Wokingham Station improvements

[whole diary]

[argg]

Is anyone aware if the road layout plans have altered significantly from the plans available on the Wokingham Council website

http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/transport/roads/stationlinkroad/documents/

Having recently started to use Wokingham station regularly to commute to London I am amazed at, what appears to me, to be the counter-intuitive plans for traffic.  I appreciate I may be late to the party however is anyone able to explain the planners thinking?

Considering the morning peak

• All traffic from the south (Finchampstead and Barkham) will need to use the link road to get to the Reading Road therefore this will be permanently busy as it will not just be station traffic
• All station traffic from the town centre and the north will use the link road and (other than buses or taxis) will need to turn right into the car park, across the flow of traffic mentioned above (unsignalled) and across any buses or taxis exiting.  This will include drop off traffic as there appears to be no other facility for drop off from the north
• How exactly do car park season ticket holders (using the car park opposite the station) coming from the north get to that car park (presumably down Station Road, left into Wellington Road to the Carnival Pool roundabout then back along Wellington Road?)

Interested in others' observations

[stuving]

Is anyone aware if the road layout plans have altered significantly from the plans available on the Wokingham Council website

No, that is still the plan - give or take a minor change to the bus and taxi provision.

I reckon the way it came about is roughly like this:

The objectives were:

• to make the new station a traffic interchange (intermodal is still in fashion, obviously)
• to make the level crossing safer, while reducing its traffic-strangling effect
• to improve traffic flow in general (though of course that does not mean removing it from the town centre).

The theory for the crossing is that, when the barrier is down, traffic should still be able to turn left into Wellington Road. Traffic coming up Barkham Road can't turn left then as Oxford Road is not allowed to be a "route avoiding". At the moment the length available in Station Road for the crossing queue is too short, so Station Road has to be one way. When the barrier goes up traffic going straight across (or left into the station) gets an extra-long green, and obstructing turns (such as right into Wellington Road) are banned. This not only improves flow, it is essential if the standard Highway Code rules for level crossings are to apply.

The link road is the only surviving bit of the old IDR proposal, kept as it allows Station Road to be one way (and only incidentally serving the station). However, there is no room for a lane to allow a right turn into it, so it cannot be entered from Station Road. Also, WSP (WBC's consultants) reckon the turn would leave too little pavement space. That is going to confuse a lot of people. Coming from the north you can go down Denmark Street, which is not a lot further than now. Coming in along Reading Road it is much further, if you need that entrance.

The raised car park and the drop-off bay are only accessible from the level crossing end. For the car park that probably does not matter - there will be enough users to fill it coming that way (and it is smaller than the other part).  If that means moving some designated season ticket spaces, I see no problem in doing that. The kiss'n'ride bay is so narrow it will be interesting to see what it does to the traffic. Given that there are traffic lights at the Reading Road end of the Link Road, I expect that crossing through that flow of traffic ought not to be too difficult. Whether there will enough capacity for all the car park users is another matter - but I'm sure WSP have modelled it.

You will have spotted that the level crossing will be inside a junction with traffic lights, though there will still be wig-wags and barriers. WSP and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are confident they know how to do this, though there are very few precedents (only Basford that I know of). How drivers will react is unknown - at Basford there have been quite a lot ignoring the banned turns (which are similar to those coming here). I even suspect that traffic will still queue back along the Link Road to and across the crossing, which will potentially confuse drivers even more - and may fall foul of NR's ALCRM risk assessment.

[argg]

Thanks - just what I thought.  Worrying.  Very glad I live on the Reading side of town

And I expect "opening summer 2014" will mean the first week of September

[stuving]

At last! The new station link road has opened, and as the old access road has closed to be rebuilt it is the only way in and out. Which means the work now moves closer to (my) home, at the level crossing and the roads leading to it.

As reported by the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) (though this adds little to its headline).

[stuving]

Work to finish the roads around the new station is still not finished. WBC have usually blamed Network Rail for delays, though I rather doubt they would have got on much faster left to themselves. The old entrance (Station Approach) is closed for essential road narrowing until after Christmas, and then the junction on the north (town) side (now a mini-roundabout) has to be rebuilt too. And finally the traffic lights get plugged into the sockets being set into the pavement. That's the bit that depends on NR^» (Network Rail - home page) doing their bit.

The road alignment on the south side was done in November, including changing the signs. That leaves the one that's shown rather misleading. In fact, the only thing on it that's correct is the temporary blanking out of the second left turn, which is Station Approach. Everything else is wrong.

The two roads shown as "no entry" are still open, with the roundabout still there at that junction. The railway crossed just before that, though that wasn't on the old sign either (showing level crossings on road signs went out of fashion a while ago). The destinations shown as accessible via the station are in fact still accessible by going straight on (as is the station). And the first left turn - Oxford Road - is currently "no entry", and WBC say it will remain so until Station Approach finally opens.

Do you think this sign deserves some kind of prize for having the most erroneous pieces of information on it?

[stuving]

Here's another case of oops! for our road-builders. Most of the white (and all the yellow) lines were applied as hot gloop. The last bits of white line weren't, presumably as the hot gloop lorry had gone by then. They were applied as sticky tape - rolled out and down onto the road surface which had been pre-heated with a gas torch.

That never looked like it was firmly stuck down. And guess what - where cars start and stop, and especially where they turn as well, the scrubbing of tyre on road has ripped the lines off. And all the bits have stuck themselves down wherever they feel like it. As you can see.

I wonder if that was meant to only be temporary, until the hot gloop lorry can come back? Maybe, but most of the lines are not really needed now anyway, as the side road here (Oxford Road) is coned down to one lane and marked as "no entry". Mind you, I've seen lots of people ignoring that.

[stuving]

Mummy, mummy, what are all those lights for? Yes, it's the long-promised traffic light junction around the level crossing. It was all turned on and the closed roads reopened very early on Sunday, and does seem to work. Several yellow-jacketed observers have keeping an eye on it since. Of course the real test will be on Tuesday, when a full load of rush hour traffic turns up.

The controller for the new lights uses Siemens modules, with a railway signals interface provided by PEEK (now part of Imtech). There are at least two interface boxes on the railway side, put in by S&T^▸ (Signalling and Telegraph) Cover for Network rail. The whole road layout was designed by WSP for the  local traffic authority. That sounds like a lot of cooks (and observers turning out over the holiday).

The level crossing is still manually controlled from the signal box. When the signaller presses the button, if the lights are already red against crossing traffic it starts the barrier closure cycle as it did before. If the lights are green, it tells their controller to change to red - even if it's only been at green for a few seconds. Once a signal confirming the lights have changed is received, the barrier closure cycle can be started. So in that case it takes a few seconds longer than usual.

I've been told there is a 25-second limit on waiting for the lights to change. What happens after that, if the light get stuck, or fail? I'm not sure, but ultimately I imagine the signaller can close the barriers come what may.

In 2017 this signal box is to close, with recontrol to the Basingstoke ROC^▸ (Rail Operating Centre - a centralised location for railway signalling and train control operations for a specific route or region). I had assumed the crossing would get object detection, but apparently it is seen as having too high a risk so that CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) is preferred.

[stuving]

You will see our level crossing now has a yellow box marking. Those were used at all AHBs, but have now been removed where the traffic flow is low, and are exceptional on other crossing types. After all, the box only enforces what is already the rule for level crossings - don't go on unless you can get off. I raised the point in the consultation that some drivers with a green light may think "I got told to go" and assume they can ignore that rule. In addition, visibility round the corner to where a queue would form in Station Approach (its new name) is poor. Maybe whoever decided on a box (LTA^▸ (Local Transport Authority), NR^» (Network Rail - home page), ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)?) thought the same. I have no idea why box markings at level crossings (to diagram 1045 in TSM^▸ (Track Section Manager) section 4) are different from junction ones, using two densities of hatching.

The original plans didn't show the box markings. Neither did they show that odd-looking little area of soil (presumably to be grass) - it was meant to be footpath up to the joint foot/cycle path on Wellington Road. Perhaps it was found late on to be too steep for a footpath ... and hastily modified.

[stuving]

I guess it's time for a progress report on our "new" level crossing - though really the crossing has hardly changed, it just now has traffic lights around it for the roads each side.

In terms of the reasons for this change, it's working pretty well. The original objective of WBC's transport department was to increase the traffic flow over the crossing, which was also going to be helped by the new road layout: with Station Approach (the Station Link Road) and Station Road now one way.  The old layout suffered from having a mini-roundabout immediately to its north-east and another side road immediately to its south-west. That meant that, for much of the barriers-up time, traffic couldn't get off the crossing, so huge queues built up. A second reason that emerged later was that this road layout is obviously not one the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) would allow, in that it is not compatible with the Highway Code rules for crossing crossings. Once NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s inspectors had spotted this, something had to be done - though you do wonder why they took over 25 years to notice.

Now, when the barriers are up, traffic from Barkham Road over the crossing gets a clear run most of the time. Consequently it does not need very much green time to clear the queues.  When the barriers come down, queues still build up in Barkham Road, but Wellington Road (and pedestrians) share all the "go" time. Then, once they go up, the lights give crossing traffic a longer green to clear the queue.  I can't say how this copes with the morning peak, since I no longer dash out into it every day, but the neighbours say it does work. I have seen the crossing exit briefly blocked by a tailback, but only from the pedestrian crossing, not the full length of Station Approach (but morning rush hour may be worse).

The other main question was how drivers would cope with the new one-way roads and banned turns. Well, I've seen plenty of cases of drivers ignoring both - some quite scary - but the incidence is decreasing. That suggests it's mainly the unobservant using internal autopilot, or wilful contravention by those who didn't know about the changes before they got there. As a pedestrian crossing the road, it certainly is unnerving to be almost flattened by a car you knew couldn't be there, driven too fast by a driver who realises it was wrong.

One of the makers' men from Imtech told me they had put in six of these linked light systems before this one, and mentioned Sleaford and Lymington. In addition, Basford (David Lane) and West Worthing are older linked systems, which rather deflates the claims made for this being a new idea that had to be developed for Wokingham. (Incidentally, the original Imtech company in the Netherlands has gone into receivership - but all the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) operations seem to already have been sold off.)

Sleaford would be Southgate East, which looks like a sensible candidate as there is a main road right next to the railway there. However, if the dates on Street View are to be believed, it has had junction traffic lights from before 2011. I wonder whether these were previously unlinked. This crossing was due to be closed, but the bridge and link road to replace it were to be paid for by s.106 money from Tesco - who have just dropped their new store plan.

Lymington hardly looks a prime candidate, though once again Street View shows the lights now in place. The side road they control is not that close to the railway, and is a cul-de-sac leading to new housing. If Lymingtonian drivers can't cope with that layout unaided, are they unusually dozy down there?

And then there are all the new road signs ... don't get me started on them.

[stuving]

And now our not very big local station and link road have been given a not very big local prize:
The ICE South East England Engineering Excellence Awards 2016 Urbanisation Award in association with Bechtel

The citation is:

Wokingham Rail Station and Link Road Re-Development
    Winner
    Wokingham Borough Council

    The Wokingham Rail Station and Link Road redevelopment has been a transformational project for this busy Thames Valley interchange.

Between 2011 and 2015 a collaborative working approach between Wokingham Borough Council, Network Rail and South West Trains has delivered a significant transport interchange in the Town fit for the 21st Century.

The combined scheme cost of circa £12.68m provided three main elements to the redevelopment; a new station building and associated platform works, a new Access for All footbridge and lifts and a new link road with major junction alterations and changes to traffic flow patterns.

Some of the key constructional issues the project had to overcome included; maintaining access for the public to the rail station during all construction works, co-ordination of three main contractors, especially the railway building and footbridge and technical design and delivery of the new "linked" road traffic signal and level crossing barrier control systems.

[stuving]

While the completion of the project to bring 10-car trains to the Reading line was announced two weeks ago, there was also a clue - the unwrapping of the new stop boards at Wokingham. Platform 2 was extended ages ago, as the "Wokingham turnback" project, and P1 was finished in February.

You might think the signs would be decided by the platform length, provided the lengths of trains being operated are all covered. But, being the railway, it's a bit more complicated than that. You can see that there are now stop boards for down trains on both platforms. That's new - P1 had none before, and P2 had boards for 2-4, 5 (a recent addition), 8, and 10.

In the Up direction there is an S board on P1 and nothing on P2. For down trains on P2, we now have 2-3, 4-5, and 8-10. For P1, though (and there isn't a 2-3) they are 4, 5, 8, and 10. Bidirectional signalling in P1 is new - and if you look clsely you can see the malevolent red glare of the new limit of shunt indicator (ground signal) just next to the arriving 707.

Trains will mostly be 3 or 10 cars, occasionally 5, and 4 and 8 are in use now. Longer trains on the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) service have been talked about, but only by one carriage (however that might be achieved in a 166). But why are the boards chosen as different on both sides? You might expect only the minimum possible on P1 - after all, it's not often used that way. But at the moment it's P2, where an 8-car train uses the same stop board as a 10-car one, that is a surprise, as it is 40 m further up the platform (away from the footbridge and entrance) than it needs to be (as pictured).

As to why the platforms are different lengths - the October 2016 EAS says this under "Principal Change Timetable 2018":

Wokingham 1 - Up 169
Wokingham 2 - Down 169 *

* To be extended to 294 metres from March 2009. To accommodate 12 cars

Maybe that will now be updated! It looks as if P1 has only been built for 10 cars, though the  limit of shunt indicator allows room for a 12-car one. Maybe in 2009, when P2 was done, longer trains were planned but the decision to only go to 10 cars had not been finalised.

[stuving]

And what is this about? Some mysterious steel posts with weighted bases appeared a few weeks ago, and now I see they carry TV monitors. There are three sets, next to the (reverse direction) 5-car and 4-car stop boards, and where the 3-car one would be. The one shown is by the 4-car board (visible at the right).

I can only imagine they are to show the far end(s) of the platform to the guard who is despatching the train. But why just those ones - and not on the other platform? Is it an experiment? Two of them are on these movable posts, though the other is on the station building.

As to why this one is "not for use with 10-car trains", it is roughly at the middle of an 8-car as it usually stops. The others are at the midpoint of a 10-car, and close to the back of a 3-car. But I'm sure I've seen despatch done from the back of an 8-car, and that must be worse for seeing to the far end. No doubt this all forms part of someone's cunning plan.

PS:- I can think of one explanation: the curvature of the platform. A quick burst of geometry (and based on the radius being 1800 m) suggests that you would need to stand back 2.7 m from the centre of a 10-car train to see to the ends, but only 1.7 m from an 8-car one. But there are lots of other curved platforms, some more curved so this would be a problem with 8-car trains.

[stuving]

And, while I'm here ... this was today's novelty explanation for disruption:

South West Trains have identified a problem with the information system which matches train crew rosters to the train timetables. This means that some journeys across the South West Trains network may be cancelled, revised or delayed by up to 20 minutes.

This disruption is expected to continue until the end of the day.

[paul7575]

Fratton is another station with poor visibility due to curved platforms that has had despatch monitors for a few years now.  I think they may have coincided with the ASDO^▸ (Automatic Selective Door Operation) system being introduced, prior to that only a single 444 or 8.450 had all the doors open,

Perhaps a new risk assessment has been done for the longer 10 car trains to be used at Wokingham.

[stuving]

From Getwokingham.
^We have had regular meetings with ministers and hopefully we will come to a final agreement with the developer and Network Rail on how much it will cost. They tried to seek benefit from the development of the site by allowing us to cross the railway. Not everyone would agree with that argument.

That's more than odd - we were told that this new bridge would result in the closure of one if not both of the other (i.e. not station) level crossings, and I imagine that any LC^▸ (Level Crossing) closure has a cash value to NR^» (Network Rail - home page). Of course they do have significant costs in what they have to do so that a bridge can be built over their railway, but even so...

Note the date ... so it's nearly five years on, and the local papers (as well as the borough) announce that the road and bridge have been granted planning approval (no. 172934).

In the Wokingham Paper's report, it said that Network Rail designed the bridge, but in the application all the drawings are WSP's. I found just a couple of mentions of NR - in something called the "Planning Supporting Statement". Here it says that the design meets NR's requirements, that closing the nearest level crossing meets one of their objectives, and names an NR drawing of the bridge, though that's not in the application documents. There's nothing about NR having to do with the construction phase.

Of course Network Rail are statutory consultees, and there is an e-mail exchange with NR Property. This is truly bizarre. It starts after the application, and ends with a standard set of NR requirements for works near the railway, including not encroaching or oversailing NR land. The only way I can make sense of it is that NR are actually building the bridge themselves, and this relates to the roads each side. In which case they will have been talking to the developers and WSP for ages, won't they? There's no sign of any planning application for the bridge itself, and as we know bridges - even if permitted development - always need planning approval of their design.