Oxford station - facilities, improvements, parking, incidents and events - merged posts

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

If & when the up loop platform opens (& it is on plans I've seen) another renumber will be necessary...and platform 5 will appear first on the down loop

[IndustryInsider]

If & when the up loop platform opens (& it is on plans I've seen) another renumber will be necessary...and platform 5 will appear first on the down loop

I'm not sure it will be - the plans I've seen indicate that the up loop platform is merely an extension of bay Platform 2, what was Platform 3 until today.  And yes to Platform 5 being the down loop.

[ChrisB]

Yes, that's possible...but isn't Chiltern meant to be getting 2 bay platforms?...

[IndustryInsider]

I think it was originally, but the likelihood of Chiltern and EW Rail services terminating at Oxford in the longer term looks slim, and so having two north facing bay is enough - the existing one and a new one.  Then if the new platform 2 eventually becomes a through platform then that's still available to them if needed.

[ellendune]

Further details of the Oxford Station Masterplan have been published  http://www.oxfordwestend.co.uk/Direct/Loresexhibitiongraphics.pdf

[paul7575]

Further details of the Oxford Station Masterplan have been published  http://www.oxfordwestend.co.uk/Direct/Loresexhibitiongraphics.pdf

I've seen that before, it's a 2014 pdf.    Quite possible to have changed since then, I'd have thought?

Paul

[ellendune]

I've seen that before, it's a 2014 pdf.    Quite possible to have changed since then, I'd have thought?

Paul

Sorry was trying to be helpful and not put in a link to something behind a paywall.

Try this http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15341633.RAILWAY_STATION_REVAMP__Oxford_s_full__masterplan__finally_revealed/

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

I hope that if any platforms are likely to be occupied by more than 1 train at a time – quite likely I would have thought with terminators coming in from the north and the south – then the platforms will be properly signalled for this with mid platform signals etc.  Unlike Reading. 

[SandTEngineer]

I hope that if any platforms are likely to be occupied by more than 1 train at a time – quite likely I would have thought with terminators coming in from the north and the south – then the platforms will be properly signalled for this with mid platform signals etc.  Unlike Reading.

They won't be. Normal platform sharing arrangements using 'Calling On' aspects on the platform protecting stop signals are being provided.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

OK, but Group Standard GK/RT0044 “Guidance on Permissive Working” states:

"2.2.1    Facilities for signalling a passenger train on to an occupied line shall only be provided where all of the following apply:
                a) It is a platform line.
                b) The purpose is for platform sharing and / or joining trains.
                c) There is no reasonably practicable alternative method of working which presents less risk."

Para c) acknowledges that signalling a passenger train on to an occupied line (ie permissive working) carries a risk.  I would have thought that for a new layout with new signalling it would be difficult for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to claim “there is no reasonably practicable alternative method of working which presents less risk”. 

[ChrisB]

So very poor integrated transport requiring those with mobility problems to have to negotiate their way to Becket Street (no current plans for pick up in front of the new station. Only pedestrians and cyclists get that bonus

[SandTEngineer]

OK, but Group Standard GK/RT0044 “Guidance on Permissive Working” states:

"2.2.1    Facilities for signalling a passenger train on to an occupied line shall only be provided where all of the following apply:
                a) It is a platform line.
                b) The purpose is for platform sharing and / or joining trains.
                c) There is no reasonably practicable alternative method of working which presents less risk."

Para c) acknowledges that signalling a passenger train on to an occupied line (ie permissive working) carries a risk.  I would have thought that for a new layout with new signalling it would be difficult for NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to claim “there is no reasonably practicable alternative method of working which presents less risk”.

I think you have mis-understood that.  It means that permissive working itself should not implemented unless there is no alternative, not that alternative signalling should be arranged to permit it. In truth it is suggesting that there should be additional platforms that are not shared.

I can think of lots of recent schemes that comply with the standard but don't have intermediate platform signals.  Out of interest Bristol Temple Meads will have intermediate platform signals but that is probably due to the length of the platforms which are in effect two operationally separate platforms and will therefore be separated by signals.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

We are interpreting this extract differently, others can come to their own conclusions.  The fact is that permissive working carries risks which can be avoided if fixed signals are provided, and providing fixed signals at new build stage is relatively easy. 

NB the Sprinter/High Speed Train (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) collision at Plymouth last year, the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) Report on which was published in February.


Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[SandTEngineer]

We are interpreting this extract differently, others can come to their own conclusions.  The fact is that permissive working carries risks which can be avoided if fixed signals are provided, and providing fixed signals at new build stage is relatively easy. 

NB the Sprinter/High Speed Train (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) collision at Plymouth last year, the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) Report on which was published in February.

Fixed mid-platform signals would not have reduced the risk as part of that collision.  The High Speed Train (HST) was stood well past the platform mid-point so the DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) would have still been signalled into an occupied platform by a 'Calling On' aspect.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronym

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

The point I was making is that permissive working carries risks which do not exist with fixed signals.  Permissive working is sometimes necessary eg coupling up but my view is that where it can be avoided it should be.  If there had been a mid-platform signal and the first train couldn't fit behind (like the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) at Plymouth), then I contend that a second train should not normally be allowed in permissively from the other end.  If the first train had been a 3 car Sprinter from the London end, it could have sat behind a mid-platform signal and the Sprinter from Cornwall could have been safely let in to the platform under fixed signals.

Fixed signals, especially nowadays with TPWS^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System) etc, provide a safeguard against human error: these safeguards do not exist with permissive working, hence the wording in the Group Standard.

I think I've said all I want to say on this topic, S&TE I'm happy if you have the last word.  Off to the seaside for a few days so I'll leave arguments behind.

Sorry about delayed response – BBQ yesterday and I don’t email, post messages etc when I’ve been drinking! 

3rd sentence edited for clarity