Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[stuving]

I don't remember this sign on P7 originally. Have drivers been having trouble remembering the temporary layout?

[stuving]

And finally ... I see they haven't plucked up courage to deal with that yellow mushroom. Do you think it's going to be immured for eternity along with the old track? I hope it's reliable...

[John R]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what is the maximum gradient that would be permissible for the ramps?

Om what grounds? For running trains, or to make sure the bridge doesn't slide off its piers? Or did you have something else in mind?

Thinking about how much space is needed for an up ramp, bridge and down ramp, when considering grade separation elsewhere. The key to this is the gradient.

[bobm]

I don't remember this sign on P7 originally. Have drivers been having trouble remembering the temporary layout?

You don't really need a sign - just look for the mop and bucket on a platform! 

[stuving]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what is the maximum gradient that would be permissible for the ramps?

Om what grounds? For running trains, or to make sure the bridge doesn't slide off its piers? Or did you have something else in mind?

Thinking about how much space is needed for an up ramp, bridge and down ramp, when considering grade separation elsewhere. The key to this is the gradient.

Of course there is a standard ... see GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line)/RT5021:

2.7.3.1 The normal limiting design value for track gradient on running lines shall be 1 in 80 (12.5 mm/m).

... but the standard allows more, or less, depending on detailed calculations. These would reflect actual use, and could result in restrictions on speed and what's allowed on that track.

The other main factor is of course the vertical offset needed - made up of vehicle gauge height, OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") clearance above and below, bridge deck thickness, and track depth. All of these are variables, but the total is going to be about 8 m "normal minimum" (i.e. can be less but it's getting hard to do). Any gradient of the other line affects this too - and can be either way.

Finally, there's an allowance for minimum vertical radius - roughly 1 km - times gradient, at each end (ignoring the rise/fall within this distance). On top of that you need a turnout, before the ramp proper.

I make that 665 m for the ramp itself. For comparison, what are the figures for the ramp down to the "Southern" underpass?

[stuving]

I make that 665 m for the ramp itself. For comparison, what are the figures for the ramp down to the "Southern" underpass?

To start an answer to that question ... the distance is 370 m. The bridge is steel, so its depth can be less than a concrete one, and I think there are standard ways of reducing the OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") allowance. But what does the gradient end up being?

[eightf48544]

I think most of the ramps ar Reading are less than 1:80 possibly as steep as 1:30/40.

I do know that the ramp from the Goods avoiding underpass from Reading West to the station is considered too steep for a 59 to restart a loaded aggregate train. Therefore they will have to have a clear road from Aldermaston through  the station.

[paul7575]

From the planning statement for the viaducts, the east ramp is 270m long including earth embankment and concrete sections, and the west ramp 210m.  The latter is stated to have a maximum height of 5.3m, so about 1 in 40 as suggested above.  That 5.3m is nowhere near the eventual west curve and festival box, they are 400m away along a viaduct section, so the height at the top of that ramp isn't required to clear a railway. 

A figure isn't given in the text for the east ramp height, which does finish near the feeder line box, but the feeder lines are lower by nearly a couple of metres than adjacent ground level, so if we assume something around 6m it will be slightly less of a gradient than the west end.

I expect there are more accurate figures available by trawling through all the separate drawings...

Paul

[paul7575]

I don't remember this sign on P7 originally. Have drivers been having trouble remembering the temporary layout?

I was there as it was being fitted, and a Turbo driver confirmed that the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) drivers had reported the previous 'stop mark' difficult to pick out.

Paul

[4064ReadingAbbey]

From the planning statement for the viaducts, the east ramp is 270m long including earth embankment and concrete sections, and the west ramp 210m.  The latter is stated to have a maximum height of 5.3m, so about 1 in 40 as suggested above.  That 5.3m is nowhere near the eventual west curve and festival box, they are 400m away along a viaduct section, so the height at the top of that ramp isn't required to clear a railway. 

A figure isn't given in the text for the east ramp height, which does finish near the feeder line box, but the feeder lines are lower by nearly a couple of metres than adjacent ground level, so if we assume something around 6m it will be slightly less of a gradient than the west end.

I expect there are more accurate figures available by trawling through all the separate drawings...

Paul

I feel a bit reticent in butting in to this conversation, but I understood that this debate had essentially been answered by SandTengineer's posts No. 2065 in August last year. He wrote:

OK here are gradients from Theale to Reading station (extracted from the signalling plan dated November 2010):

F=Falling Gradient in direction of Travel
R=Rising Gradient in Direction of Travel
O/B=Overbridge
U/B=Underbridge
m=Metres

Theale to Reading Station Via Westbury Lines

Theale Staion to Burghfield Road O/B
691F Average

Burghfield Road O/B to Southcote Junction
323R for 1447m

Southcote Junction to Bath Road O/B
323R for 692m

Bath Road O/B to Reading West Station Platform (Middle)
307F for 735m

Reading West Station Platform (Middle) to Reading Station (Via Westbury Lines)

5822F for 22m to Oxford Road U/B
671R for 38m Over Oxford Road O/B to Oxford Road Junction Points
330F for 112m
194F for 150m
250F for 472m to Reading Triangle Upper Points
110F for 42m
147R for 73m
304F for 40m to Westbury Junction (Main Line Side)
LEVEL to Reading Station (Main Line Side)
LEVEL through Reading Station Platforms

Oxford Road Junction to Reading Station (via Down Reading Feeder Relief)

330F for 219m
90F for 264m (Passing under the Mains Flyover)
106R for 287m
730R for 195m to Westbury Junction (Relief Line Side)
LEVEL to Reading Station (Relief Line Side)
LEVEL through Reading Station Platforms

Oxford Road Junction to Reading Station (via Up Reading Feeder Main)

330F for 139m
112F for 84m
90F for 260m (Passing under the Mains Flyover)
150R for 482m to Westbury Junction (Main Line Side)
LEVEL to Reading Station (Main Line Side)
LEVEL through Reading Station Platforms

Health Warning: This data is extracted from a copy of the signalling plan that is 3 years old and may therefore not fully represent the arrangements currently being constructed.  It is therefore listed as a guide only.

(I hope that I have done the quoting correctly!)

There was some subsequent discussion about these figures, but my take on it is that they are probably approximately correct - given the passage of time since they were originally drawn up - but it is unlikely that the gradients have changed as much as is suggested.

If this is the case then there would not seem to any great difficulty in re-starting a 40 wagon train on the gradient up to the Relief lines as some 14 wagons will be on the (approx.) 1 in 100 up grade and the rest on the train will be on the 1 in 90 falling grade giving a shove! There may well be other arguments for not stopping such long trains near the station, but being unable to re-start is probably not one of them.

[paul7575]

No problem, I remember that as well, but it's all about the gradients on the various curves and was in answer to the perceived problem of freights being caught in the low point of the new curve, the feeder lines.

I was just roughly working out the ramps at the ends of the main viaduct, which aren't included in that list. 

...and I now see SandTengineer added all the mainline stuff in a later post, #2074.

Paul

[stuving]

Seen at Reading today - plonked right in the way at the top and bottom of some escalators.
Given the small print, it caused some congestion as people stopped to work out if they were meant to go past it.
There are already the big "no luggage on escalators" signs, and today there was a stream of PA^▸ (Public Address) announcements as well.

I imagine this initiative is driven by the corporate liability lawyers, who say that if passenger A lets go of his bike/surfboard/cyclotron and it injures passenger B, the station operator risks being held liable.
Or has there been any specific accident that has triggered it?

Anyway, when Elffan sees it he will insist it is removed as a trip hazard, won't he.

(I appreciate that this is not strictly speaking an improvement.)

[Chris from Nailsea]

However: buggies, wheelchairs and tricycles are not prohibited from using the escalators, apparently?

[stuving]

I did wonder about the trolleys - the graphic looks like an old railway porter's trolley, though airports use the same graphic. Either way, there's not a lot of such trolleys around the station.

Also - there are only two lifts from the south entrance (and often one out of use). If even all really large luggage and these other things have to use them, is that enough at the main entrance?

[Oxman]

I used to work at Reading as a Duty Manager. The escalators were the single biggest source of accidents on stations in FGW^▸ (First Great Western). And that was when there were just four of them! Over the years there have been a number of initiatives directed at reducing the accident rate, Remember the "talking" notice boards with the South African accent? And then staff were stationed at the escalators to direct passengers with luggage, bikes, etc.  towards the lifts. The problem then was that the lifts were hidden from view, so everyone piled onto the escalators. The problem was discussed at the highest executive level within FGW.

With so many more escalators in the new station, the problem was only ever going to get worse. Its not surprising that efforts are being made to direct passengers with luggage to the lifts. I saw some really nasty injuries as a result of falls on escalators, usually caused by passengers taking large items of luggage onto them and losing control. Every accident has to be recorded and logged. If the injury is such that the customer has to be taken to hospital, then the accident is Riddor reportable and a full investigation is required with a "quick" review taking place within 72 hours. The paperwork is horrendous!

Certainly there is a tendency to blame someone else for an accident and the compensation culture is rife. There is clear monetary imperative for reducing the number of accidents from an FGW corporate point of view. For the local management, its simply a case of attempting to manage a difficult situation - reducing the number of accidents reduces the bureaucracy and the pressure from above, and makes for happier customers!