FGW HST Diversions - December 2010

[fgwrich]

Hmmm...Time for me to save up for some interesting FGW workings, then!

That said; Looking at the times posted above by TheFab444, I notice that FGW calls at Basingstoke are for boarding only (Down services) and alighting only (Up trains). Now I know from previous experience that FGW do tend to get a bit squashed up during the peaks...But surely it'd make a lot of sense for FGW to add 2-3 coaches to each HST set, which would allow these HST runs to carry their own weight plus SWTs passengers along that section, with SWT running their Salisbury/Weymouth/Southampton out of Basingstoke insted?
That'd allow FGW to keep their usual half-hour service frequency. It'd also give them full use of the SWML fast lines (As all SWT traffic would be using the locals) and up the service speed to a little over the 120mph mark!

On a more minor note: Anyone reckon we could be seeing the old Eurostar terminal at Waterloo being used to accommodate the HSTs? Given how long my trains tend to have to wait for platforms at Waterloo nowadays (Only then to be signalled into a platform with an 8-car already in it) trying to fit HSTs in amongst the usual mess isn't going to work...

Interesting idea, but SWT operate enough services to provide enough capacity...

Plus the reasoning for the set down only stopping pattern is to try to avoid SWT Passengers (Aka 'The Norms') using the Diverted HST's to get to London - because of the Hounslow Loop diversions to access the longer platforms at waterloo, otherwise you’ll get dear old Mr. & Mrs. smith, possibly meeting another connection at another London station, boarding the FGW service into waterloo and missing their connection because it has taken them longer to get to waterloo, when they could have caught the SWT normal fast services into waterloo and still make their connection...

Ill certainly be out for these, not least because it's a HST back on the southern, not least because they'll be passing through my home town, but really because it’ll certainly be something different to the usual EMU/DMU Freight mix we get through here...

Ah Well, Looks like it’ll be an expensive Christmas this year - HST's to Banbury & Along the Southern...

By the way, does anyone have any ideas as to what the Night Rivera will be getting up to this year? Will that be running out of Waterloo with the servicing carried out at the oak, or will it be TNT to Banbury? Or will it even run at all this year?

 

[Death]

I think a 2 + 11 Mk3 HST might be a bit slow, not to mention too long for platforms at various places.

I can see the length thing being an issue...But aren't HSTs normally capable of 135mph even with a fully loaded 2+8 formation? OS Nock's Two Miles a Minute certainly agrees with that speed, and ye shouldn't lose more than 20mph for four more carriages!

Are you seriously suggesting SWT's normal long distance capacity between Waterloo and Basingstoke can be replaced by 2 or 3 coaches in each of two HSTs?

I was mainly thinking of FGWs HSTs being used as a "fast pipe" for all passengers travelling to Basingstoke and stations west, with all passengers for stations between Clapham and Hook (Including Pompey and possible So'tons via Guildford) using standard workings on the local roads arranged to leave Waterloo in a "Fast, fast, slow, slow" running pattern. (Two fasts leave Waterloo, followed by two stoppers - Both ordered so that the one "turning off" soonest runs behind it's neighbour.)

Given that a large percentage of SWTs passengers (As far as I understand) tend to originate between Basingstoke and Wimbledon, I'd say that four extra Mk IIIs leaving Waterloo every half hour should just about do the job. In tight situations, there's always a couple of 1st class carriages that can be declassified...

Just a shame that the Bicester-Curve hasn't been built yet, would have saved a bit of time.

I wasn't aware of those plans, admittedly...But wouldn't FGW still choose to call at Banbury to provide service and connections there?

Plus the reasoning for the set down only stopping pattern is to try to avoid SWT Passengers (Aka 'The Norms') using the Diverted HST's to get to London...

Typical First planning, that...So they basically don't want any of us living along the SWML to enjoy their diverted services, then?
(Without the ability to board at Basingstoke, that means I either have to haul all the way to Waterloo to get started, or head west from Basingstoke insted - Which doesn't give me as much rare haulage, especially as I've always wanted to experience an HST on the SWML!)

Because of the Hounslow Loop diversions to access the longer platforms at waterloo, otherwise you’ll get dear old Mr. & Mrs. smith, possibly meeting another connection at another London station, boarding the FGW service into waterloo and missing their connection because it has taken them longer to get to waterloo, when they could have caught the SWT normal fast services into waterloo and still make their connection...

Hang on...The HSTs are being run via Staines again?!?!? hock:
That's going to really Kill off the hopes I'd had of proper high-speed running straight out of Clapham... ad::cry:

Ye say that such is necessary for the HSTs to be able to reach the longer platforms - That makes perfect sense as Waterloo is kidney-shaped...But wouldn't it be a much brighter idea for NR to install some temporary points between Nine Elms and Clapham, which would allow the HSTs to transfer from the Hounslow Loop/Eurostar platforms over to the SWML fasts?
I've got no track or junction diagrams to hand I admit, but - Looking briefly at Google Earth - I can see a long enough "clear" strip between Nine Elms and Vauxhall where such a temporary crossover could easily be installed during a weekend possession...And, personally, I'd be more than happy to put up with a weekend blockade if it'd give me 120+mph running along the SWML and the experience of crossing Weybridge Jct at about 135!

 

[The Planner]

I can see the length thing being an issue...But aren't HSTs normally capable of 135mph even with a fully loaded 2+8 formation? OS Nock's Two Miles a Minute certainly agrees with that speed, and ye shouldn't lose more than 20mph for four more carriages!

HSTs performance starts to degrade nicely once your past 9 coaches. FGW use one engine only on the ECS moves and the time differences are sizeable.

I wasn't aware of those plans, admittedly...But wouldn't FGW still choose to call at Banbury to provide service and connections there? Typical First planning, that...So they basically don't want any of us living along the SWML to enjoy their diverted services, then?

In a word, no. Some of the services dont even reach Banbury, a shunt signal at Aynho is being replaced with a 3 aspect head to reverse there.

But wouldn't it be a much brighter idea for NR to install some temporary points between Nine Elms and Clapham, which would allow the HSTs to transfer from the Hounslow Loop/Eurostar platforms over to the SWML fasts?

For what is basically 4 days running ?? the cost would be stupid.

 

[TEW]

By the way, does anyone have any ideas as to what the Night Rivera will be getting up to this year? Will that be running out of Waterloo with the servicing carried out at the oak, or will it be TNT to Banbury? Or will it even run at all this year?

The sleeper doesn't usually run between Christmas and New Year, I expect that will be the same this year.

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that a large percentage of SWTs passengers (As far as I understand) tend to originate between Basingstoke and Wimbledon, I'd say that four extra Mk IIIs leaving Waterloo every half hour should just about do the job.

I'm glad you admit you don't understand - most of the trains I mentioned earlier are either non-stop to Clapham Jn or semi fast east of Basingstoke, and that's without the 4 tph on the fasts from the Portsmouth line joining at Woking. The idea that SWT would shove most of their timetable to one side so you can bash an HST is patently ridiculous...

I've got no track or junction diagrams to hand I admit, but - Looking briefly at Google Earth

Crossovers already exist, but they don't get used in the normal timetable as any crossing move degrades the normal frequency of operation in the Waterloo approach. (There are rusty rail moves in the very off peaks.)

Using the Windsor side is not a question of reaching long platforms, it is about reaching a spare long platform. The Portsmouth, and Weymouth services are already using all the long platforms on the main side of the station.

And to cap it all, HSTs are never going to run at speeds above 100 mph, as the SWML is only signalled for that max speed.

 

[louis97]

It'd also give them full use of the SWML fast lines...

FGW services are restricted to the slow lines due to a number of bridges that can't take the weight of the HST power cars on the fast lines.

 

[Death]

In a word, no. Some of the services dont even reach Banbury, a shunt signal at Aynho is being replaced with a 3 aspect head to reverse there.

Seems a bit odd (To me at least) for FGW to choose that way of working. Aside from a platform reversal theoretically being much quicker and easier to deal with than a cess walk - Plus the fact that the one driver can change ends whilst passengers are boarding/alighting, and platform access to cabs is much safer - FGW are losing out on the extra business that could easily be be gained by a Banbury reversal.
Given that the junction from the Chilterns (Aynho jct, is it?) isn't that far south of Banbury and the HST approach speed limit there is higher than for Chiltern 168s, this wouldn't affect the journey time that much...Would it?

For what is basically 4 days running ?? the cost would be stupid.

Ahh...That is a good point!
That said, this isn't the first time that FGW have had to sprint out of Waterloo during a blockade...Could the cost of installing those crossovers be justified as providing capacity for such workings in the future, or possible new workings out of Waterloo by XC etc?

I'm glad you admit you don't understand - most of the trains I mentioned earlier are either non-stop to Clapham Jn or semi fast east of Basingstoke, and that's without the 4 tph on the fasts from the Portsmouth line joining at Woking. The idea that SWT would shove most of their timetable to one side so you can bash an HST is patently ridiculous...

My thoughts came mainly from the age-old sin of "compressing" things down to allow for faster running of all services. That said though, doesn't one of SWT's contingency plans take the form of a timetable that allows standard working with only one road in each direction? I'm sure I remember reading something like that in SWT's E-motion magazine around the time the new revised timetable came in...

Crossovers already exist, but they don't get used in the normal timetable as any crossing move degrades the normal frequency of operation in the Waterloo approach.

I presume using those during service would foul-up both of the fasts and the down local, wouldn't it? That said, how fast could an HST be safely routed over them in passenger service?

Using the Windsor side is not a question of reaching long platforms, it is about reaching a spare long platform. The Portsmouth, and Weymouth services are already using all the long platforms on the main side of the station.

...And shortening SWTs services down to single units (NOT a good idea in anyone's eyes) to free-up platform capacity wouldn't be an option for obvious reasons. It's a pity that Waterloo doesn't have double-deck or any other "spare" long platforms that could be used to increase platform capacity during such circumstances!

That said, what about the Eurostar terminal? I know that one platform there is used for SWT departures along the Windsor line, and I can't imagine that The Railway Children has taken over the entire platform/road space inside the terminal itself!
Add some buffers between the p-way that The Railway Children is using and the rest of the road for the required protection, and I can't see any reason why HSTs couldn't be run into the old Eurostar terminal!

And to cap it all, HSTs are never going to run at speeds above 100 mph, as the SWML is only signalled for that max speed.

...But those signal timings and spacings are only designed for the standard BR braking system. Don't forget that one of the main reasons the HST and APT "broke the ton" was because they were both designed with the capability to stop from 125mph safely - In the same amount of space as an air-braked service at 100mph - Without the signals having to be re-positioned!

I daresay that this fact would apply to HSTs running along the SWML as it does to everywhere else, and therefore I can't see any reason why HSTs couldn't be given 125mph permissions for most of the run between Clapham and Basingstoke!

FGW services are restricted to the slow lines due to a number of bridges that can't take the weight of the HST power cars on the fast lines.

Does that only apply to the section between Clapham and Weybridge, or further afield?

Whilst crossing over/under the line around Farnborough, I've noticed clear evidence that the line was originally only two roads wide in that area, and widened to four at a later date. Many older bridges carrying the line over roads are formed of two differently designed spans placed side-by-side...But surely these would've all been designed to carry the 110T+ weight of a 9F and a full tender, wouldn't they?

 

[louis97]

Does that only apply to the section between Clapham and Weybridge, or further afield?

Whilst crossing over/under the line around Farnborough, I've noticed clear evidence that the line was originally only two roads wide in that area, and widened to four at a later date. Many older bridges carrying the line over roads are formed of two differently designed spans placed side-by-side...But surely these would've all been designed to carry the 110T+ weight of a 9F and a full tender, wouldn't they?

Not to sure tbh, I believe most are between Basingstoke and Woking. I'd imagine the reason why the slow lines can take more weight is because freight (If there ever is any?) would use the slow lines, rather than the fast lines, so these bridges i would imagine would of been strengthened.

 

[thefab444]

Sorry Death, but all your ideas look frankly rubbish to me.

FGW services are restricted to the slow lines due to a number of bridges that can't take the weight of the HST power cars on the fast lines.

Oddly, the fast lines are 90mph for all stock except 100mph is permitted for "trains formed entirely of classes 442, 444, 450, 170 and HST".

 

[The Planner]

Seems a bit odd (To me at least) for FGW to choose that way of working. Aside from a platform reversal theoretically being much quicker and easier to deal with than a cess walk - Plus the fact that the one driver can change ends whilst passengers are boarding/alighting, and platform access to cabs is much safer - FGW are losing out on the extra business that could easily be be gained by a Banbury reversal.

Except, unless its changed from when I last heard, Banbury is a reversal only, not a passenger stop for HSTs so it makes no difference.

 

[swt_passenger]

FGW services are restricted to the slow lines due to a number of bridges that can't take the weight of the HST power cars on the fast lines.

No they aren't - please see below...

Not to sure tbh, I believe most are between Basingstoke and Woking. I'd imagine the reason why the slow lines can take more weight is because freight (If there ever is any?) would use the slow lines, rather than the fast lines, so these bridges i would imagine would of been strengthened.

Between Basingstoke and Byfleet the HST services are timetabled to use the fast lines, thereby avoiding the remaining two weight restrictions that are on the slow lines.

According to Network Rail in the vehicle change report:

"...trains are timetabled over the fast lines where no restriction applies."

 

[turbo mick]

Heads up

Heard today a 4 coach hst special running friday i think

Padd dep via chilton lines to banbury then off to wesbury via melksham and via salsbury up the road to waterloo


cheers

mick

 

[ChampsRacing]

Yeh there is, heard this a few days ago. Due into waterloo roughly around 14.52 on p17 leaves 15.07

 

[SteamontheMet]

Supposed Times for Tomorrow's test run

15/10/10


Headcode 1Z11

Dep Paddington 0803
Pass Ladbroke Grove 0811
Pass Park Royal 0817
...Pass Greenford E Junc 0820
Pass Greenford W Junc 0823
Pass S Ruislip 0840
Pass W Ruislip 0843
Pass Gerrards Cross 0848
Pass High Wycombe 0904
Pass Princes Risborough 0918
Pass Bicester North 0940
Pass Aynho Junc 0948
Arr Banbury 0954

1Z12

Dep Banbury 1000
Pass Aynho Junc 1005
Pass Heyford 1010
Arr Oxford 1020
Dep Oxford 1034
Pass Didcot N Junc 1043
Pass Foxhall Junc 1046
Pass Challow 1054
Arr Swindon 1108
Dep Swindon 1109
Pass Wootten Bassett Junc 1114
Pass Chippenham 1121
Pass Thingley E Junc 1125
Pass Bradford Junc 1134
Arr Westbury 1142

1Z13

Westbury-Waterloo

1Z14

Dep Waterloo 1510
Pass Nine Elms S Junc 1515
Pass W London Junc 1518
Pass Latchmere Junc 1524
Pass Kensington Olympia 1536
Pass Mitre Bridge Junc 1541
Pass Willesden S W Junc 1543
Pass Acton W L S Junc 1545
Pass Acton Main Line 1555
Pass West Ealing 1602
Pass Drayton Green 1605
Pass Greenford S Junc 1611
Pass Greenford E Junc 1612
Pass Park Royal 1620
Pass 00C West 1630
Arr Paddington 1636.

 

[NSEFAN]

Here's the rest:

1Z13
Westbury 12:10
Warminster 12/19
Wilton Junc 12/34
Salisbury 12/37
Tunnel Junction 12/40
Andover 12/52
Worting Junc 13/05
Basingstoke 13:07-13:09
Farnborough 13/20
Woking 13/30
Byfleet & New Haw 13/35
Addlestone Junc 13/37
Virginia Water 13/57
Staines 14/11
Feltham 14/18
Hounslow 14/22
Brentford 14/27
Barnes 14/37
Clapham Junction 14/42
Nine Elms Junc p 14/45
Waterloo 14:53

1Z11, 13 and 14 should be HST, but 1Z12 seems to be DMU 950001

 

[The Planner]

Headcode 1Z11

Dep Paddington 0803
Pass Ladbroke Grove 0811
Pass Park Royal 0817
...Pass Greenford E Junc 0820
Pass Greenford W Junc 0823
Pass S Ruislip 0840
Pass W Ruislip 0843
Pass Gerrards Cross 0848
Pass High Wycombe 0904
Pass Princes Risborough 0918
Pass Bicester North 0940
Pass Aynho Junc 0948
Arr Banbury 0954

Thats a crap path, must be following a Bicester terminator.

 

[fgwrich]

Ah, Although you've said 1Z12 seems to be DMU 950001 - is there any chance it could be 97301 & DBSO? As that's still sat in Basingstoke 'North Yard' ?

Cheers for the timings, looking foward to seeing the HST in Bas!

 

[TEW]

1Z12 will be an HST as well, how else would it get from Banbury-Westbury.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'm only going on what I've read. Don't forget that Oxford isn't far from Banbury, and that Westbury is on the FGW network anyway, so it doesn't have to be the same set throughout.

I think the traction was in question due to the apparent slack in the timings. I suspect its just incase the train gets stuck behind a stopping service somewhere. Hopefully it'll be an HST throughout.

EDIT:
It seems times are now in the system for the Chiltern line services. They start at 0645 ex-PAD, arr OXF 0829, every half hour until 2245, then one more at 2345. London-bound workings are 0815 dep OXF, arr PAD 1007, also half hourly until 2346.

 

[moonrakerz]

Thanks for the info on that special guys - got some nice shots of it coming through Warminster - makes a change from 158s & 159s.
Shame the weather was a bit grey and murky though !

2 + 7, with 43163 leading, didn't see what was on the back.

 

[matt]

Was a HST throughout on all the trips

 

[gwr2006]

Thanks for the info on that special guys - got some nice shots of it coming through Warminster - makes a change from 158s & 159s.
Shame the weather was a bit grey and murky though !

2 + 7, with 43163 leading, didn't see what was on the back.

43183 was the other p/c today.

 

[TheWalrus]

Where will the ones via Salisbury call at?

 

[thefab444]

Already posted on this thread.

 

[Zoe]

Looking at the journey planners it seems there will also be one service each way from Paddington to to Paignton via Banbury.

 

[turbo mick]

Theres a platform starting to be built at theale on the up goods for the terminating services so they can be signalled back towards newbury. Most weekends now Westinghouse are testing the signalling around the reading station and west of reading leaving 2 through platforms.

 

[saracen43]

Looking at the journey planners it seems there will also be one service each way from Paddington to to Paignton via Banbury.

Do you know Which route it will take from banbury to paignton,and will
passengers be able to leave and board the train,or is it set down only.

 

[turbo mick]

only swansea and bristol services 1 tph going via banbury and the chillton lines to padd.

West country services going into waterloo

 

[TEW]

The once daily Paignton service is an extension of a Bristol service. It will call operate via Banbury, Oxford and Bristol Temple Meads. On the 2nd January there is also a London Paddington-Penzance service via this route.

 

[jon0844]

Get a Tassimo machine, install it next to your bed & drink gallons of it, especially the Columbian blend!

You'll be high as a kite on caffeine! hock:

I doubt you'll need the bed then.