It depends on the time over which you are looking, with 2% growth year on year you'd be carrying double the passengers within 35 years.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Salisbury - Exeter punctuality improvements?
- Thread starter pompeyfan
- Start date
It depends on the time over which you are looking, with 2% growth year on year you'd be carrying double the passengers within 35 years.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
BerkshireRails
Member
Would it not be better to use the Network Rail plan for WofE track enhancements such as the Cranbrook loop and Tisbury Loop as your starting point rather than target areas of the route which have a less benfits to reliability of the Line? I know rolling stock is a diffrent question however there needs to be decent size fleet of units to replace 39 strong fleet of the SWR 158s and 159s on WofE and Romsey Rocket. Network Rail WofE plan
One of the things which stood out was:
Which would at least imply that at the time of the report (as it was published in 2020 so I would imagine that a lot of it pre dates COVID) there was a need for extra passenger capacity.
Which may have reduced since this report was being worked on, however does show that we could get to such a situation again.
Noting the issue with capacity at Salisbury to turn trains around, there could be three options.
Turn trains around at (say) Andover. This could mean additional stops easy of Basingstoke to make the service viable, however to keep it attractive it could be a good candidate for running as a battery train (as the round trip is about 63km) which could provide speed and acceleration improvements compared to running as a DMU so (for example) adding an extra stop at a station like Farnborough or Brookwood may not slow the headline journey time to London down.
Look at further infrastructure works at Salisbury to facilitate the reversal.
Look at further infrastructure works to allow a reversal further west than Salisbury.
Kite159
Veteran Member
Still got a fair few passengers who go the whole way to Exeter from Salisbury & before, probably hidden by ticket splitting if they are going beyond Exeter (ie splitting at Axminster).
Barnstaple to London will just be asking for trouble. As is turning trains at Andover from London.
-----
Platform space at Salisbury could be resolved in parts by upgrading the signalling to allow platform 5 to be used by departing trains (useful for GWR services which spin at Salisbury), and maybe even upgrading the reception road/platform 1 to passenger standards
Or, shock horror, break a few artificial regional boundaries that have survived into the TOC era and combine them with the aspirations for a regular Swindon - Salisbury service. Obviously no one is going to do the whole Swindon - London journey that way, but it may solve the problem of how to cope with terminating 2 additional services at Salisbury (and provide something to stop at Wilton)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What are loadings like approaching Honiton from the east or departing to the east? They’ve always seemed respectable when I’ve been there.
devon_belle
Member
I have only anecdata, but I agree. I feel many people from Exeter are going to Salisbury to change for Portsmouth, Brighton, and other places in the Network Railcard area, rather than up to London. It probably doesn't measure up with Honiton etc to Exeter in numbers, but the tickets are much more expensive. My memory is hazy, but the Saturday Exeter-Brighton trains used to be a quite busy 2-car train on that end of the line? That would be more than 15 years ago too.
I'm more trying to say that running a second commuter service beyond Honiton, is unlikely to be particularly full. While trains are well loaded at Honiton, most passengers are travelling longer distances, to Yeovil, Salisbury and London.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 25
At some point, the 159's and 158's are going to need to be changed, now, longer term, the best option has to be to electrify the route and have dual voltage units, that can operate on both 3rd rail, and overhead, this would also increase the operational flexibility of stock, Longer term, the 444, will also need to be uprated, These are a stock Siemens design, that run on OH, in Europe, So could these be reworked to run on OH,? It would mean that services where there is over loading, could run as either 5, or 10 CARS, and then the class could be cascaded onto the West of england services, short term, could voyagers be a temporarily solution, as a stop gap if Electrification can't be justified
devon_belle
Member
Ah, I see now. I would say I agree, except to extend that to Axminster. I think 2 tph Yeovil to London (one from Exeter) and 1-2 tph Exeter to Axminster (GWR) would serve the line well for a good few years to come.
If you're going to run a second train to Yeovil and a second train from Axminster, you might as well just have 2tph to London from Exeter, much more useful. The good thing about running from Honiton is you only need one unit. It's an effective doubling of costs to run from Axminster.
That depends on what happens at the other end. Axminster to Okehampton or similar would just create an increased risk of delay if it went to London, but if it is just to Exeter then I agree, might as well just do 2tph Exeter to London.
Ah right, that makes it a lot clearer and I’d tend to agree (though what a second one to Axminster would do for the figures over the long term would be interesting).
It's probably technically possible, but would be expensive and would just move the problem since the 444s aren't sitting idle at the moment. It'd mean new trains for Weymouth, in which case you might as well buy new for Exeter and afford a costly and complicated retrofit.
devon_belle
Member
Long term, I'd like to see Barnstaple, Okehampton and Taunton trains run through to Axminster. I think this would need interventions at Exeter Central to avoid sending trains up the bank while the platform is occupied (which isn't allowed). Something like re-instating the up through line with scissors, or even building a platform adjacent to that to provide 5 through lines. I think its an internal GWR ambition to do something like that, but there aren't any official plans AFAIK. Given the desire to provide 2 tph to Barnstaple, for the sake of resilience (I remember the original topic, I promise!) doubling throughout to Axminster would probably be needed. In that case, one could argue whether the money would be better spent doubling the Exmouth branch...
But back to reality, I think the Devon Metro plan is (rightly) to run trains from Barnstaple–Axminster? I guess that is only 1 tph – I wonder how the second tph that is desired would fit in. I can't remember if Taunton-Wellington-Cullompton-etc trains were ever touted to go to Axminster, or if that was just a crayonism on this forum. I guess that to commit to anything beyond 1 tph to Axminster would mean committing to funding some major enhancements to the single line section. I struggle to see how a resilient London service, which we do not have at present, can be provided as well as extra stopping trains without doubling nearly all of that section, as well as the various enhancements around Yeovil, Templecombe, and Tisbury mentioned upthread.
But back to reality, I think the Devon Metro plan is (rightly) to run trains from Barnstaple–Axminster? I guess that is only 1 tph – I wonder how the second tph that is desired would fit in. I can't remember if Taunton-Wellington-Cullompton-etc trains were ever touted to go to Axminster, or if that was just a crayonism on this forum. I guess that to commit to anything beyond 1 tph to Axminster would mean committing to funding some major enhancements to the single line section. I struggle to see how a resilient London service, which we do not have at present, can be provided as well as extra stopping trains without doubling nearly all of that section, as well as the various enhancements around Yeovil, Templecombe, and Tisbury mentioned upthread.
BerkshireRails
Member
I would be tempted to say they could make use of the 37-strong fleet of 350/2s and modify them for WofE services or order new units like the Desrio Verve. There should be no reason why WofE can't support 23m long vehicles, as the existing services are operated by 23m long vehicles, which means a 10x23m car train will have a similar length to a 12x20m car train. Voyagers aren't really a good option for WofE due to their low capacity; for example, a three-coach 159 South Western Turbo and a four-coach 220 Voyager have only a 5-seat difference between the two, despite the 220 being 23+ metres longer. The Voyager has 174 seats and the South Western Turbo has 169 seats.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Those services to Andover could be extensions of the Basingstoke stoppers, which are 2Ls, and the existing WofE services are 1Ls, using either OLE between Basingstoke and Salisbury as part of an AC route from GWML to Southampton, or modifying the 350/2s and 450s for battery traction. Also, another advantage is that the 350s & 450s are able to take advantage of the SWML 100mph limit between Worting Junction and Byfleet & New Haw. Eversholt says the 158/159s can do 0.8ms-2, and a 450 does 1ms-2. A 450 will be able to maintain the higher acceleration rate for longer due to being an electric drive rather than a Hydraulic drive on the 158s and 159s.
Last edited:
I'd be tempted to order a FLIRT fleet for SWR and GWR. The WofE line is one of the worst candidates for batteries, given the distance from Basingstoke to Exeter. Secondly the SWR diesel fleet is pretty small and a single fleet for regional and local services in the west is a good idea. The size of the order would also ameliorate one of the primary issues with flirts(and other low floor units), which is the need for depot rebuilds.
6 car FLIRTs could work for Portsmouth-Cardiff and WofE, while 3 and 4 car units could work the regional services.
Secondly GWR can't order Civities if they want to replace their 150s, since some branch lines require 20M units. Though the 230s give some flexibility in that respect, but it's not a particularly good long-term solution.
I've long thought that 25kV from Reading to Southampton via Andover is the answer for electric freight, and once you've got that far it's not such a daunting gap for batteries. Electrify from there to Gillingham and from Exeter to Honiton and that's probably a sensible gap to deal with on battery. If Basingstoke to Salisbury remains unelectrified, then Salisbury to Yeovil and a bit at the Exeter end would probably be sufficient. The Exeter end helping with the GWR services around there, too.
BerkshireRails
Member
I am not so sure the FLIRTs are best suited to GWR and SWR because there are only 15.7m vehicles for all of the diesel units. Also, the Jacobs bogie makes it harder to split the vehicles. For example, if they need to go by Road, which is not too common, it is still routine. A 6-car FLIRT might be unable to fit into the bays at stations like Salisbury or Southampton Central, which could prevent use on the Romsey Rocket, which would leave 158s and 159s with SWR.
GWR is looking at the 230s for the lines which can't take 23m long vehicles and lines which can't take more than around 56m long units due to short platforms at a terminus station, in as well as that some lines which GWR operate over are RA3 which rules out FLIRTs, due them being RA4-6.
Flirts do fine on the Sudbury branch with short terminal platforms, alongside the fact they are able to have sprinter differentials in the Fens, which have much worse ground conditions than any route in the West. I accept there may need to be limited track upgrades on certain routes, but it's not a dealbreaker and the 230s will likely be a nightmare long term based on previous experience.
BerkshireRails
Member
The main issue with the 230s is the diesel engines, which aren't an issue with the GWR Battery units. Sunbury Branch is easy as it has no points used in regular service apart from at Marks Tay to link it to the GEML; however, on Western, there are a few branches which have to change direction to continue the service by moving points at one end of the station and a buffer stop is at the other end of the station so you can't overhang the station and use ASDO which you can do on the Sunbury Line. The Fenn's have a higher RA.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,509
The other issue is that, while SWR could potentially afford FLIRTS to cascade off the 158s/159s, I can't see GWR being permitted to go for a large order of FLIRTS as a uniform regional fleet.
They are quite expensive and the likes of CRRC are rumoured to be bidding for that round of unit procurement, so a Stadler bid may not be competitive with lower cost manufacturers from the Far East.
That’s assuming that ordering Chinese is politically acceptable. Not too sure it would be -especially if it meant one or more UK factories “going without”.
BerkshireRails
Member
Other lines with issues on GWR are the Windsor Branch, which is limited to RA3, the Looe branch line, and its 20 metres for multiple units; single car units are permitted to be 23 metres long. Cornwall can't take long and wide units like the Networkers; however, short and wide units like the 150s and long and thin units like the IETs can fit.
Flirts wouldn't be built here either though, so not much advantage there
Sir Felix Pole
Established Member
The Gunnislake branch can't take 23m coupled units either, due to the curve at Calstock station.
I can't see CRRC participating in the UK train market, given the costs of designing and building a UK spec train alongside the political considerations. Stadler trains can be surprisingly cheap, especially once the initial "UK premium" for the first order in the UK market is overcome.
There's a reason they are so popular in Central and Eastern Europe. The main additional cost of low floor trains is depot retrofitting. The main thing that goes against Stadler is the lack of final assembly in the UK, however they use a substantial number of UK parts, and are the only train manufacturer currently used in the UK that is currently producing self powered trains with vehicle lengths of 20M or less, which is important for GWR.
755s are RA4, and it's not like it would be impossible to increase RA3 lines to RA4, though maintenance costs would increase slightly. Lines are often only maintained to the RA necessary for normal operation.
BerkshireRails
Member
Siemens is also doing shorter vehicle lengths for some units in the UK. A 20M standard coach will have a wheelbase/bogie centre longer than a 20M Jacobs Bogie coach. A 150 has a wheelbase/bogie centre of 14.17m, which is even shorter than the length of a standard 755 coach, so there is no chance of that having a smaller wheelbase/bogie centre than the 150. A 755 would have wheelbase/bogie centre closer to those of the 158s, which are 16m, so a FLIRT might also not be permitted on the Gunnislake and Looe Branches.
The RA3 limit is down to the Bridges on approach to Windsor, which can't be raised to RA4 without complete replacement.
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,509
Although political considerations usually fall apart if a bid is cheap enough and fulfills the contractual requirements, the supply of trains is a lot less controversial than e.g. internet infrastructure or something that may be crucial to the Armed Forces in wartime.
I'm surprised Bombardier/Alstom aren't producing max. 20m carriage length multiple units, or that CAF don't have an option. Perhaps they could if it was a priority.
I agree that line availability isn't a major barrier, whichever unit is chosen.
Perhaps. An order may be directed to Bombardier/Alstom, to prop up the factory in Derby, but I'm not sure they have any experience in building bimodes, which is a pretty crucial part of the GWR/Northern future rolling stock strategy.
BerkshireRails
Member
Alstom does do 20m carriage lengths, with the 701 Aventra being an example.
Line availability is quite important as it is one of the key limits on your rolling stock, just like the Loading Gauge. Unless you plan to upgrade RA and know it will work, you shouldn't be buying units with a higher RA than the Line, because you might find out your Line cannot be upgraded to support the higher RA units you have ordered.
Alstom have said they will do a bi-mode Aventra.