Great Western Coffee Shop

It was 50 years ago today that the Waterloo-Exeter line lost its main line status with the diversion of fast trains thereafter over ex GW metals. BR severely rationalised the route 3 years later. Improvements have been made in the meanwhile but surely there is the opportunity to push for further infrastructure improvements  in the light of regular flooding around Exeter, Cullompton and over the Somerset levels which severely restricts traffic from London to the west. It would be nice to think that someone somewhere could see the potential for upgrading this vital route..

Also exactly 50 years since the Southport to Preston line closed, as I was reading in the newspapers yesterday.  I know it's way out of area, but it's really sad to see pictures of stations like Crossens just before closure and to relate to stories that my father tells about using the line ... and how the cost of a return was at times cheaper than a single, so they had fare anomalies even in those days.   He tells of gong out by train as a bank employee to open a subbranch that operated on just one day a week, and going back by bus because neither the train nor the bus schedule worked for a return trip.   And I wonder at whether a bank's cash would simply be carried by staff on the bus / train these days ...

http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/nostalgia/memories-famous-southport-preston-rail-7719972?

Also fifty years since opening of the Forth Road bridge:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29010834

Forgive the digression to another part of the country;   I'll split the topic if this gets much followed up

I suspect some of those billions identified for SW infrastructure in another thread are to be aimed at this line

Hmm! I am certain that many people can see the potential for upgrading this route - it's been talked about ever since it was singled to reduce operating and renewal costs!

The real question is - will the monies which could be spent on the LSWR route generate a return on the capital invested or would the costs exceed the benefits so that the average taxpayer would be worse off after the work is done?

There are all the indirect benefits - reduction in emissions and road congestion, easier access to the main centres of business so benefitting employment, and so on - which one can try to capture in such an analysis. These are, however, only needed if the straight financial case doesn't show a profit or a worthwhile reduction in subsidy.

In the cases mentioned disruptions occur occasionally, not every year and not every time with the severity of this last winter, so producing a financial case which shows it is worth spending money on one railway route to alleviate the problems will be very difficult. It may well be that, for example, flood avoidance work on the drainage system of the Somerset Levels or work on the Exe above Cowley Bridge Junction could improve the railway's reliability and benefit many others living in the area without spending (much) money on the LSWR route itself. Government funds - in other words the taxes we all pay - are limited, so priorities have to be set.

Living at Pinhoe, I would be really excited if the line were to be upgraded in some form or other, but I am not sure that the current franchisee (SWT) is that interested - whenever it introduces some special offer or other benefit, you will generally find in the small print 'not valid to or from stations west of Salisbury'. When quizzed about this, the response is generally along the lines of 'there is insufficient capacity on the route to encourage further use'.

Line upgrades are not generally the responsibility of TOCs, that's why they don't appear interested.   Despite minor improvements undertaken by Chiltern under their own specific circumstances, they set no precedent, as all other TOCs including SWT are simply required to run trains on the infrastructure as provided by DfT.

If you want a route upgrade it is basically for local authorities to push it with DfT until they agree to instruct NR to provide it.

Paul

It is my belief that, as part of the 'Resilience Programme' announcements that we will see enough railway reinstated to enable at least hourly SWT & FGW services to run Exeter-Yeovil during times of disruption or engineering. There is also a wish for half-hourly services Exeter-Axminster to operate which will also require additional redoubling.

There is an announcement being made in December regarding investments in road (A30/A303/A358) and SW railways. Not privy to its contents however!

Salisbury/Exeter is STILL stuck with the steam age max line speed of 85mph despite it now being 99 per cent modern track with CWR and fully re signalled.
There seems no overall or even individual user/passenger campaign group for the line which, despite having arguably some of the most comfortable,clean and well maintained trains (with thanks to the staff at Salisbury depot) needs some faster services calling only at the principal intermediate stations of Honiton, Axminster, Sherborne and Gillingham.

The overall average speed is only a fraction faster than on the Exeter to Barnstaple line where calls have been made for a reduction in services to some minor stations and line speed improvements/journey time reductions; both of which seem likely to happen in the next couple of years.

The recontrol of the line, with Basingstoke taking over the signalling, included section signals for up and down lines being provided at Crewkerne. This does allow the fleeting of additional trains when required, as was seen with  the FGW trains diverting from Exeter to Castle Cary when Whiteball tunnel was closed.

The most likely scenario is for provision of an half hourly service to Honiton/Axminster. This will need infrastructure improvements to allow trains to pass between Honiton and Pinhoe. There is a Devon CC document ( http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/dcc-axminsterhonitonexetertransportcorridorreportjuly2013.pdf). Pages 25-40 deal with the railway.

Other than that I can see little else being done. An hourly mainline service generally would suffice between Yeovil and Axminster. An extension of the loop at Tisbury into the station, and similar at Templecombe, would allow for an half hourly service to Yeovil. There was a NR document c2006 which looked at this.

Or maybe it's because the length of the line is such that it would make any fixed fare offers appear disproportionately cheap.

An all too brief clip of Crossens in action from 1964 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZU5h5ZgPGM

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-29067925):

According to the timings on the Steam Dreams website (http://www.steamdreams.co.uk/executables/GT410WebContent.exe?ActionCode=Timings) the return journey is back to London Victoria not London Waterloo.

BBC. Must try harder.  ::)

Also it is not going to Falmouth or Newquay, that was the original plan but was long since cancelled.

The linespeed of 85mph isn't too bad as the class 159s are limited to 90mph and I don't think there's any significant permanent speed restrictions anywhere between Wilton and Exeter Central. Given the need for corridor stock due to multiple unit working the 159s seem well suited. Whilst class 172/3s could replace them and make use of the 100mph available east of Worting Junction, there aren't enough of them to replace the 159s - and I doubt London Midland would be delighted in any case. History has proved locomotive hauled trains can't cope with the nature of the services operated - the 42s, 50s and 47s all failed - so 159s seem best suited for the job and I doubt an increase of 5mph in the speed limit would make any real difference to timings.

What would be useful infrastructure-wise to speed things up:

1. Extending the Tisbury loop eastwards to Dinton or even Wilton to create a dynamic loop. This loop is in almost constant use and requires 50% of trains to stop in the Wiltshire countryside. Extending it eastwards could allow trains to meet on the move and cut 5min of every journey. There was a military line until 1994 at Dinton extending a couple of miles so the trackbed should hopefully be preserved.

2. A loop at Crewkerne. Currently there's 17 miles of uninterrupted single track between Chard and Yeovil Junctions, which severely limits operating flexibility. Adding a loop here (and at Whimple), ideally a dynamic one, should increase the number of trains which can pass along the line at times of disruption. Admittedly this may need to be beyond the station given the limited room now available for a down platform to be instated.

In the mid-1990s after the introduction of the 159s, down journeys would normally take less than 3h 5min between Waterloo and Exeter Central, with some up journeys taking less than 3 hours. I'm fairly sure in the summer of 1995 there was a 1015 Saturday departure from Waterloo arriving at Exeter Central at 1301, calling a Yeovil Junc, Honiton and Axminster only west of Salisbury and taking just 2h 46 min - surely the fastest ever timetabled service on the line. I doubt that's possible with the current timetable but with some prudent double tracking in key locations it should be possible to get the journey time closer to 3 hours.

On the subject of cheap offers, Weymouth to Waterloo generally benefits from cheap offers and is a similar distance as from Axminster. However there's 10 carriages per hour to London rather than 3 or 6, and outside peak season my experience is there's usually plenty of room heading east until at least Bournemouth. Exeter-Salisbury trains at the weekend can be fairly busy from Yeovil eastwards and even with 6 carriages can be around 70-80% full before Salisbury (depending on the time of day).

My understanding may be incorrect (in which case, please feel free to correct me), but I was under the impression that the station to be built at the new town of Cranbrook was originally to be two platforms (and therefore a potential static passing loop), but its location on a flood plain would not allow for double track, so they have opted instead for a single platform without loop. Thereby slowing trains still further (or requiring changes to the stopping schedules such as only stopping every other train at Whimple or Feniton)   

Not that I've used either of the routes in question, I'm glald somebody agrees with me that corridor stock (a.k.a. trains with Unit End Gangways (UEGs)) are important for multiple working (and portion working in particular). I know some TOCs do portion working with Voyagers and the like, but in my opinion that sort of thing should be avoided like the plauge in plans for the future. If you build trains without UEGs, build 'em long enough that multiple working is unlikely (eg. class 700s for Thameslink). You mention Waterloo-Weymouth, this I believe is operated by class 444s which are an expressy design with doors at the end of the coaches, like 159s. For this reason I doubt 172s (with their suburban door layout) would be appropriate either unless most passengers on the Waterloo-Exeter run are only using it for a short distance. The rest of the country seems a bit short on things like 158s/159s though, which is one reason why I think SWT should get some more new trains, similar to the 444s/159s but with both diesel and electric capability*, for the Waterloo-Exeter route to release their 159s. If they were built in 4-car and 3-car sets you would have the option of running 3, 4, 7, 8 or 11-car trains on the Waterloo - Exeter runs (space for 11-cars permitting of course)A straight-EMU version of the same new train would be useful if/when TPE electrification is completed.

* like the IEP bi-mode but for routes that are less likely to be electrified in future

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between a "loop" and a "dynamic loop"? I understand that there is talk of a "dynamic loop" being introduced at Hanborough so i would be nice to understand what it is.

Just means that it's a longer loop (several miles long in some instances) increasing flexibility as they're designed to allow trains to pass each other without necessarily slowing them down, whereas a traditional platform loop, such as what used to be in place at Evesham would be confined to the immediate station area.

Hello experts!!

Can anybody explain to me any sensible reason why the 22.20 waterloo to salisbury couldnt be usefully extended to more carriages and run to Yeovil?

Will eat into the available time for track maintenance work etc, in particular noting that the empty stock then has to return to Salisbury for servicing.

There are a few possible reasons.

First one is that SWT judge that there would be little demand west of Salisbury for a service arriving at Yeovil at around 1am, which would add 4 hrs worth of staff cost + fuel + track access charges, and an unproductive journey back to the depot at Salisbury.

Second one is that the rolling stock needs to be serviced overnight, and so an arrival back into Salisbury two hours later would leave insufficient time to get a unit ready for the following morning.

Third one is that Network Rail need some time for overnight works on the line, which if they didn't have would mean more weekend closures.

I guess this service is probably rather busy leaving Waterloo judging by the comment about being extended to more carriages. Again, with many units having travelled west out of London in the evening peak, some all the way to Exeter, there may be a lack of spare stock to add a unit to this service.

Thanks guys.
This service does seem busy out of Waterloo, but I guess it tends to ease by woking or Basingstoke.

It does seem a shame that there can't be a later service out to Yeovil, but so it goes......

It looks like the final train of the day from Exeter and the final ECS from Yeovil Junction back to Salisbury run quite close to each other, and another train down to Yeovil would require some single line adjustments too, in order to cross them at Tisbury and at Gillingham.  Once past Gillingham,  you are into that time that Network Rail doesn't have available to do maintenance / repairs, and you'll have the line open for a further 50 minutes beyond current practise assuming the same turn around time needed at Yeovil as the current final train.

50 minutes may not seem a lot, but a request to have the TransWilts Sunday morning service run from Westbury to Swindon at 07:30 rather than 08:20 was, I understand, turned down for 2014 as the line couldn't be made available that hour or so earlier, even though the business case and TOC operational cases were both excellent.  There is talk of the 24 hour / 7 day railway, but in practise these extensions are difficult to provide at the moment.

From the NR Western Route Draft Study

Provision of an additional stopping service between Exeter St Davids and Axminster would support forecast passenger demand into Exeter in the peak periods as an alternative to substantial train lengthening of the London Waterloo service. The additional service would create a pattern of two trains per hour which aligns with the aspirations of Devon County Council^s Devon Metro. In order to deliver this enhanced service frequency, a new loop would be required. The additional infrastructure would also support the delivery of a sustainable diversionary route should the Great Western Main Line be closed for engineering activities, weather- related or other incidents. There would be considerable resilience benefits to be achieved which will also be captured in the assessment that is being led by the Wessex Route Study. The value for money assessment for this intervention needs to be undertaken and will be reported on in the final Western Route Study capturing all benefits that can be identified.

How do the pros and cons of this option compare with my suggestion above of new electro-diesel multiple unit stock, similar to 159s, to release the class 159 fleet to other operators?

Also from the NR study

p43 These could include, for example, whether an option would allow more efficient usage of the existing electrified network by reducing diesel running on electrified sections of the route, or by providing a diversionary route, or where there are synergies with rolling stock replacement, or other enhancement schemes.a^southwest^packagecomprisingelectrificationbetween:
^ BristolTempleMeadsandWeston-super-Mare
^ Weston-super-Mare and Plymouth and Paignton, including
the Exmouth branch
^ betweenNewburyandTaunton,linkingwiththeBristol^ Plymouth route and including the diversionary routes between Westbury and Bathampton/Thingley Junctions, and between Castle Cary and Exeter St Davids via Yeovil Junction
^ possible onwards extension from Plymouth to Penzance ^ a^Wessex^packageof:
^ Basingstoke to Exeter St Davids

^p231 O3CapacityImprovementsbetweenExeterStDavidsand Axminster. Provide an additional service between Exeter St Davids and Axminster to create a 2tph service frequency providing sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast rail passenger demand into Exeter. A new loop at Whimple would be required to deliver this increased service frequency. Assessment to include diversionary requirements and subsequent benefits (by the Wessex Route Study)

Assuming that the additional service will be a Barnstaple to Axminster stopper as the report seems to suggest, my guess is that the stock would more than likely to be the equivalent of a 150 assuming that they'd been replaced by the mid 20's


I know my friends define my outlook as being 'on the extreme side of pessimistic', but my gut feeling is that this will not happen in our lifetimes and will be amongst the first outcomes to be dropped once the ^ signs are counted - particularly if you include the current governments benefit to cost formula.

I will admit to having a certain bias having grown up near the route but there are a number of potential advantages to electrifying the whole of the Basingstoke-Exeter route over Newbury-Penzance.

1. You release 41 well-maintained class 158s and 159s which can work over various areas of the network - I'm sure Northern, ATW and Great Western could find a use for them. In comparison electrifying the Penzance route releases a large number of HSTs which unfortunately due to their age and suitability for express services only would surely be going to the scrapyard. It also allows all-electric working into Waterloo.

2. Basingstoke-Exeter is currently fairly self-contained, hence why the entire 15x could be released. If electrification can get past Salisbury, there wouldn't be any point stopping at Yeovil. The longest tunnels at Honiton and Buckhorn Weston are single track - the latter's already slewed down the middle, I suspect the former could be. This should allow for reasonable clearances. Admittedly it counts against redoubling the line later but both tunnels are on sections which are likely to be among the last to be redoubled as there are crossing points at the stations either side.

In comparison, there are political and infrastructural issues on the Penzance route. Whiteball and Somerton tunnels are both fairly lengthy and would probably need lowered floors. Whiteball was built for the broad gauge and might have more generous clearances, but Somerton wasn't. Then you have to look at how you can run electric trains on the sea wall (although I believe they manage in Ayrshire). Electrifying to Exeter only wouldn't be much use without bi-mode trains, which aren't without their doubters. Electrifying to Plymouth only would not go down well west of the Tamar, but with the numerous tunnels and viaducts on the Cornish main line, it probably wouldn't be cheap.

3. Basingstoke-Exeter is a route requiring rapid acceleration and good hill-climbing, along with the ability to split trains (and hence the need for gangway ends).  As I've said earlier, any attempt to reintroduce loco-hauled working would be a severely retrograde step given the failures of 42s, 47s and 50s. EMUs would appear to give a significant advantage over diesel power. In comparison the Penzance route seems fine with fixed train formations and as many trains run non-stop between Reading and Taunton or Exeter, acceleration would seem less important over this part of the route than maintaining a high speed. (I do however accept it's more important west of Newton Abbot.)

Of course the main line is the Penzance route and since it's no doubt more profitable, this is probably a critical argument. Basingstoke-Exeter would still require 125 miles of electrification and whilst it serves an affluent area, Yeovil is the only town west of Salisbury of any real size and the station is a fair distance out of town.

But there's nothing wrong with a spot of blind optimism...

Of course, if the electric spine is built in its entirety, including AC between Basingstoke and Soton Docks, then the question would be what would happen to the diversionary route via Laverstock which has just been cleared as an alternative route for the larger containers.  So it may be that in time there are synergies with AC as far as Salisbury which would make cost justification of the whole route easier.

Also, with more units being added to the Salisbury and Exeter services, and capacity demands on the line east of Basingstoke, there is also an argument that ac stock would facilitate greater capacity through longer trains and consistent train performance on the main line.

How would Basingstoke to Exeter be electrified - Overhead AC or third rail DC? If overhead AC, wouldn't you need to introduce same for Basingstoke to Waterloo or would you simply introduce stock that can use both?

I was picking up on this point in particular:In other words, my suggestion above would provide longer trains on the Waterloo service, rather than an Exeter-Axminster stopper.

This is essentially what I'm trying to get at, but without the cost of electrfiying the whole route (not that I don't think wiring the route is a good idea, just that there are bigger priorities, not least extending wires along the GWML to Plymouth (at least) before the IC125s are finally withdrawn). All-electric working into Waterloo I believe was mentioned in Modern Railways as a requirement to maximise frequency, my hypothetical electro-diesel son-of-159 ought to provide that. Great Western I would suggest need their 158 fleet boosting by arround 12 2-car units to lengthen Cardiff-Portsmouth to 4-car units (with the real 3-car set moving to Northern). If ERTMS can be installed, the Cambrian Lines could be a good home for the orriginal batch of 159s (with their more-powerful engines) which would release ATW's existing 158 fleet for use eleswhere on the franchise. SWT's Salisbury-Southampton stoppers could transfer to FGW (to be worked by 150/165/166 units) and Eastleigh-Romsey would be a small stretch to electrify. The lower-power '159s' and any remaining 158s could be useful at Northern or perhaps the Bristol-Plymouth/Paignton/Penzance axis on GW.

I'm one of the doubters about bi-mode, but in my view there is quite a difference between 125mph trains, which cover a relatively restricted area of the network which can be focused on for electrification, and 90-100mph regional express units, like the 158s/159s, which cover long distances but mix main lines with quiet branches and will not be easy to entirely electrify in the lifetime of the stock.

I would be extremely happy to see longer trains and higher frequency along the whole of an electrified Exeter to Waterloo line. However, I do not think that simple economics would warrant such on the Gillingham to Axminster section of the line - even allowing for some passenger growth in the long term. Looking at the Devon Metro proposals in the document, which are essentially for two half-hourly 'local' services through Exeter (Paignton to Exmouth and Barnstaple to Axminster), neither of these would warrant the use of anything more than 150s or their equivalent.

From the electrification point of view, if there are proposals to extend third rail from Basingstoke to Salisbury and potentially bring the wires from Castle Cary through Yeovil Junction to Exeter, then there would certainly be an argument to electrify Salisbury to Yeovil Junction.   

Stock availability aside, if the aim is to grow the local travel market between Exeter and Axminster, that will be better served by two tph than one long tph, surely?

The lapsed GW franchise specification was proposing an extra train to/from Axminster every two hours, based on existing infrastructure limitations, and to be operated by FGW in addition to the SWT service.   The latest idea seems to add the second train with another bit of new infrastructure.  Seems a worthwhile and natural extension of existing plans to me...

Paul

I think you're forgetting that FGW is going to get enough additional stock for its dmu services once the Thames Valley is electrified, although some have questioned whether turbos are entirely suitable for Cardiff - Portsmouth. So I don't think you can justify your plan on that grounds. And as for swapping Cambrian 158s for more powerful 159s, you need to have a very welsh centric view to justify that cost for nothing more than increased oomph.

I don't think a fleet of hybrid diesel/ac units is very likely. A hybrid battery/ac unit is under test for short distances off the wires, but  I think the argument over IEP will have made politicians or the DfT very wary suggesting it for classic multiple units.

If the Basingstoke to Exeter line were to be electrified then it would be ac. There is a lot of emu stock now which is dual voltage.

Edited to correct a typo/omission.

I agree with those who say Turbos aren't suitable for Cardiff-Portsmouth, which is one of the main points of my plan. As for the Cambrian, the main reason I suggested 159s is because I think 3-car formations could be more appropriate to the loadings than the current choice of 4-car or 2-car. As for the extra oomph, I meerly thought it would be a good idea to keep the class together and don't really know where there steepest gradients are, but believe the Cambrian is fairly steep in places. If the gradients aren't all that steep then perhaps the lower-powered 3-car 158s should be allocated instead.

Re bi-modes the French seem to have some very successful bi-modes

eg From Wikipedia

The B 82500 is a class of hybrid, multi-system, diesel and overhead electificatication (1.5 kV DC, 25 kV AC) powered multiple unit built by Bombardier for SNCF.[2]

The class was officially launched at Gare de Troyes on 9 October 2007 for service on the TER Champagne-Ardenne lines.

Perfrmance looks quitr good too:
Power output    Diesel Engine: 2x 588 kW (789 hp) @ 1800rpm
Electric; 1,300 kW (1,700 hp)[1]
Acceleration    diesel: 0.47 m/s2 (1.5 ft/s2)
1.5kV : 0.66 m/s2 (2.2 ft/s2)
25kV : 0.67 m/s2 (2.2 ft/s2)

Indeed, lots of regions have them, and there are some new ones from Alstom just come into service (and made the news last year as being "too wide"). They all have a 160 km/hr top speed, so are in a slightly different class from IEP - firmly "regional". And of course their more generous gauge means it's easier to add extras like engines anyway.

They come with a variety of electrical modes - all do 1500 DC, most do 25 kV 50 Hz, and the new ones do 15 kV 16.7 Hz (for Germany). If the one you are given is missing a mode you need, you can always switch to diesel, which helps in France. Apparently they also do this in Belgium under 3000V DC, and for ECS moves between services that are all electric.