"A Reading MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) has argued against the idea of bringing forward an upgrade to the town's railway station.  The ^500m project was expected to begin in 2010 but the government is hoping to boost employment by starting earlier. "

My understanding of the station plan is that it uses the existing platforms much as they are, adds two islands to the North, covering the old reception sidings and modern car parking and has a fly-over to the West of the station to allow Didcot bound HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s a run and a jump over Reading West Junction. This seems a simple, practical plan and should not take years to map out carefully. Indeed some might moan that the station will look rather retro, with its Listed 1865 frontage and 1890's canopies.

I can't see how any of this would employ Reading's dole-struck bankers and IT professionals or even the unskilled and marginally employable of the deprived Wards. I expect that Reading's useful workforce will remain as busy and expensive as ever. What would help is to give UK^▸ (United Kingdom) firms, such as manufacturers and suppliers some continuity of orders, as in Europe, rather than boom and bust, flood and parch.

The reason for getting on with Reading station is that it is needed. The present station is the worst rail bottleneck in the UK, halving the capacity of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), inconveniencing us all. Once it is clear what must be done, please can we "wake up and smell the coffee". I suggest getting the North islands in first to get the local trains out of the 125's hair, then moving the main (fast) lines across to 8 and 9, ending up with the flyover. Modern signals are computer based so only need a new program when the layout changes, not masses of wires and relays. Then there's those overhead wires...

The politician's comments show a lack of appreciation of the need for supportive public infrastructure.

OTC

Thankyou, II, for the explanation. I believe the Customer Information System (CIS^▸ (Customer Information System)) was originally Passenger Information System until the acronymn was noticed.

This morning the CIS, perhaps in embarrassment over these posts, was blanked out with a "problem".

As you say the CIS is mainly needed when there is a problem but as its displayed times assume that there isn't....this is FGW^▸ (First Great Western) after all.....it worsens the customer experience of delay.

Usually the PA^▸ (Public Address) announcer at Reading is fine. As Reading is one of the very big non-London stations with a footfall of over 14M/yr, (ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) figures), it surely does justify a human touch to the computerised CIS (if only to switch it off!).

Otherwise, this morning (for me) was wonderful; clear blue sky, best trains, route and staff in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), all clean and on time.

OTC

I've started this topic as a place to record on-going goings-on between Reading and Paddington as there are many of these and they seem to start a new topic each time. My apologies if I have missed someone's pre-existing topic, and also to the hymn writer.

Tuesday and Wednesday, 6th and 7th October havn't been good FGW^▸ (First Great Western) days so far.

Tuesday evening saw a points failure East of Slough that had all down main (West-bound fast) trains stopped. My 1921 ex-Paddington reached Reading at c2055.

Wednesday had amongst other things an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) with a broken windscreen, limping into Reading with other services following slowly. The relief lines were then cleared for it to run direct to the depot at OOK. This caused a jam on the up-main (East-bound fast) as all stopping services were diverted onto it, well... stopping... All the passengers (customers) on the failed train were crammed onto other services from Reading for a 50 minute crawl. I saw the empty "failed" train zip past the queue of crammed standing services at about 60mph...

On both delayed trains the Guard (sorry Train Manager) used the PA^▸ (Public Address) promptly and in an exemplary manner. However the Tuesday service while in contact with "Network Control" had no real information and the TM^‡(resolve) was as suprised as his customers when the train moved off. Also the platform information at Reaing was nonsense as trains were shown as on time until 2 minutes or so after they are due, when a new, later departure was advertised. This continued in a most exasperating manner. As these indictors are supposed to be linked to signalling, does this mean that the signal-persons don't know where their trains are, either?

The old monitor indicators from BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days were much more accurate and helpful, as was the now defunct Solari indicator on the concourse. Please bring it back, and BR (InterCity And NSE^▸ (Network South East)) as well. They were better value.

At the same time as this confusion occurred at Reading, the announcer requested customers to nominate staff for good service awards. That at least had people smiling.

OTC

It's difficult to see how any rail re-opening could take place anywhere with Network Rail doing the honours.

Try googling Wealden Line and reading the work proposed by NR^» (Network Rail - home page) (it's quite long).

For 7.5 miles of single track it proposes to acquire an extra wide strip of land all the way down, deep ballast and blanket a double track width, engineer for 90mph (the existing stump is only 70), re-build every bridge for 25.5t axle load even when no freight use is forecast, bridge all crossings (but not at busier ones still in use to the North of Uckfield) etc etc etc.

The cost?   .....141M or 19M/track mile. Extrapolate this to the WC^▸ (Wiltshire Council (Unitary Authority)) schemes and try to imagine benefits that could reach 1.5 times this total in NPV.

The only way you'll get to Tavistock or Newquay (via St Austell) is for the County Council to buy the land and get a heritage/private railway to bid for the work competitively.

It's not DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s fault for having cold feet at the cost but it is to blame for setting up NR in the first place.

OTC

Thank you one and all for your kind replies to my questions.

I believe Roger Ford (he of Modern Railways magazine) has extracted a costing of 800k per track mile for ac electrification which compares to Network Rail's quote in the Uckfield-Lewes Report of 500k per track km (0.62 mile), for dc,  so much the same...(NR^» (Network Rail - home page) finally quoted 141M for 7.5 miles of single track!)

I've never fathomed why we use 25kV when UK^▸ (United Kingdom) standards are 3.3/11/33/66/132/275/400kV. I once asked a Channel Tunnel bod about this and after a lot of pencil chewing, she suggested that all 25kV gear was in fact 33kV but with fewer turns on the transformers, also that the French (whose system it was) had some characteristically odd voltages.

The key to railway power supplies now seems to be the proximity of the Super-grid or 400kV system. As we have this at Iver, Didcot, Minety (NW of Wootton Bassett) and Bramley (Hants), we should be in a good position.

For those wondering why it matters whether the driver is trained on oil cans or electric screwdrivers (or even shovels), the answer is capacity. An electric loco can typically do up to 4 x the work of a diesel - imagine a 125 with 32 carriages! (Eurostars have 18). I might even get a seat....

Have a nice Weekend,

OTC

A few questions, if anyone can help.....

1. Why would this side of Crossrail need more than one modern (AT) 25kV electricity supply point/feeder station ?

(I believe the core West Coast route only needs 6 to Carlisle!)
 
2. The various published maps for the new Reading General seem contradictory as regards track plans. Am I still correct in thinking that the main lines will be slewed through present platforms 8,9 with higher speeds possible ?

3. Why do Mark 3 (HST^▸ (High Speed Train)) BT10 bogies have two swing-link lengths, one of which is said to foul 3rd (live) rails ? How complicated would swops/modifications be, or banning them from this  track?

(This seems to be preventing third rail SWT^▸ (South West Trains) electrics using the present platform 4  to reach Basingstoke and friendly territory)

Thanks for any information.