Great Western Coffee Shop

From Rail Express - the electronic magazine of RailFuture

I am in two minds about this.  As the services are typically completely full on leaving Guildford/Woking (depending on route), it would case delay and further overcrowding with passengers who (attempt to) board at Clapham.  On the other hand, it would take the strain off Waterloo LU as passengers whose destination is not Zone 1 to interchange with the recently upgraded London Overground services.  A stop at CLJ could have easily shaved 10 minutes off my daily commute and meant I could have downgraded to a Zone 2-6 Travelcard.

Given that the study is aimed at things to do after 2020, some items on the list look like minor things you'd want sooner than that. And the double-deck proposal (leaving aside its implausibility) was only for trains to Southampton via Woking and Basingstoke, for which dwell time might not matter too much.

As to Clapham Junction - the South West Main Line RUS noted a serious ambition to stop all peak trains there if possible. To that end there were two options: 5.1 to lengthen and straighten P7/8, and 5.2 to to that and a more extensive rework of track and platforms. So why is there not even a mention in the Wessex Route Study?

Nothing got into CP5, and if it's being looked at for CP6 it should have been mentioned. Maybe it's hiding inside this Tardis-like statement (in 7.4 Other choices to 2043):

The problem with Clapham Jn is that there are two completely separate major infrastructure projects on the table, but we only get one or the other, not both.  If Crossrail 2 goes ahead, then additional calls by mainline services at Clapham Jn become feasible because of the additional paths made available because some trains will switch to the present main slows east of Wimbledon.

If Crossrail 2 doesn't happen, then the alternative is the 'Fifth Track' inbound from Surbiton to Clapham Jn, with a reversible main line between the up and down main. (Track layout details as per the 2011 London and SE RUS.) That will also allow a number of main line services to call at Clapham Jn, at least in the peak flow direction.

Until they decide which of the two main solutions to implement, it doesn't surprise me that detail is hazy.   But surely the choices are in the study, being described as post CP6 work within the options A,B and C on page 9?

But in the overall consultation, I just don't see NR or SWT treating SHRUG as a truly representative user group.

Paul

I'm not entirely convinced by that. The timescale of Crossrail 2 must be long ... or longer still, so some reworking at Clapham might still be worth doing. It would probably be needed with the 5th track option in any case.

What may be more important is that it never was a capacity-enhancing change, more the opposite. So while the Route Studies start by summarising the cheaper interventions that add capacity, to see if more is still going to be needed, this one does not have to be included. However, given its prominence last time around, it still merits being mentioned to say why it's not being considered this time. Of course the reason may be "we can't find a cheap simple way to do it" - i.e. every time we try to work one out it evolves into something much bigger - hence this masterplan thingy (despite its being identified as about "capacity").

The group's online newsletter has reported the negative very strongly over the years, perhaps to the extent that they weaken their case when presenting appropriate / positive suggestions.

I note from their autumn newsletter

and guess that gives him less daily first hand experience (I must be careful what I write here, as I don't travel by train on a daily basis!)

http://www.shrug.info/Hogrider144/HOGRIDER%20144%20PART%201.html

Another possible point for discussion is whether the Wessex route study (in so much as it concerns the London area) should be compared with the original SWML RUS (2007), or with the subsequent London and SE RUS (2011), which depending on your point of view was either a supplement to it, or a replacement for bits of it.

For instance there is a tacit admission in the latter RUS that much of the original SWML RUS concerning Hampshire area services was not detailed enough, and although IIRC it wasn't widely mentioned at the time the London and SE RUS presented a completely new chapter about south Hants.

What I'm thinking is that the SWML RUS proposed dates may have already become irrelevant, if the London and SE RUS rewrote the relevant deadlines/targets anyway.

Paul

I hope he wasn't AXED from his job.  :P ;) ;D

Possibly DUMPED for OPERATIONAL CONVENIENCE?  ::)

For those unfamiliar with Hogrider's style, please see an example at http://www.shrug.info/Hogrider135/Hogrider%20135%20Part%201.html  :P