Thanks again. Looks as though there is enough room for the turnout I mentioned. Even the new drainage pits are clear of the future track.....
The relaying, with the stated lack of even passive provision for a track along the spare face, is deeply frustrating. I am writing very carefully indeed - someone might have said "we may as well ..." on one or two of the decisions made during the process.
Network Rail does not have a great reputation in informing and interfacing with passenger groups and advocates for passengers - perhaps that's a natural function of what it is, responsible primarily to government and with its customers being the train operators, through whom (and that's a pretty foggy route at times) it talks to passengers. It did its reputation no good when it decided that it no longer needed dedicates staff to interface with community rail groups, and delegated that task to more local staff, each with their own other jobs already and with limited resources and a very varied commitment and belief in working with communities. So with that patchiness of partnership, lack of clear information, and the mistrust brought on by the reputation I (personal comment) find myself with fingers crossed, hoping for and dreaming of the best, but fearing the worst - hardly the informed position that I like to be in on a very big spend that sets stuff up for the net decade at our major hub / interchange.
OK - the fourth platform track.
The current outer track on the south side is well away from the platform face. Two suggestions made are to extend the platform out to the track and provide a platform that way, or to add in a track. Either option is said to be complex because of major signalling cable runs which lie buried in the former trackbed between the platform and the track.
Extending the platform out to the track - on top of the issue of the cables could be done either by a full heavy construction - which would require the cables to be moved - or perhaps by a lightweight construction which could "fly" over them and be supported on pillars clear of the cabling, with under platform access available for maintenance? Pricing enquiries indicate that the latter could be an order of magnitude less cost than the £10 million quoted.
But wait - the outer track is already used. Freight passes up and down it quite often, and it's used to park / lay by trains for periods a darned site longer than it takes to turn around a passenger train, and I really wonder if providing a platform on that track would be more a case of replacing one operational limit with another one.
A track against the platform - would love it, and for passenger 2 way cross-platform interchanges on 0/1 hewn headed south and west, and on 2/3 when headed north and east would make sense. BUT ... how long are those freight trains that park up, and would they foul the points?
We have been looking at the north junction in this thread - how would the extra line connect in to the south ... or would it end up as being a terminating bay? A terminating bay might be initially attractive for trains from Paddington extended from Bedwyn, trains from Swindon, MetroWest trains from the Bristol area. But in each of those cases, a bay would restrict extension beyond. The Bedwyn service should carry on to Somerset or Devon. The Swindon service to Southampton and Eastleigh (or to Fawley), and the MetroWest to Frome where huge development is planned on land close to the railway, and perhaps to Yeovil
No answers ... but background there to the best of my knowledge to some of the questions being asked. I know the track needed doing, and I'm grateful. I remain nervous about what's being done and that opportunities may have been missed, money being spent on one step when taking two steps together could have worked out cheaper and quicker in the medium and long term. We may have experts here / reading this who can fill me / us in ... so that at least we know ...
