Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[Thatcham Crossing]

Looking for a 100% solution of every bottleneck/conflict is not realistic, I would suggest.

From my own experience, mainly travelling through Reading from THA to PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) and back on a fairly regular basis, I've not been on a train that's been held once at Southcote Junction, or between there and Reading West once since Easter. That happened regularly before.

In the down direction, I've not been on a single train that's been held east of RDG^‡(resolve) since Easter either.

So, for me, a noticeable improvement.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Looking for a 100% solution of every bottleneck/conflict is not realistic, I would suggest.

Junctions potentially cause conflicts, but the way to avoid conflicts is to have a timetable that works and stick to it.  There are too many northbound freights which have very tight margins in front of the down stoppers from Reading on the DR at Reading West Junction.  As I^ve said before, these freights should have more realistic timings so they don^t delay the down stoppers.

And there are still too many freights swanning around 30 early or 100 late etc which are bound to cause regulation problems.  A little more discipline in train running would be good. 

[IndustryInsider]

I've noticed a huge improvement, but there will still be the odd train that gets regularly knocked back a few minutes. 

One change from the new timetable on Monday is the removal of the dwell times on many of these Oxford stoppers at Didcot, which up until now has usually been about 5 minutes, and resulted in delays caused by freights not affecting the PPM^‡(resolve) figure much as that dwell absorbed most delays.  That recovery time will no longer be there so it might sharpen minds to the problem a little?

A benefit of that change is that journeys from Didcot (and Swindon) to north of Oxford now have much better connections at Oxford.  For example, Didcot to Banbury in under 40 minutes rather than an hour.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

I hadn^t noticed the removal of the dwell times for many down stoppers at Didcot.  They^ll now get to Oxford just in front of northbound XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))^s, so they^ll have to be quick getting the ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) into the sidings.  Unless they are going to resurrect the permissive use of P2 and have the stoppers terminate right up at the north end of P2?

Agreed re sharpening minds ^ cue reminiscences from those of us who used to work on the Southern, the only people who knew how to operate a busy railway etc^

[ChrisB]

Oxford? Speedy at getting stoppers away to sidings? Was that a pig just flew by?!!

[ellendune]

Oxford? Speedy at getting stoppers away to sidings? Was that a pig just flew by?!!

Yes I remember waiting for a delay XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) train there a few months back.  A stopper came in ahead and waited until it was timed to go into the sidings. By waited I mean that the train crew were talking idly with the station staff for several minutes.  Meanwhile a XC train was sat just outside the station in full view of the exasperated passengers many of whom - like me were going to miss their connection. 

I suppose it was not affecting a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train so it did not matter! well it did to me!

[paul7575]

I too had thought that the new track layout would have solved this problem, but it hasn't changed a thing. :-(

Did you possibly take too much notice of NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s press releases?

I've worked out what they did wrong, they just forgot to include the word 'main line' in their analysis of the improvements; as in "freight trains are now completely separated from the passenger trains that run on the main line flyover".   

Paul

[4064ReadingAbbey]

When the initial semi-diagrammatic drawings of the new track layout were published just after the Reading rebuild was announced all those years ago it appeared to me that three opportunities had been missed. One was a grade separated junction at Southcote, the other a grade separated junction for the West Curve into the Reliefs at Reading West Junction and the third a grade separated junction for the Feeder Relief line into the Reliefs.

In order to make the grade separated junctions with the Relief lines, the Down Relief would have to have its own flyover starting at the western end of the Relief line platforms and probably linking with the new Main Line flyover. As the flyover for the Mains cost some ^50 million adding the extra ramp and widening the ramp at the western end to accommodate the Down Relief would probably have added some ^15 or ^20 million to the cost of the project and complicated the physical work considerably. This assumes that space was available for the ramp, the gradients could have been made to work, the curvature of the Main and Relief Feeder lines were acceptable and access to the re-located maintenance depot could be maintained.

So I am not surprised it was not done. It would have been a lot of money and as many of the constraints have been removed by the current design the marginal improvements would have been hard to justify. In any event the flat junctions at Didcot and the restricted capacity from there north through Oxford are now probably more of a hindrance than the flat West Junction.

I suspect many of the remaining issues can be eased by tweaking the timetable, after which there remains Southcote...

[IndustryInsider]

Oxford? Speedy at getting stoppers away to sidings? Was that a pig just flew by?!!

Yes I remember waiting for a delay XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) train there a few months back.  A stopper came in ahead and waited until it was timed to go into the sidings. By waited I mean that the train crew were talking idly with the station staff for several minutes.  Meanwhile a XC train was sat just outside the station in full view of the exasperated passengers many of whom - like me were going to miss their connection. 

I suppose it was not affecting a FGW^▸ (First Great Western) train so it did not matter! well it did to me!

Did the terminating train have a the signal?  And if it did was the train checked empty, doors locked and ready to go?  It certainly would matter to FGW as delay minutes would all be attributed to them, and if it's an XC service then those can soon rack up substantially given that any train further up the line that delayed XC caused would also be added.

A memo has gone out to all staff regarding quick dispatch of those terminating trains.  I hope that permissive working isn't used as it rarely saves any time at all and is inconvenient and confusing for the passengers.

[ChrisB]

Would need more than a memo. Sometimes, it seems as if a union meeting happens....and yes, train all cleared & ready to proceed.

[IndustryInsider]

You witnessed the same train ellendune did?

[ChrisB]

The trains I witness while waiting for those XCs^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))....lets see if the new TT helps

[ellendune]

Did the terminating train have a the signal? 

Yes

And if it did was the train checked empty, doors locked and ready to go?

No because they chose to have their long conversation before they started checking the train.

It certainly would matter to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as delay minutes would all be attributed to them, and if it's an XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service then those can soon rack up substantially given that any train further up the line that delayed XC caused would also be added.

I suspect not because although the train was delaying the XC.  The FGW Turbo had actually arrived  several minutes early, but then waited until its booked time before leaving for the sidings!

A memo has gone out to all staff regarding quick dispatch of those terminating trains.  I hope that permissive working isn't used as it rarely saves any time at all and is inconvenient and confusing for the passengers.

Good

[IndustryInsider]

Fair enough, I didn't realise from your post that the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) service was running late, and in that instance the delay minutes would not pass on to FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

Most of the time I see staff chatting is when there's either no service behind, a relief driver is being sought, somebody else is still checking the train is empty, or (most commonly) the signal at the end of the platform is red.  That's not to say that is the always the case though or that the operation could be more slick.

I'm hopeful the memo will have an impact, or if not the delay minutes attributed to the station dispatch team as a result of delays will do.  Ultimately though, the new platform(s) we are promised should mean it doesn't matter as much.  Currently Oxford's restrictive and slightly bizarre layout is the biggest issue!

[W5tRailfinder]

Watching the operation of the layout on Open Train Times, I see that the exit signal berth (T1783) at Connection 'A' from the depot no longer shows 'OOU^▸ (out of use) - Out of Use', has the connection now been brought into use?
A question regarding this connection, are trains able to reverse into the depot from the Up Passenger Loop ? The  track and signalling layout diagram for Easter does not show a Shunt/position signal, has one since been installed?

Open Train Times show how flexible the layout is, especially during possessions to the east and west, Realtime Trains cannot be relied upon for route and platform allocations.