Great Western Coffee Shop

The replacement for the RUS has been published - deadline for responses 9 January 2015, although they'll appreciate early responses.

Lead webpage is http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-and-plans/long-term-planning-process/route-studies/ (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-and-plans/long-term-planning-process/route-studies/)

You can download the pdf here (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study-draft-for-consultation/Western-Route-Study-Draft-for-Consultation.pdf) - but be warned - it's over 7Mb and 272 pages....

Are you sure? Network Rail Time Machine required!

Thanks, amended!

I'm at work at the mo, so no way to look - any interesting bits about the Devon Metro and its infrastructure?

Details to be seen on p8,9,28,29,33,94, 203/7/8/10/11, 226/7/8, 232/3

Download pdf and search Devon Metro

Cheers for that!

Stone the crows! Increasing capacity on the Torbay branch (increased speeds?) and 2tph PGN - EXM? I will, admittedly , believe it when I see it, but atleast its recognised as an issue! ;D

Lots of really interesting stuff, and previous discussions about grade separation at Didcot East and around Reading west appear to be favoured. Also at Ladbroke Grove which I think is new.  Curiously grade separation at Standish is mentioned for the long term, but not at Wootton Basset, and only rather dismissively at Westerleigh.

Also talk of capacity increases at Melksham in the long term, with 1 tph envisaged for the longer term, running through to Salisbury. 

Mention of electrification to Kemble and Charlbury, both of which surprised me (particularly Charlbury).  Also talk of extending the freight loops between Didcot and Swindon to offer a dynamic passing capability. 

Even discussion that in time four tracking between Standish and Cheltenham may be needed. When you think how long it has taken to get four tracking of Filton Bank to be approved, the sudden talk of more further north maybe shows how rapidly the railway is needing to expand.

Interested to see that one idea I have long promoted, that of emu's providing additional capacity in the peak out as far as Swindon appears to have very strong support, as an alternative to adding stops to the fast Bristol services that will be introduced post IEP. (Which it is acknowledged would completely defeat the object of introducing them in the first place.)

Something I picked up recently from one of the local landowners on the Swindon- Kemble section raised an eyebrow: he had been informed by NR that the line will be closed again at Christmas 2014 to allow one of the overbridges to be replaced (I've no idea why it wasn't done during one of the recent possessions). The NR person who told him (possibly a contractor rather than a NR employee) said that the bridge deck would be raised to allow for future electrification. So it would seem that forward planning is happening. It's surprising as the bridge in question is for pedestrian and farm traffic only and is used very infrequently.

Interesting hints in there about the future SW equivalent document including a grade separation project at Basingstoke, now that could be quite a complex solution - I'd expect they'd run the two tracks of the Reading branch past the station on the north side, and then take the down side over most of the existing tracks.

Hence big hints about through services across Reading to better connect Basingstoke towards London or Heathrow, as flagged up in a couple of earlier RUSs...

Also mentions a possible third track through Reading West and grade separation at Southcote Jn...

Paul

Extending the electrification back from Wolvercote to Charlbury is the only realistic proposal to get a half hourly service from these stations. Massive housing development is proposed for West Oxon but there are no significant proposed road works to cope with all this extra traffic. The A40 into Oxford from Witney suffers from gross congestion and commuting hours start earlier and earlier. The A40 is congested from Eynsham into Oxford from before 07.00 almost every day and this week it has been stretching back the 12 miles to Witney causing travel times of over an hour. One report this moring was that an express S2 bus service had been stuck so long just outside Witney that the driver has switched off the engine. What will be needed (and I think this is under consideration will be a dedicated Carterton/Witney/Hanborough station bus link bringing many more rail travellers that will need a more frequent train service than at present.

But I'm having distinct problems posting a URL FIR IT - can someone not on an iphone oblige me please?

This do?

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study/

Yep - thanks!

The finalised version of the Western Route Study is now online here:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Publications/long-term-planning/western-route-study/Western-Route-Study-final.pdf

Only scanned it so far, but others might be interested in having a read...

Paul

Already posted in the future years thread

Silly old me,  ;D I took the trouble to search for the existing thread to provide the background...

Paul

Indeed, I thought I'd started one, but couldn't find it!

Maybe a Mod will combine into the future years board?

All done!  ;) :D ;D

Had a good read through, especially the TV section, doesn't seem to be much different from the previous RUS. I did note however that they kept mentioning that the Marlow branch would be electrified, although I thought they recently ruled this out for practical reasons. There was also no mention of the potential extra crossover at Bourne End and that they would much rather have two shuttles (With Marlow pax always having to change at Bourne End if a 2tph all through the day was introduced) rather than any structural improvements.

It's interesting to look at some at least of the consultation submissions.

The ones in a folder called "Working Group and Board" (misleadingly below the link to the West of Exeter Route Resilience Study) are from other railway companies and organisations. None of these seems to acknowledge that they were involved in any way in the study. I know that previous submissions are often copied as public consultation comments just to get them on the record, but that's not how these ones read. See Chiltern's and Heathrow's in particular, which give a strong impression that they weren't asked at all.

In the LA submissions, Reading's is quite ... forceful. They are trying to make a case for retaining the semi-fasts (which are now listed as running on the reliefs, replacing the residual stopping trains, in the 2019 baseline). As part of this they label the paired mains and reliefs as outdated, and the 2-up 2-down pattern as modern. I don't think that's historically correct, and I suspect that by "modern" they may mean "continental", as that's where the examples would have to be.

I'd say that trying to run three services (long-distance, metro, and outer suburban/regional) that need three track pairs and doing that on two isn't ever going to work well. The suburban and metro could be linked on a 2-up 2-down basis, but with the long-distance separate. Perhaps it's not surprising that RBC give little weight to trains and passengers that go through Reading to somewhere else.

In response to HAL, the study does copy their list of adverse effects of "shunting" HEX onto reliefs, and also makes it clearer that's what they want post 2013. The baseline now includes the 4 tph on WRAtH, though they may be implemented post-2019, in addition to the 4 HEX and 4 Crossrail.

The topic of relief/main balance is even more important now, but not really analysed clearly. The option of running Crossrail trains on the mains is still included, though it conflicts with the need for more longer-distance paths. In considering the extra peak trains from Swindon, it says that pushing the main lines to 22 tph may not be feasible. Then option A13, grade separation at Ladbroke Grove, is now increased to very high value for money, citing these trains as an example of the benefits.

However, in option A17 (relief line enhancements, being two loops no longer identified as Langley-Hayes and Harlington) it says this to allow "semi-fasts" to at least overtake stoppers. It then says they would need to go down the tunnel, once the bulk of Crossrail trains to to Old Oak for HS2. So now we have too many trains on both pairs of tracks. So ...

The FGW response includes a suggestion to build platforms on the Didcot West curve (the RUS already suggests building one on the East). These would be remote indeed from the main station, and would make any sense only if no other station was built between Didcot and Swindon.

There were logical reasons to retain the GW 'paired by use' layout with four tracking.  Most of the branches between London and Reading were on the north side of the line (except Windsor) and included through running services.  Any main terminal works better if services are grouped separately by type.   But now that new underpasses and flyovers have been built to suit paired by use operation at Acton Yard, Stockley and most of all at Reading, it is to all intents impossible to change to paired by direction now.

The WCML uses the same layout as GW from Euston as far as Rugby, then switches to paired by direction for the length of the Trent Valley.

The SWML uses paired by use at the terminal, then has a flyover between Earlsfield and Wimbledon and is paired by direction until Basingstoke (Worting Jn).   Paired by direction allows weaving from fast to slow and vice versa, but for a high frequency route with branches on both sides needs grade separation at most junctions.   Woking doesn't have grade separation and ends up as the limiting factor for service frequency on the whole mainline network.

Another problem with paired by use is that it is difficult to stop services at intermediate stations and turn back, unless you have a central siding, or yet more grade separation.

I don't think pairing by direction is exactly modern though, as implied by RBC, the LSWR converted their main route soon after four tracking out to New Malden (for Kingston), the original slow lines were on the down side all the way.

Paul

I'd see the LSWR main line as a case where it was built for long distance services, but grew more and more to be a suburban (inner and outer) railway. Hence its quadrupling and the adding of grade separation case by case was based on a suitable track layout. The Wimbledon Park flyover is visibly a lot newer than the grade separation structures, and was built (in 1936) to reinstate the separation by service at Waterloo after decades of 2-up 2-down operation. So its cost was evidently justified by the increase in terminal capacity that separation brings (currently P1-5 slow and P6-15 fast).

According to the Wessex Route Study (now also out in final form) this layout currently handles 24 tph peak, which might go up to 26 with a risk to reliability. After discussing various ways of squeezing a little more capacity out of the system, it suggests (p 85) that 5-tracking in to Clapham Junction, but no further, could allow 36 tph to run with only "additional switches and crossings in the Vauxhall area". Wow! I wish they'd tell the Western Route study team how they get that capacity out of two tracks to the throat and only flat junctions.

I say that because the Western Route Study says the main line capacity is limited to 24 tph by plaiting paths into and out of the platforms, though in 2019 it is only 16 tph due to constraints further out. And that is with spreading to four tracks well outside the throat, which I thought was important to realising even that capacity. Note that Waterloo has fewer platforms (ten) than Paddington will have post-Crossrail for main-line services, but then it has shorter dwell times too. In neither case is a shortage of platforms identified as a constraint.

To go even a little above that 24 tph limit, grade separation at Ladbroke Grove is advocated. I have not seen any description of what that might be - has anyone else? There is a sketch plan in Arup's latest Heathrow Hub submission which shows their interpretation - flying links from up (and down) main to relief, which makes no sense. I imagine it's more like a conflict-free way of splitting services into two groups with a pair of tracks each. But if that's needed for 26 tph, how on earth does Waterloo cope now, let alone with 36 tph?

I understand the Old Oak Common flyover is to be taken down, and its future use is certainly not mentioned. That is odd, in that there is an identified need (by 2019) to path trains off the relief Crossrail/lines and into Paddington platforms, and no capacity to do that after OOC for HS2 (or running on to the WCML) is in place. I reckon there is room to move a track from under that flyover to outside the ramps on each side of it, and so get at least a single track link to do just that. So, in the short term at least, that is a kind of grade separation at or near Ladbroke Grove.

Moving further out from the Thames Valley, I note the following paragraph on page 10...


Call me cynical, but I can see this suggestion being very quickly and quietly dropped. I would willingly put a bet on the chances of me seeing my 100th birthday being greater than the likelihood of the above happening (if I make it to 2043, I will be 87 in that year!).