by Green » 11 Dec 2013 12:22
by Wimb » 11 Dec 2013 12:52
Upper West Ginger This has all the hallmarks of a decision taken by local planners without bothering to speak to the railway operators. Kind of "If we build a station, of course the trains will stop there".
The pathing of the trains between Basingstoke and Reading is actually quite difficult. The way the timetable is constructed at the moment, the local trains take 24 minutes Reading to Newbury then turn round in 6 minutes and take 24 minutes back again. So 2 trains can form a half-hourly shuttle service all day long, which is highly productive. If slowing down to a stop at Green Park, waiting for a minimum of 1 minute, and accelerating again costs (say) 4 minutes total, then the whole system collapses, since your end-to-end journey time has become 28 minutes, and you cannot reliabkly turn round the train in 2 minutes at Reading or Basingstoke every half hour. So you have to buy a new train and re-jig the timetable, just to add one more stop. (Or wait for the route to be electrified and get trains with faster acceleration so the end-to-end journey times can be maintained despite the extra stop). I bet none of that has been factored in to the station cost proposals.
Then there is the issue of how to fit the stopping train in amongst the other services. Currently the stopper from Basingstoke arrives at Reading just 3 minutes ahead of the Cross Country from the south coast to Newcastle or Manchester. Delaying or retiming the Cross Country service would have ramifications across much of the rail network. The route from Basingstoke also has to mesh in with the line from Newbury (and the West Country) to Reading from Southcote Junction.
So if the intention is for the station to serve the commuters of Green Park then it might be possible once the route is electrified. If the idea is that there will be the capability of moving thousands of football fans before and after the match, forget it.
The local planners need to speak to Network Rail and the DfT to understand what is possible before committing themselves to something that ultimately cannot be delivered.
by Cureton's Volley » 11 Dec 2013 16:19
WimbUpper West Ginger This has all the hallmarks of a decision taken by local planners without bothering to speak to the railway operators. Kind of "If we build a station, of course the trains will stop there".
The pathing of the trains between Basingstoke and Reading is actually quite difficult. The way the timetable is constructed at the moment, the local trains take 24 minutes Reading to Newbury then turn round in 6 minutes and take 24 minutes back again. So 2 trains can form a half-hourly shuttle service all day long, which is highly productive. If slowing down to a stop at Green Park, waiting for a minimum of 1 minute, and accelerating again costs (say) 4 minutes total, then the whole system collapses, since your end-to-end journey time has become 28 minutes, and you cannot reliabkly turn round the train in 2 minutes at Reading or Basingstoke every half hour. So you have to buy a new train and re-jig the timetable, just to add one more stop. (Or wait for the route to be electrified and get trains with faster acceleration so the end-to-end journey times can be maintained despite the extra stop). I bet none of that has been factored in to the station cost proposals.
Then there is the issue of how to fit the stopping train in amongst the other services. Currently the stopper from Basingstoke arrives at Reading just 3 minutes ahead of the Cross Country from the south coast to Newcastle or Manchester. Delaying or retiming the Cross Country service would have ramifications across much of the rail network. The route from Basingstoke also has to mesh in with the line from Newbury (and the West Country) to Reading from Southcote Junction.
So if the intention is for the station to serve the commuters of Green Park then it might be possible once the route is electrified. If the idea is that there will be the capability of moving thousands of football fans before and after the match, forget it.
The local planners need to speak to Network Rail and the DfT to understand what is possible before committing themselves to something that ultimately cannot be delivered.
by the sounds of this, the case for a monorail is only getting stronger.
by SLAMMED » 11 Dec 2013 19:59
by Green » 12 Dec 2013 13:14
by Geekins » 12 Dec 2013 14:21
by Deadlock » 12 Dec 2013 14:29
by Barry the bird boggler » 12 Dec 2013 16:33
Deadlock Since they didn't it can't be a monorail (which, by definition only has one rail).
by Ian Royal » 12 Dec 2013 22:35
Green £8m apparently SLAMMers. I couldn't believe it either, in fact I almost wish I'd tendered a bid for the construction contract.
by Green » 13 Dec 2013 10:15
by handbags_harris » 13 Dec 2013 20:42
Ian RoyalGreen £8m apparently SLAMMers. I couldn't believe it either, in fact I almost wish I'd tendered a bid for the construction contract.
You should have done Reading station - £500m+!
by Ian Royal » 14 Dec 2013 13:10
handbags_harrisIan RoyalGreen £8m apparently SLAMMers. I couldn't believe it either, in fact I almost wish I'd tendered a bid for the construction contract.
You should have done Reading station - £500m+!
£850 million actually...
by Dave_Kitson » 14 Dec 2013 23:53
£850 million actually...
by Dave_Kitson » 15 Dec 2013 00:00
by paultheroyal » 15 Dec 2013 00:03
by Dave_Kitson » 15 Dec 2013 10:40
by Wimb » 16 Dec 2013 10:52
Deadlock Since they didn't it can't be a monorail (which, by definition only has one rail).
by Green » 16 Dec 2013 11:38
Dave_Kitson Look here for info on Reading station and Dave Kitson.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthrea ... 74&page=22
by Norfolk Royal » 16 Dec 2013 12:20
Deadlock Since they didn't it can't be a monorail (which, by definition only has one rail).
by Dave_Kitson » 16 Dec 2013 18:32
Post by Green » 16 Dec 2013 11:38
Dave_Kitson wrote:
Look here for info on Reading station and Dave Kitson.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthrea ... 74&page=22
Love that forum, might take a sabbatical on there next year
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests