Reading Station improvements

[whole diary]

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Hi Ollie/John R,  Perhaps you could point out to them as well the non-compliant mid-platform (rear clear) signs as well (see my post No.1404 on Page 94 of this thread)

Hear hear!  And some of the stories above re XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s and splitting trains and what I mentioned earlier about how Drivers get permission to pass the Rear Clear Boards after they have stopped all go to show that this platform sharing thing is a bit messy (apart from appearing to be non-compliant with Group Standard GK/RT 0044).

I accept that S&TE and myself are perhaps the only two posters who are concerned about all this. 

[Jeff]

If someone wants to drop us a message with concerns about signage then I can email it to one of the project managers who can take it into account on 17th when the signage review is done.

Ollie,

That's an excellent offer, thanks very much - I hope FGW^▸ (First Great Western) formally acknowledge and appreciate how well you represent them on here, as that would reflect as well on them as it does on you. 

I'll bash something together today - it'll largely be a bulletised cut'n'paste of the signage-related concerns from here but it should be enough to contribute something useful into your colleagues' thinking tomorrow. Do let us know if there's likely to be an opportunity to feed in any other themed thoughts/concerns about RSAR at any other point.  

[IndustryInsider]

On a similar note, what are the arrangements for splitting trains at the platform.

Is there something in the operating instructions which prevents the trains moving more than a few feet apart after splitting? If the rear portion had proceeded back to the London end - the advertised 9A - the confusion would have been reduced.

If the front part of the train is not returning back in the direction it came it will go through to the stop car mark at the far end of the platform.  When uncoupling a Turbo, then operating instructions state the maximum distance to be moved is three feet.  That is to avoid any risks of the train hitting anything else (very unlikely) or unintentionally passing a red signal (more likely - especially with the old layout at Reading).  There would be nothing stopping the driver closing the doors, changing ends and contacting the signaller for permission to move to the other end of the platform, but that is not usually worth doing as it's a fair bit of faffing about.

[JayMac]

This thread has now become the most contributed to on the forum. It overtook the Cotswold Line redoubling 2008-2011 thread on 11/04/2013 with the 1624th post. Rather nicely, that entry was an impressive first post from stuving. 

Keep up the good work, folks. 

[eightf48544]

Hi Ollie/John R,  Perhaps you could point out to them as well the non-compliant mid-platform (rear clear) signs as well (see my post No.1404 on Page 94 of this thread)

I accept that S&TE and myself are perhaps the only two posters who are concerned about all this. 

I also share your concerns. Here we have a "Signal?!" with one aspect that can either be passed if you are long train or stopped at if you are a short train.

They seem to go against all the best railway railway practice which up to now has required both  positive STOP and Proceed aspects. Even permissive stop boards have a positive STOP and something like "Do not proceed without signalman's permission". Ok I know it should be signaller!

Although I understand that a Temple Meads there are black crossess but there the driver is told whether to run by or stop as the platforms have different numbers.

I think that they should be positive 3 aspect signals Red Stop, Yellow proceed to end of platform stop at next signal, Green for non stops/Freights. But I suppose that would cost too much.

[Jeff]

Ollie,

I've just emailed you a note about the signage concerns but got an auto-message back saying that your mailbox was full - and it was only a 354kb pdf, honest! Clear down your box and I'll se-send. I've also tried to post it here as an attachment but at 354kb it's above the 256kb size-limit.

Jeff

[The SprinterMeister]

Hi Ollie/John R,  Perhaps you could point out to them as well the non-compliant mid-platform (rear clear) signs as well (see my post No.1404 on Page 94 of this thread)

Hear hear!  And some of the stories above re XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s and splitting trains and what I mentioned earlier about how Drivers get permission to pass the Rear Clear Boards after they have stopped all go to show that this platform sharing thing is a bit messy (apart from appearing to be non-compliant with Group Standard GK/RT 0044).

I accept that S&TE and myself are perhaps the only two posters who are concerned about all this. 

Those 'Rear Clear' signs are going in at various places. There are some for the reversing move at Tilehurst and there are some at Bradford Jn for reversing HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s when Box Tunnel is shut.

Having read the documents, seen the DVD's etc I understand the meaning of the 'Rear Clear' markers. But then I was bought up with the platform crosses at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) which are also effectively 'non compliant / non standard' signage as they are only used at the one station. Disobeying the platform crosses was treated as a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) in those days.

Was at Reading for one and a half hours today and all the trains I saw including XC services appeared to be managing to stop in the right places without problem.

[Ollie]

Ollie,

I've just emailed you a note about the signage concerns but got an auto-message back saying that your mailbox was full - and it was only a 354kb pdf, honest! Clear down your box and I'll se-send. I've also tried to post it here as an attachment but at 354kb it's above the 256kb size-limit.

Jeff

Sorry Jeff, my fault, my profile on here has an email address I don't check anymore.

You can send it to ollie@fgwollie.com

[Jeff]

Thanks Ollie. Done.

Jeff

[SandTEngineer]

Hi Ollie/John R,  Perhaps you could point out to them as well the non-compliant mid-platform (rear clear) signs as well (see my post No.1404 on Page 94 of this thread)

Hear hear!  And some of the stories above re XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s and splitting trains and what I mentioned earlier about how Drivers get permission to pass the Rear Clear Boards after they have stopped all go to show that this platform sharing thing is a bit messy (apart from appearing to be non-compliant with Group Standard GK/RT 0044).

I accept that S&TE and myself are perhaps the only two posters who are concerned about all this. 

Those 'Rear Clear' signs are going in at various places. There are some for the reversing move at Tilehurst and there are some at Bradford Jn for reversing HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s when Box Tunnel is shut.

Having read the documents, seen the DVD's etc I understand the meaning of the 'Rear Clear' markers. But then I was bought up with the platform crosses at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) which are also effectively 'non compliant / non standard' signage as they are only used at the one station. Disobeying the platform crosses was treated as a SPAD^▸ (Signal Passed At Danger) in those days.

Was at Reading for one and a half hours today and all the trains I saw including XC services appeared to be managing to stop in the right places without problem.

I note your comment about the signs going in elsewhere (e.g. Tilehurst).  I would suspect that those sites do not have platform sharing so the Rear Clear sign is the correct one there.  It is not intended for places where the Platforms can be shared (hence my original post showing the Snow Hill example which does it correctly).

[lbraine]

You look for 1 triangle ... And then 4 appear at once.

From country end P3 at TLH

[eightf48544]

Totally confusing. Especialy with the signal in the middle!

[paul7575]

Totally confusing. Especialy with the signal in the middle!

Confusing to who exactly?  That signal is not directly affected by these signs, they are to signify being clear of the wrong direction starter signal at the London end of the platform, and drivers will be well aware of their purpose.

Paul

[eightf48544]

Too many signs. Also if they are to be stop markers for trains turning back on the Down Relief at Tilehurst I would suggest that it would be better to resite the signal to the  further marker and hold it red for a tain turning back. Then no confusion the driver stops at the signal.

Also if longer train approaches Tilehurst ready to turnback and the signal is red where do they stop? Then do they have to wait for the signal to clear draw forward and then reverse?

KISS^▸ (keep it simple, stupid!) Keep It Simple S...

[paul7575]

But if you moved that signal (at significant expense), and ran trains right up to it, wouldn't they now be in the wrong position for the next move back to the east?  The point of the different markers is to put the now leading cab at the right place for the up direction signal, with the cab ideally placed for signal sighting, so even if the signal was moved beyond the furthest marker (10 car I assume) would they still want the rear clear signals anyway?

Seems to me that if they'd simply used ground level 'car stop markers', (like there are alongside the up lines leaving Fareham towards Eastleigh and Southampton for reversing trains back towards the south) no mention would be made.  It's both the visibility and the newness of these signs that is causing concern perhaps?

Paul