AIUI) slews the main lines Northwards, through the present platforms 5 and  8, allowing effectively 3 down and at least 3 up platforms. There are two extra island platforms planned to the North, where the Signal Box and Fire Station yard are sited.

The slew could have been done much more cheaply years ago.

Waiting for a platform at signal R28,

OTC

Always though that approach to a TPWS ramp set at Red was 35mph for passengers trains? Then again - I also believe that company policy is less.

Hi guys,

Thanks for the replies.

I hadn't realised that the relief lines were added at a later date - thought it had been 4 from the beginning!

I've always thought that one problem with the whole line setup between Reading and Paddington is the ordering of the up and downs (i.e. "up, down, up, down") that cause trains coming in the opposite direction to be slowed or stopped to allow a crossing.  Was re-ordering the lines to "down, down, up, up" viable at any stage? or has it been the case that such a big change - moving signals and what to do at a station like Burnham - has meant that it never was (or will be) on the cards.

Cheers,

Boppy.

So will the existing islands (current platforms 5 to 8 and 9-10) remain basically the same as they are now, but with the bays filled in? Or will there be further widening- I'm assuming they would also need to improve access to the p9/p10 island as the stairs are very narrow; is there an intention to provide escalators there?

Would require investment at other stations, as some stations between Paddington and Reading don't have platforms on the main lines.

Woking station is quite similar to Reading in terms of service pattern, number of through platforms, number of lines, distance to London and having an important flat junction just on the down side of the station.  One big difference is that being on the South Western main line it is of the fast lines in the centre configuration.  Curiously Woking manages to get exactly the same number of fast trains dispatched to London between 7 and 8 am as Reading - 10.

Filling in all the bays on the existing island seems a fair description AFAICT. I also suspect the four new platforms on the reliefs (slewed to the north) will be almost bound to be divided into 'a and b' ends to give maximum operating flexibility. 

I also believe there are major improvements to the size of the footbridge, the stairs and the subway, all associated with the new northern entrance.

Paul

Railway textbooks always seems to consider that having lines paired by direction is the best practice for long distances of four track if regular junctions to both sides occur, but paired by use (as per the GWML) is best at your major terminus stations such as Paddington, to reduce conflicting crossovers as trains arrive and depart.  If you compare the GW with the LSWR lines from Waterloo to Basingstoke, you'll see the flyover at Durnford Rd, (between Wimbledon and Earlsfield) rearranges the main lines before the final run into Clapham Jn and Waterloo. On the country side of Wimbledon, except for Woking Junction and Basingstoke you have flyovers or diveunders at most of the branches, and then eventually the four track becomes two pairs at Worting Junction west of Basingstoke, and the Southampton and Salisbury routes are sorted without conflicts by Battledown flyover. 

It wasn't built this way of course, the change to 'paired by use' was a 1930s improvement IIRC - but think of all the disruption to do something similar to the GW now...

By the way, adding to the comments upthread about Woking, an interesting solution is used for the terminating stoppers, which use a bay platform on the London end of the centre island, so the trains cross from down slow to down fast to platform 3 on arrival, and then cross the up fast to the up slow on subsequent departure. So although there are slow to fast 'weaves', ie they are in the same direction, this is somewhat safer than crossing against trains moving at speed in the opposite direction.

Paul

It could be worse :)

As constructed, Reading station was a typical Brunel designed single-sided intermediate station, with separate up and down platforms situated to the south of the through tracks and arranged so that all up trains calling at Reading conflicted with the route of all down through trains.

In 1898, following the death of Broad Gauge, which gave the additional room needed; the single sided station was replaced by a conventional design with 'up', 'down' and 'relief' platforms linked by a pedestrian subway.

Re-ordering the lines/roads to down/down/up/up is now probably inappropriate for the GWML. This is because of its TENS (Trans-European Express Network Service) grading which by EU law requires it to be upgraded towards LGV standards. This is a universe away from the South Western Main Line with its weaving, fast, semi-fast and stopping emu's. It means more segregation of our Main (fast) lines with new signalling, track and maintenance for seriously high speed. The Relief (slow) lines must therefore survive on their own, with more passing loops and increasingly, 4-track sections, to allow for all the mixed traffic not allowed on the Main line.

The UK Government must now obtain Europe's permission, independently certified, for its TENS rail "upgrades". I hope the EU turns down the IEP/Hitachi proposal and insists on performance equal to TGV/ICE - the French and German  standards for C21 InterCity travel.

Still waiting for "platform allocation", at signal R28,

OTC

The four tracking between Paddington and Didcot was quite a complicated progamme completed in the 1880s. The Main complication being that as originally designed Reading and Slough were single sided staions similar to Cambridge today where Down trains were served by the West end and Up trains the East end, crosing in the middle. Later the two broad gauge lines  were changed to mixed gauge. The Relief lines were only standard from the start and were mostly built on the North side although it got complicated through Twyford where they were on the South side hence the curved paltforms on the main line. So new platforms were required to serve both the Up main and relief lines at Slough and Reading. It;s also why the RElief line platforms at Langley and Taplow were heavily curved until the platforms were rebuilt. A friend of mine is researching the sequence of the doubling,  it's complicated but the net result is that today the 4 lines are paired by use.

We have found out that the current 4 track station of 1884 at Taplow is in fact the second station on the site. A new 2 track (MIXED) station was built on what are now the mainline platforms in around 1872. When the original Maidenhead station on the A4 East of the river bridge was closed When the four tracking the up side buildding was demolised and the current building on platfrom 4 constructed to serve the up Relief.

When the LSWR and LNER 4 tracked out of Waterloo and Liverpool Street the lines are paired by use which makes the termini easier to operate, most suburban services out of Waterloo use platforms 1 -4 whilst at Liverpool Street the Shenfield stopping service use the high numbered platforms. However both built flyovers  at Wimbledon and  Ilford to give 4 lines paired by direction further out. Also the LSWR/ Sothern built flyovers/unders at most junctions between Waterloo and Woking. Unfortunately the money ran out and Woking remains a bottle neck.

The ECML is paired by direction but is a mixture of double and 4 track. If you go through Potters Bar Down trains use the new tunnels whilst the Up trains use the original tunnels.

Both the Midland and WCML are paired by use the Midland originally to Kettering and WCML to Roade and the junction to Northamprton.

It's an interesting operating conumdrum. Pairing by use is probably best for the approach to terminal stations where stopping trains can use platforms to one side and main line trains the other as at Paddington. Whilst pairing by direction is easier to operate out on the main line so you can put fast trains down the middle and switch them to the parrallel line to serve the station and possibly let the following fast past. This was the way one of the last mainlines built in this country the GWR and GW/GC joint from Old Oak Common to Anyho through High Wycombe was designed. Whilst mainly double track there were 11 places where fast trains could overtake stoppers. There were also flying junctions where the independant GC and GW lines branched. In fact you still go over the flyover at Ashendon on an Up train to Marylebone although the junctions long since gone. It's some of those loops Chiltern wants to put back.

If there were ever to a flyover at Woking then the LSWR mainline from Waterloo to Worting Junction could probably count as the almost perfect mixed use railway.



 

There's a lot of new cable ducting being placed next to the tracks at the eastern end of the station, including the Waterloo tracks to 4a/4b. It also looks like some clearance work has taken place around the currently disused dive-under and the disused sidings adjacent to the Waterloo lines. Is any of this preparatory work for the station re-build and eventual re-opening of the dive-under?