swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,369
You cannot easily raise line speeds south of Basingstoke with all that freight about.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Electric Spine
- Thread starter bnsf734
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Given the capacity problems on the SWML and that Waterloo has 90 million (and growing) passangers passing through it each year a lot of money would be be required, so it is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
To begin with Crossrail 2, more/longer quad track sections south of Basigstoke and improved capacity between Crossrail 2 & Woking, to name a few which would be required before line speeds of greater that 110mph
Kneedown
Established Member
Seeing as a 159 is to all intents and purposes a 158 i can't see how cascading them to Liverpool-Norwich would be in any way beneficial. It'd just be like for like.
If only there was a rail line that connected Southampton to Oxford, perhaps say, via Newbury and Didcot
I guess the only advantage is that they're all 3-car units and would also introduce first class onto the route. But I agree otherwise it does seem a bit pointless.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,369
I took his idea to mean that they would run WITH the existing EMT fleet if it wasn't replaced. Not as replacements, but as a significant capacity increase.
Running anything up to 10 car trains like SWT do would be a massive improvement on that route wouldn't it?
Ahh gotcha. Whilst it would be I'm not sure how many platforms could take more than the 4-car that most services are now (though only west of Nottingham as east of there they're still 2-car).
Kneedown
Established Member
5 car max for many of the platforms enroute tho, and most trains are four car nowadays, on paper anyway!
By the time the 159's become available they, along with 158's will be nearing retirement and along with the forthcoming improvements to the Hope Valley route i would have thought something with a bit more oomph would be required.
Just had my first look at a decent map of the proposals (this month's Railway Magazine Page 7). Other than the West Riding gap, Nuneaton-Leicester and Tamworth-Derby stick out a lot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely, adding 50% to the capacity is better than nothing, but I thought the internal facilities were better with 159s. They certainly have 200 evtra horsepower per vehicle, which would be useful.
However, I'd prefer them to go to FGW for the Alphaline routes. More SP-limited routes there and better prospects for a 158 cascade within FGW, provided there are no gauging issues on the Heart of Wessex.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely, adding 50% to the capacity is better than nothing, but I thought the internal facilities were better with 159s. They certainly have 200 evtra horsepower per vehicle, which would be useful.
However, I'd prefer them to go to FGW for the Alphaline routes. More SP-limited routes there and better prospects for a 158 cascade within FGW, provided there are no gauging issues on the Heart of Wessex.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
If only there was a rail line that connected Southampton to Oxford, perhaps say, via Newbury and Didcot
Yes - and the trace is still visible on the west side of the line just north of Winchester if you know where to look ( much easier in winter with no foilage in the way! ). The only problem is you'd still need to four track below Winchester as the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton joined the LSWR route just below Winchester ( roughly where the M3 bridge now is ).
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,923
No chance of bringing that one back, the A34 was built on a lot of it in the 70s and most recently the Newbury bypass sat on another large chunk.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
The GW ITT has this paragraph:
The three new north side platforms and the new dive under at Reading station will be equipped with steel sleepers to facilitate third rail electrification.
Does this mean 3rd rail installation inhibits the kind of track formation you can use?
Or is it just for clearance reasons, perhaps?
Just trying to understand if raising speed limits west of Basingstoke is a small job they could do during wiring, or a big one with a lot of relaying/resignalling.
The three new north side platforms and the new dive under at Reading station will be equipped with steel sleepers to facilitate third rail electrification.
Does this mean 3rd rail installation inhibits the kind of track formation you can use?
Or is it just for clearance reasons, perhaps?
Just trying to understand if raising speed limits west of Basingstoke is a small job they could do during wiring, or a big one with a lot of relaying/resignalling.
It would be more likley to set the diversion via Salisbury & Westbury as that would then miss Basingstoke & Reading would add maybe about 50% to the distance of the direct route.
This route is already part planned to be OHLE from Chippenham to Didcot and there are regular passanger services over the rest of the route, which would mean that services like Portsmouth-Cardiff could be EMU freeing up the DMU's which currently run this route.
This route is already part planned to be OHLE from Chippenham to Didcot and there are regular passanger services over the rest of the route, which would mean that services like Portsmouth-Cardiff could be EMU freeing up the DMU's which currently run this route.
With new powerful 25kV electric locos for freight haulage, much better acceleration and hill climbing should be the result. That could create some capacity for some modest passenger speed improvement, as the freights would be able to get out of the way more quickly.
Can they not create some long sections of quad/freight lay-bys to allow passenger trains to overtake?
In terms of Reading 3rd rail on the northern platforms - I thought that a long standing plan was for Airtrack to possibly use these to head to Oxford. The North Downs trains are diesel, and the SWT trains from Waterloo would never be extended, surely?
I guess it gives flexibility - or possibly the SWT trains might terminate on the norther platforms, and the new WRATH trains if not through running, might terminate on the old SWT platforms, if coming from the fast lines.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,369
They could, but there's also 4 quite significant tunnels - and anyway there's some quite significant lengths of four track already that allow some looping of trains, eg between Basingstoke and Worting Jn, at Waller's Ash, and from Shawford to Eastleigh.
No official plans to extend Airtrack past Reading that I ever saw. Don't forget that when Airtrack was at the stage its TWA order was being drafted, electrification beyond Reading was not on the radar. Maybe it is just to allow dual voltage units (eg the intended 319s) to use the underpass to reach the Southern for diversionary purposes.
No point whatsoever in doing that. Only by building massive amounts of extra infrastructure can you connect the 'Southern' platforms to the main line - there is no route possible at the moment, and a major height difference immediately outside the station. Then you'd effectively have three sidings off the down main - that would lead to the type of major pathing conflicts for departing eastbound trains that they have attempted to remove with the new layout - unless you built yet another flyover. That's assuming the WRaTH services were running on the fast lines as well - what if they run on the reliefs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think it is far more likely to be a DfT typo of some sort.
Anyone can see that the only difference between the sleepers used in the third rail area and those used everywhere else is that the former have inserts to take the third rail insulators.
Perhaps they mean steel inserts in the sleepers? :roll:
Last edited:
TheGrew
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 334
If I was going to divert freight to free up capacity on the section from Southampton to Basingstoke via Winchester (though with the 4 tracking between Eastleigh & Shawford and the passing loop between Winchester & Micheldever I doubt it would be needed).
I would be more tempted to do gauge clearance and electrification works on the line between Southampton and Salisbury via Romsey then from Salisbury onto Basingstoke as I imagine those lines are quieter.
I would be more tempted to do gauge clearance and electrification works on the line between Southampton and Salisbury via Romsey then from Salisbury onto Basingstoke as I imagine those lines are quieter.
PhilipW
Member
There is, in effect, already a 4-track freight route from Basingstoke to Southampton now that the route via Salisbury has been converted to W10 gauge for freight.
It is called a "diversionary" route but, because of the limited number of freight paths through Eastleigh, I suspect it will become more of an "alternative" route.
If there is a real push to get freight electrically hauled then once the Basingstoke to Southampton route is converted to 25Kv, I suspect that as night-follows-day the Salisbury route will also be electrified probably immediately afterwards by the same team moving onto it.
For those not familar with the area, the 2 miles west of Southampton Central covering the 4-track layout and many points will get electrified as part of the main push to get access to the docks. This takes the OHLE up very close to Redbridge station. From Redbridge to Worting Junction via Salisbury is just simple 2-track all the way. With the bridges already adjusted, it should be a simple piece of electrification and could follow on just months after the main Eastleigh route. Limited benefit initially for passengers but a big piece of the master jigsaw for freight.
It is called a "diversionary" route but, because of the limited number of freight paths through Eastleigh, I suspect it will become more of an "alternative" route.
If there is a real push to get freight electrically hauled then once the Basingstoke to Southampton route is converted to 25Kv, I suspect that as night-follows-day the Salisbury route will also be electrified probably immediately afterwards by the same team moving onto it.
For those not familar with the area, the 2 miles west of Southampton Central covering the 4-track layout and many points will get electrified as part of the main push to get access to the docks. This takes the OHLE up very close to Redbridge station. From Redbridge to Worting Junction via Salisbury is just simple 2-track all the way. With the bridges already adjusted, it should be a simple piece of electrification and could follow on just months after the main Eastleigh route. Limited benefit initially for passengers but a big piece of the master jigsaw for freight.
Kneedown
Established Member
But a 3 car 159 would result in 25% LESS capacity than the 2x158's currently used on the majority of services. As i pointed out earlier, doubling up the 159's is impractical as things stand due to platform lengths at some stations.
I was also under the impression that 159's use the same 350/400hp Cummins engines as our current 158's (unless i'm mistaken???) so there's no extra ponies available.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,369
It has not been converted. It is being converted, not due to be finished until June 2013.
No need to suspect that, it is definitely going to be used for normal timetabled freight services, as and when their frequeny increases. It is already described that way in the relevant RUSs, most recently in the London and SE RUS 'South Hants' section.
Kneedown
Established Member
The maximum permissible speed is indeed 70mph from North Staff's Jct (Derby's) to Stoke Jct, but the 153's currently employed on the service can barely get to that speed before they have to slow again. 50mph at full whack from Uttoxeter to Blythe Bridge is normal. An EMU would breeze it so there would be a reasonable improvement in timings.
Kneedown
Established Member
I didn't notice any mention of this in the thread so apologies if this is repetition, but it seems to me that with the MML being wired, along with the new Bedford - Oxford link and Southampton, isn't there potential for new services from Sheffield, Notts, etc, to Southampton, avoiding the need to go via London or Brum?
I appreciate it's being done with more freight in mind, but it'd be a shame not to make maximum use of the infrastructure.
I appreciate it's being done with more freight in mind, but it'd be a shame not to make maximum use of the infrastructure.
PhilipW
Member
OK, you got me there. Just a bit of shorthand expression as I was aware that it was not completed yet. I did not know that its completion was not until next year. All the bridges seem to be done as far as I can see, so it looks in an advanced state.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,369
It's probably been discussed before under various 'East West rail' (EWR) topics, as diverting XC services was claimed as an advantage for the route in the EWR project reports. I think the basic problem is that they'd have to be additional services rather than re-routings, because if you think of diverting North East to South Coast XC, or Manchester to South Coast XC, you actually remove a massive chunk of their existing flows to/from New St and Coventry.
Probably some benefit providing some fairly short additional platform loops or slow line extensions at the more minor intermediate stations e.g. Shawford, Micheldever, St. Denys to allow more flexibility for fasts to overtake stoppers.
Steel sleepers are very popular at the moment, because they are cheap, relatively lightweight and anchor themselves well into the ballast. With the trend towards axle counter train detection rather than track circuits, the insulation concerns are becoming less of an issue. However they were not permitted for many years on 3rd rail D.C. infrastructure due to concerns about return current paths under certain failure conditions. I understand there have now been efforts to develop specific steel sleeper products and installation measures WITH approval for DC use, so perhaps the statement should read that despite use of steel sleepers they would be specified such that 3rd rail could be extended to that part of the station in the future without having to replace the track components.
Last edited:
I was hoping that doubled-up 159s would be possible. I also missed the fact that EMT have any of the uprated sets. All the original 159s are uprated, the new ones have not been, but that's supposed to happen IIRC.Yes, that comes up a lot. If you allow for extra seats on the current services, that's not much of a loss in capacity, but it is a loss in frequency. I'd still like to see it happen, it might be possible to save 30 minutes by doing so, more if you allow for 125 running on the MML. NE-SC would be the ideal service to divert, unless we allow for an additional Nottingham-SC route, possibly to Brighton via Heathrow (as in the Heathrow Western Access thread). Don't some of the NE-SC trains sit around for a long time at New Street when reversing?
Mystic Force
Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2009
- Messages
- 105
Replacing a double 158 with a combined 158-159 would give increased capacity would fit inside the 5 coach limit and allow for more frequent trains.
Trog
Established Member
Steel sleepers are in fact more expensive than concrete.
However the fact that they have virtually no thickness, means they can sit on top of what was the crib ballast of the removed track. This means that if the ballast of the track being relayed was half way decent, ie no wetbeds or formation problems. You can avoid the cost of reballasting, by just scarrifying the old ballast making a saving in the overall cost of the relaying item.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am glad you have told me that as I have believed for years that the standard sleepers used with DC electrification were the third rail versions of the EF28/5EF28, EG49 and EG47. While non third rail areas used the F27, F40/5F40 then G44 as standard, only using the shallow depth EF29 and EG47 in places like bridge decks where the ballast depth was a bit lacking. The last full depth sleeper with drillings for third rail which could have been used universally was the F24 family of sleepers, and I think the last of them went in track in 1996.
TheGrew
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 334
I think the only one of those possibilities where there would be space to build loops or extensions would be Micheldever if you rebuilt the station and took out the island platform.
- Status