Waterloo-Exeter Line

[whole diary]

[PhilWakely]

What would be useful infrastructure-wise to speed things up:
2. A loop at .......... at Whimple, ideally a dynamic one, should increase the number of trains which can pass along the line at times of disruption.

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)   

[Rhydgaled]

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.

...

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).

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^▸ (Unit End Gangway))) are important for multiple working (and portion working in particular). I know some TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (South West Trains) 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) version of the same new train would be useful if/when TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) electrification is completed.

* like the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) bi-mode but for routes that are less likely to be electrified in future

[Andrew1939 from West Oxon]

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.

[IndustryInsider]

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.

[teamsaint]

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?

[Southernman]

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.

[John R]

There are a few possible reasons.

First one is that SWT^▸ (South West Trains) 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.

[teamsaint]

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......

[grahame]

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.

It looks like the final train of the day from Exeter and the final ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[bradshaw]

From the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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.

[Rhydgaled]

From the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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?

[bradshaw]

Also from the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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)

[PhilWakely]

From the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) 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?

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

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^package comprising electrification between:
^ .......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

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.

[The Grecian]

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^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) and Great Western could find a use for them. In comparison electrifying the Penzance route releases a large number of HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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...

[John R]

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.