Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

The 5-car rear clear board is a bit unnecessary, given that Tilehurst platforms already have a 6-car stop board for normal trains stopping at the station which is obviously clear of the reversing signal anyway.

[SandTEngineer]

...crikey.  The standards on signal sighting state that there should be no distraction at the target signal   I don't really understand how all of this is getting past the Signal Sighting Committee (EDIT: or come to think of it the Testing Staff).  On projects I'm currently working on if something like this was proposed you would be laughed (or more likely kicked) out of the room   The arrangement shown at Tilehurst is positively encouraging a driver to misread and potentially SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) the signal.

[eightf48544]

Well said S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph), signals should be well sighted and give unambiguous indications.

A one aspect signal doesn't work unless it's an absolute stop or a fixed distant.

[Network SouthEast]

On the subject of rear clear boards... whilst they may be a new phenomena to many readers here, this isn't the first instance of them on the network. They have previously existed in the Old Oak Common area to assist with shunting movements. If you look out of the window whilst passing the area you might just make them out.

[ellendune]

My first visit to Reading since before Easter.

Cannot comment on how cold or wet the deck was because the weather was neither cold nor wet. It was however very spacious.

Arrived on P10 - very interested that all the levels are different between P11 and P10 and there are some temporary ramps. Also the platform faces on P8/9 seem to be temporary surfacing with some levels to be changed.

Hoardings round stair to old link bridge make accessing P4/5/6 quite cramped. A lone FGW^▸ (First Great Western) staff member was trying to encourage people of an arrival at P5 to use the new gateline rather than queue to get trough to the old one but he might as well have been talking to himself no one listened.

Looking at the layout to the East of P 9/10, the turnout for P11 is in place as is the crossover from the Down Main to P10, but the other crossover cannot be installed until the P10 road is realigned. See plan previously posted.

[Jonty]

Does anyone know when the remaining escalators and lift leading up to the old bridge are scheduled to  be removed?

[paul7575]

Arrived on P10 - very interested that all the levels are different between P11 and P10 and there are some temporary ramps. Also the platform faces on P8/9 seem to be temporary surfacing with some levels to be changed.

The P10 side is still the pre-fabricated temporary platform built out over the original track, it remains in use until August bank holiday weekend as it is now.

As far as I recall most of the new parts of P8/9 were behind the hoarding lines over the last year or so, again I don't think the finishing work to the platform edge areas is imminent, and it will be done in phases later.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

For those of you that are interested, here's a link to a 'view from the cab' video of the revised layout from Scours Lane to Kennet Bridge Loop, via Reading's new Platform 14.  It's available in 720p HD if you hover over the footage and click the 'quality' tab and then click the 'full screen' icon. 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz5ew8_cab-ride-of-new-interim-layout-at-reading-from-scours-lane-to-kennet-bridge-loop_travel#.UXHU9sqp-wM

A somewhat leisurely run due to signal checks, but at least that gives you ample time to appreciate the revised track and signalling.

[bobm]

Thanks as ever II for another interesting insight.  It certainly shows why the drivers have been taking it "steady as she goes" since the new routes came in.

[stuving]

Thank you, one and several, for your kind words. I have been trying to catch up on previous postings, but obviously the sheer number of them makes that a daunting piece of homework. So please forgive the inevitable repetition of things already raised or dealt with.

I have also been looking at the planning application to RBC^‡(resolve) (11/01885/FUL ) that Jeff cited earlier, which also contains far too much stuff to review thoroughly. It gives an detailed view of what was expected to be the design at that stage, and one of the few big differences from "as built" is the glazing.

In fact, their are several related RBC planning applications with a lot of similar documents in them:
09/01003/REG3; June 2009; application from RBC dealing with their responsibilities
10/01269/FUL; July 2010; main application for station from NR^» (Network Rail - home page)
11/01885/FUL; December 2011 ; main application for the rail viaducts and bridges, revisions to some other documents including the latest (?) version of the D&AS (but marked June 2010)
12/00577/FUL; April 2012; minor revision of frontage
other (entries /LBC are for listed building consent)

However, we must be careful about the status of this (the Design & Access Statement). Network rail's application letter (listed as "supporting letter", file 00261496.pdf) states plainly but politely that railways can do pretty much what they like without planning permission. While Network rail need to get the local authority's approval for the design of bridges, and the planners can ask for some other things to be reconsidered, there are not really any grounds for refusing planning approval, except:
"(a) the development (other than the provision of or works carried out to a dam) ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land; or
(b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury."

Of course RBC is contributing, notably to change the roads around the station, which gives them some leverage - but that should not come via the planning department (it's meant to be independent of the rest of the authority). In practice the whole process involves much more cooperation that the legal minimum, and the documents submitted are much more complete than required by planning law. The D&AS only needs to deal with access outside the station, and its overall design to assess if is "injurious". All the stuff about internal circulation and other design details does not bind NR in any way. The design presented is  pretty much the one we have got, even if some details - notably the glazing - have been altered later. This may have been a design change, or perhaps the detail in this area was not meant to be fully designed until later.

Whoever did the pictures clearly did expect full glazing of the deck and stairways. The 2010 D&AS (pp 184-186) describes in the text full-height glazing of the deck and light and ventilation via the clerestories, though only glazed openings are pictured. The glazed screens down the stairways are nearly full height, described as enough to prevent diesel fumes being conducted into the deck. That's interesting in the context of fire safety as the main fire risk is trains, and smoke and fumes would also be guided to some extent into the deck by the canopies alone. In the discussion of the choice of the sweeping canopies (p 127), clerestories are shown as glazed to the North and louvred to the South. This is also shown in cross-sections in the latest (2012) amendment applications (at least in some clerestories), and here the glazing of the South wall of the deck is not full height.

Now the original version looks to me like a reasonable arrangement, especially if the louvres can be closed, and I would rather see even more of the glazing movable. The lack of any mention of control of ventilation openings does suggest that it's aiming to be fully passive. That could explain the subsequent removal of a lot of the glazing - if you try to keep the temperature down on a calm day passively that's what you would get. Unfortunately this passive thermal design idea is being stretched well past its logical limits. Surely controlled ventilation openings, even if motor driven, are so close to being passive they should not be lumped together with full HVAC. Try saying "it is possible to provide a comfortable internal environment, in all conditions of wind, sun,  and temperature, passively using only fixed glazing and permanent openings" and see if you are convinced. I think it's self-evident rubbish.

Incidentally, the new footbridge for Wokingham (which I guess is a standard Access for All design) is shown in its planning application as fully glazed, though with windows that can be opened.

A couple of other things I spotted in these documents:
The name of the inflated plastic bag roofing used in the skylights (access stairways, and on platform 8/9). If you look at the North side of a skylight from the right angle, you can see the inflation pipes. They are ETFE foil cushions, as used in the Eden project, and I gather the new Newport station too - how successful has that been?.

All of the passenger flow modelling assumes platforms 12-15 are well to the West of their as-built position, almost symmetrical about the deck. The deck being well off-centre means the A/B labelling as used now is not always helpful for passengers. Platforms 7-11 were assumed to be almost as pre-existing, though I think some are to be shortened. I can't find any explanation of this change, nor even a scale diagram showing the full length of the platforms.

[Sabre999uk]

Thanks to II for the video from 2nd April, how do I know this? I'm in it along with my Nan & 9 year old nephew at the end of platform 13  I'm the one wearing the beige coat.

Steve

Edited to correct platform number

[GBM]

Also my thanks to II for the great video.  Us rubber wheeled folk don't get to see such good views... (unless you're on a 300 run, of course) 

[paul7575]

Incidentally, the new footbridge for Wokingham (which I guess is a standard Access for All design) is shown in its planning application as fully glazed, though with windows that can be opened.

If there is such a thing as a standard 'access for all' footbridge, there are a large number that are not fully glazed, eg Bracknell, Fareham, Fratton.  They seem to have varying combinations of glass, wire mesh or 'nothing', I don't think there is a hard and fast rule at all, in fact Fareham's bridge is quite wet internally when wind and rain are in the right direction.

All of the passenger flow modelling assumes platforms 12-15 are well to the West of their as-built position, almost symmetrical about the deck. The deck being well off-centre means the A/B labelling as used now is not always helpful for passengers. Platforms 7-11 were assumed to be almost as pre-existing, though I think some are to be shortened. I can't find any explanation of this change, nor even a scale diagram showing the full length of the platforms.

There are a number of drawings of the platform layout around, which as far as I can see show platforms 12 - 15 roughly as built, but with the 'operational centres' now visibly marked by the pairs of rear clear markers, AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) magnets, and the axle counter heads, I'd suggest the notional midpoint is just under the London side of the 30m wide transfer deck.  So all in all, the mid point is only about 10-15m further towards London than if the platforms were exactly balanced.  So less than a coach length.   (Small point but the operational mid point may not be the physical mid point.)

I'd assume the P12/15 platform layout was constrained (for East/West position) by how wide they could make the approaches on either side - as we know both Caversham Rd and Vastern Rd bridges were widened to the north to allow for points and crossings etc.  Perhaps the limits were defined by the fire station and the BMW dealership.   Then as discussed in the DAS^▸ (Driver Advisory System), the transfer bridge was located to allow sufficient space for escalator and gateline run-off areas at either side.  Another factor I just thought of might have been keeping the foundations for the bridge piers, and the various lift and escalator 'sumps' clear of the subway and existing plant rooms under the platforms?

In the case of the existing platforms 7-11, we don't really know yet how much of the London end will be 'shortened'.  The P8 and P10 current operational lengths are definitely not in their eventual positions, and all the drawings I've seen show the western ends 'squared off' just beyond the ends of P12-15; ie with P8 extending west as far as current P9, and P10 as far west as currently unopened P11.  It is not clear how much of the London end of the existing structures will be physically removed, but the length beyond the signal gantry will presumably not actually be used. In the case of P7, I think it will be roughly balanced either side of the transfer deck anyway.

(There are full platform layouts which show the east end of P8-11 over two pages in section 8.3 and 8.4 of the 2010 DAS - most of the individual drawings, such as that attached below, cut off the east end.)

Paul

[TonyK]

Thanks II - an excellent insight. Nice to see so many gantries in place already.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Indeed, my thanks as well, IndustryInsider.   It's almost as if you had access to the inside ...