Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[stuving]

Oh dear. And it went so well Sunday and yesterday.

Cancellations to services at Reading
Due to signalling problems at Reading fewer trains are able to run on some lines.
Impact:
Train services running to and from this station may be cancelled or delayed by up to 25 mins.
An estimate for the resumption of normal services will be provided as soon as the problem has been fully assessed.
Last Updated :06/01/2015 08:37

Seems to affect P7-P9, and means RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) may not report them - but some trains do now seem to be getting through again.

[stuving]

Oh dear. And it went so well Sunday and yesterday.

Cancellations to services at Reading
Due to signalling problems at Reading fewer trains are able to run on some lines.
Impact:
Train services running to and from this station may be cancelled or delayed by up to 25 mins.
An estimate for the resumption of normal services will be provided as soon as the problem has been fully assessed.
Last Updated :06/01/2015 08:37

Seems to affect P7-P9, and means RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) may not report them - but some trains do now seem to be getting through again.

Well, that seems to have been sorted out with few trains badly affected. There are a few odd RTT listings, which may be real or due to erratic train detection:
1O02 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Birmingham New Street to Southampton Central, due in 0741 but shown at 0823 - apparently spent 50 minutes on the Festival Line.
1O80 XC Birmingham New Street to Southampton Central, due in 0808 but shown as arr 0826 dep 0816^ ... eh?
2J15 GW^▸ (Great Western) Reading to Basingstoke, due to leave 0838, cancelled "due to a points failure (IB)" - looks like a misattribution as it's the only example.

I did check yesterday that the signallers mimic (train describer) display was up to date, so we know the signallers had been told about the changes ... which is reassuring.

[CCTV99]

1O80 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Birmingham New Street to Southampton Central, due in 0808 but shown as arr 0826 dep 0816^ ... eh?

Note also that it was on Platform 11 on a reverse to the Basingstoke line ??
How was that feat achieved then?

[stuving]

1O80 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Birmingham New Street to Southampton Central, due in 0808 but shown as arr 0826 dep 0816^ ... eh?

Note also that it was on Platform 11 on a reverse to the Basingstoke line ??
How was that feat achieved then?

Probably for the same reason there were no reports of this train between P11 and Southcote, and it lost 10 minutes on the way (allegedly) - and as we know there were problems with signals/train detection - it did something else, and a bit of the signalling or RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) processing chain has put 2 and 2 together and got 5^.

[SandTEngineer]

1O80 XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Birmingham New Street to Southampton Central, due in 0808 but shown as arr 0826 dep 0816^ ... eh?

Note also that it was on Platform 11 on a reverse to the Basingstoke line ??
How was that feat achieved then?

I think this is common on RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) when a train visits the same station twice in a journey.  It could have gone out and reversed in the Kennet Bridge loop.

[bobm]

At least one XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service called at Reading West in place of Reading and then took the curve towards Didcot.

[stuving]

At least one XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service called at Reading West in place of Reading and then took the curve towards Didcot.

Presumably 1M26 Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly, due into P3 0803 but "jumped" from Oxford Road Jn to Didcot East Jn.

[bobm]

Probably.  It was about 8am I looked at the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) website.

[Louis94]

Incidentally, RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website) is labelling the lines on the viaduct at High Level Junction, and in P7, P8 and P9 too, as "DU" and "DD", depending on the train's direction. P10 and P11 are still labelled "UM". So where does that DU/DD come from?

Nothing to do with RTT, thats data from Trust. Any report which has 'TRUST^▸ (Train Running System TOPS) - Smart' and has a line or path indication should be disregarded - this data being well known for not making sense! Just waiting for new data to be transferred and all should be back to TD again - with correct line and paths.

I think this is common on RTT when a train visits the same station twice in a journey.  It could have gone out and reversed in the Kennet Bridge loop.

You are correct there, the train went out to Kennet Bridge Loop.

[SandTEngineer]

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.

The 'lobed' signal heads (or mickey mouse ear type as we signal engineers like to call them) are of Dorman iLS type and are constructed from GRP: http://www.unipartdorman.co.uk/ProductFiles/Integrated%20Lightweight%20Signal.pdf and T1707 signal is of Type 73 found on Page 29 here: http://www.unipartdorman.co.uk/Product%20Bulletins/Lightweight%20Signalling%20Handbook.pdf

As these fold down I would suggest that in the case of T1709 that sighting, height and space restrictions did not allow for an iLS signal so a conventional standard structure was used with individual Dorman LED signal heads and junction indicators.  The conventional junction indicator has a sighting board that fills the gap between individual indicators.

[SandTEngineer]

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.

The Yellow Peril (Signalling Notice) for Stage L shows T1705 Standard Route Indicator as displaying no route indication for the 'Down Westbury' line, 'W' route indication for Down the 'Up Westbury' line and 'F' route indication for Down the 'Reading Festival' line.

[SandTEngineer]

....and for information (as its been discussed several times before) here is the viaduct gradient profile from the same Yellow Peril:

[onthecushions]

I wonder what the time penalty would have been for siting the signals on the top of the viaduct rather than on the approach grades.

Does adhesion (or energy use) come into S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) considerations?

OTC

[IndustryInsider]

I wonder what the time penalty would have been for siting the signals on the top of the viaduct rather than on the approach grades.

Does adhesion (or energy use) come into S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) considerations?

OTC

Don't think the flat(ish) bit at the top of the viaduct is long enough to fit the points and signals either side of it - with the appropriate modern safety overlap distances.


It should be reasonably rare to be stopped at one of them when the festival line fully opens anyway.

[stuving]

 

I wonder what the time penalty would have been for siting the signals on the top of the viaduct rather than on the approach grades.

Does adhesion (or energy use) come into S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) considerations?

OTC

Don't think the flat(ish) bit at the top of the viaduct is long enough to fit the points and signals either side of it - with the appropriate modern safety overlap distances.

It should be reasonably rare to be stopped at one of them when the festival line fully opens anyway.

I think it's a bit more basic than that - surely the signals are there to protect the crossover from the Festival Line to the Down Main. That that can't be any further along the viaduct than it is, as that's where the Festival Line separates and it goes downhill from there on.

As to whether a train would stop there in normal operations, there are two parts to that - will trains go up the Festival line to get to the Down Main, and will the signal be against them.  The second part is about complicated signalling issues, which I don't claim to know about. However, I assume that T.1931 on the Festival Line, but not T.1733 on the Main Line, might be held 'on' as a precaution.

The first part is down to pathing rules, i.e. which platforms will be used to turn northbound trains and which southbound.  Today it is possible to see the first full day (April 7th) of post-Easter timetable on RTT^» (Real Time Trains - website). Of course the track may not be 100% finished on that date, so the timetable might be affected by some moves being unavailable or best avoided.

Most of the day, platforms 3 and 8 are used for both directions, with a few morning trains in platform 7. Most of these are not in the WTT^▸ (Working Time-Table), but even those that are show the same pattern. All the trains that terminate and then start northbound about 30 minutes later use P3, obviously the tidiest place to park them. There are a few transubstantiations to be removed later, where P3 is used to turn another train while one of these terminators is parked there.

While the "Line" shown in RTT may be of questionable validity, it does vary and so implies something about pathing, at least in some cases. Note that there is a timing point at Reading High Level Jn, which covers both crossovers on the viaduct (Festival - Down Main and Up - Down Mains) despite the distance between them, but the next (on the Main Lines) is not until Didcot East Jn. So I don't think you can tell whether a train uses the Festival Line all the way from Reading West, or only the eastern part and the Mains over the western part of the viaduct. (Or not unless not showing the Reading West timing point on the Reliefs means it is pathed on the Main Lines (i.e. on the viaduct)).

From the "Line" shown, it appears that even northbound trains out of P8 will use the Festival Line, and some southbound trains into P8 do not use the Festival Line at all. Examples:
P3    1E36    XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))    Newcastle    dep 1041 (FVL cross to DM)
arr 1040        Manchester Piccadilly    P8    1O08 (UM cross to DM(U)) 
P8    1S52    XC    Edinburgh    dep 1440    (FVL cross to DM)
arr 1440        Manchester Piccadilly    P3    1O16  (FVL all the way)

The first pattern can't be avoided in the current timetable for odd hours, as the northbound train starts here from P3, but these are both through trains. Crossing at Reading High Level Jn from the Up Main to the Down Main (Up),  with or without then crossing to the Festival Line, means reverse running on what will be a very busy line: inefficient and surely to be avoided.  The alternative of coming in via the Festival Line would be expected, I think. With different timing there could be a conflict between the moves into P3 and out of P8, as these cross over.

The second pattern is what I would have expected as "standard", except that reversing the direction of the Festival Line like that looks odd - especially as the Down Main is available to do it conflict-free. There is no explicit allowance for this in the TPR^▸ (The Pensions Regulator) (I think route-setting is meant to find that on its own) but I doubt that timing works in theory, and obvio1usly in operation it will lead to delays generating more delays.

Of course there are all sorts of "back-up" possibilities - using P12-15 and the Feeder Relief, or P10/11 and the Feeder Main southbound, which can be ignored here.