Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[BBM]

I did a quick out-and-back TWY^▸ (Twyford station)-RDG^‡(resolve)-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) earlier today (as you do on a cold misty Sunday in January ). Likewise for me everything was smooth if a little on the slow side. However like grahame I had a nice glide into Reading from the west instead of standing outside the station for a minute or two as has often been my experience in the past. Hopefully that's a sign of a regular improvement for the future.

[paul7575]

I got the impression some of the timings today (and indeed on any Sunday) were fairly slack - isn't it the normal thing to allow for a two track railway between Paddington and Reading for patrolling and other 'preventative' engineering work?   A fair number of trains were reversing at Didcot, including the trunxcated XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service of course. 

Perhaps everything will seem a bit more 'snappy' tomorrow when the majority of the day sees the normal working timetable in use.

Today's fairly relaxed 'opening day' ought to have been a very worthwhile test.  Hope tomorrow goes well for them too...

Paul

[Chris from Nailsea]

I did a quick out-and-back TWY^▸ (Twyford station)-RDG^‡(resolve)-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) earlier today (as you do on a cold misty Sunday in January ).

Thanks for undertaking that 'special excursion' on our behalf, BerkshireBugsy - and for reporting back here. 

[BBM]

I did a quick out-and-back TWY^▸ (Twyford station)-RDG^‡(resolve)-DID^» (Didcot Parkway - next trains) earlier today (as you do on a cold misty Sunday in January ).

Thanks for undertaking that 'special excursion' on our behalf, BerkshireBugsy - and for reporting back here. 

No problem! (but I'm not BerkshireBugsy...)

[Chris from Nailsea]

My abject apologies to you both for my momentary confusion. 

[lbraine]

The compulsory purchase orders requested by Reading Borough Council for completing Cow Lane are online at this link :

http://www.reading.gov.uk/council/public-notices/land-cow-lane-reading/

The three letters of objection received - from the Safestore business and The Reading Festival ( this one surprised me ) and the owners of the building on the corner of Argyle Road.

I can find anything to say the dispute over the orders has been resolved one way or other.

[W5tRailfinder]

Thanks for the welcome.

Thank you Industry Insider for posting the full signalling / track layout for the area, which then sparked a few comments regarding down movements over the Oxford Road / Feeder Main layout.

Whoops! Posters, including myself, thought the layout was wrong since parallel movements are not possible between the Feeder lines and Westbury lines at Oxford Road, but by reference to the layout plans at RBC^‡(resolve) Planning, Google Earth and the track (switches and crossings) design standards you can see Network Rail have got it right.

The signalling layout plan is no more than an unscaled two-dimensional line drawing of the physical layout. The lines being drawn horizontal, vertical or diagonal (45 degrees). It is pointless in attempting to suggest signalling or track alterations without reference to the physical characteristics of the area concerned.

Here is my over simplified interpretation of the design process for this junction, which is in a rather awkward location.

After connecting the Feeder Main to the Up Westbury, the junction is about 20 metres to the east of the Up Westbury - Up Reading West Curve crossing, there are 5 possible at-grade layout design options in order for a down train to route Feeder Main to Down Westbury:

1   Do nothing - Routeing FM to UW, then to UW-DW crossover at the south (left) of Reading West Station. Parallel movements are not possible. This route is available by the signalling plan.
 
2   Add down direction UW-DW crossover between FM-UW junction and UW-URWC crossing ^ Routeing FM to UW, then crossover to DW. Parallel movements are possible. Rejected due to there being not enough space for the crossover.

3   Add single slip to UW-URWC crossing permitting down UW to URWC movements - routeing is FM to UW, then the single slip to DW. Parallel movements are possible. Rejected due to single slip not permitted in design standards.

4   Add down direction FM to down direction FR crossover ^ Routeing FM, FR, URWC to DW. Parallel movements not possible. Implemented.

5   Add down direction FM to up direction URWC crossover, south of URWC-FR junction ^ Routeing FM to URWC then to DW. Parallel movements possible. Rejected due to there being not enough space for the crossover and curvature of URWC.


I have simplified the process/decision making, but no doubt Network Rail would have implemented the optimum solution, option 2 rather than 4, if it had been possible.

I am sure others will have an opinion on this and I have no doubt the inadequacy of the current design will be raised in the future.

Mike

[W5tRailfinder]

Watch this

http://youtu.be/PybspgUevoI


 

[TonyK]

Watch this

http://youtu.be/PybspgUevoI


 

Thanks, W5tRailfinder - I, who have not been through Reading for quite a few months*, now understand how this all works in a way that diagrams and still photos couldn't quite convey - not with my limited imagination anyway. Nice bit of blue-sky thinking there! (Se what I did? I'll spare you the Yorkshire greeting).

(*This will no longer be the case by 1.30pm on Sunday coming)

[BerkshireBugsy]

My abject apologies to you both for my momentary confusion. 

Apology accepted BBM

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Thanks for the welcome.

Thank you Industry Insider for posting the full signalling / track layout for the area, which then sparked a few comments regarding down movements over the Oxford Road / Feeder Main layout.

Whoops! Posters, including myself, thought the layout was wrong since parallel movements are not possible between the Feeder lines and Westbury lines at Oxford Road, but by reference to the layout plans at RBC^‡(resolve) Planning, Google Earth and the track (switches and crossings) design standards you can see Network Rail have got it right.

The signalling layout plan is no more than an unscaled two-dimensional line drawing of the physical layout. The lines being drawn horizontal, vertical or diagonal (45 degrees). It is pointless in attempting to suggest signalling or track alterations without reference to the physical characteristics of the area concerned.

Interesting, thanks.  As you say - and as I suggested in my first post on this issue - space may be a problem at Oxford Road Junction, but NR^» (Network Rail - home page) own the land in the "Vee" where the depot was which may offer opportunities for track realignment etc.  There are no doubt many other site issues which I for one wouldn't know about, eg signalling overlaps, curve radii, gradients and the need for the Feeders to start going downwards asap etc.  I just wouldn't want the current opportunity to remodel Oxford Road Junction to be lost for ever because they start building things or selling land in the "Vee".   

[stuving]

Here's a couple of pictures, as we haven't had too many new ones.

First - look Mum, no wiggles! Or, almost none.
Looking at the two new signals, T.1707 and T.1709, despite the intrusive I-beam you can see they are of different designs. Both have two feathers, but T.1707 (on P7) has a lobed backing plate and no hoods. Now why would that be?

Plus, that cute little signal for P3 (T.1705) - taken as an afterthought, when it was really too dark, but it shows just how tiny it is. The box to the right shows "F" for the festival Line, and presumably "W" for the Down Westbury. Or would it have the Up Westbury as an option too? Perhaps so - I think P7 does, or it would not need two feathers.

[paul7575]

Here's a couple of pictures, as we haven't had too many new ones.

First - look Mum, no wiggles! Or, almost none.
Looking at the two new signals, T.1707 and T.1709, despite the intrusive I-beam you can see they are of different designs. Both have two feathers, but T.1707 (on P7) has a lobed backing plate and no hoods. Now why would that be?

The one on the platform is one of those modern relatively lightweight hinged type that can be lowered down to the platform for maintenance, (looks like a fibreglass structure?) but the one for P8 is probably still the relatively over engineered original style - the key difference being that eventually it will have to be maintained between the live wires of the future OHLE?  So it has the full set up with an access ladder, maintenance platform behind the heads, and the protective steel mesh cage.

That doesn't really explain the shape of the housings for the feathers, but it could be that the more modern design is 'just different'.  I think all the way along the whole area of the rebuild there are different styles of signal structure depending if they are between tracks or 'outside' the tracks.

Paul.

[TonyK]

Or could it be that the one without the backing plate is in a position where it will never have the rising morning sun low behind it?

[ChrisB]

Do you mean low *setting* sun :-)

Facing West, aren't we?....