Calls for trains from Reading to London Waterloo via Earley, Wokingham and Bracknell to be made faster

[Doctor Fegg]

I fortunately kept out of their way - didnt realise that was their objective too.

Yep, where the "I" is "Worcestershire County Council" and the "my local station" is the stations in Worcester...

 

[cle]

Also depends on where you're going in London. Not every workplace is located in the square mile. If you're heading for parts of South or West London, then Waterloo or interchange at Richmond or Clapham Junction might be more convenient even from Reading, or could avoid a disliked tube Transfer for some customers. Elizabeth line changes the landscape no doubt.

That's why it's so useful. Especially now with Vauxhall, which gets you to so many places so quickly. But also Clapham (for Victoria itself, many jobs) and Richmond for the NLL and West London (Chiswick Park for one)

I do recall that a 4tph to Windsor was planned, likely as an evolution to the 4tph Reading plan, which increased frequency but placated level crossing nimbies. Perhaps it could allow Twickenham and Feltham to be dropped from Readings. Doesn't too tons for the outer plans. Maybe a 1tph faster service could also work, running via Hounslow if needs be - which skipped lesser stops on the western end. But it's generally not a fast route with much possibility.

 

[Goldfish62]

Surely stops would be trimmed at the other end of it. Twickenham and Feltham could go of course, but these are very well used stations. As is Vauxhall, which has been on/off over the years. Churn is also high, as is counter-peak and off peak use.

A Waterloo - Clapham - Richmond - Staines - (Ascot) - Bracknell - Wokingham...(Earley) pattern would be a reasonable saving. If pathable. But would it be full?

When I first moved to the area in the early 90s there was an hourly off peak service:

Waterloo - Clapham - Richmond - (Staines added later) - Ascot then all stations. This was part of a 3tph service pattern on the Reading line and only lasted a few short years.

Now there's no longer the off peak clockwise Hounslow loop service to get in the way I'd have thought it would be simple pathing this nowadays.

However, with the increase in housing along the route and generally increased usage it's difficult to see how that service pattern could be justified nowadays.

The current timetable is very generous with trains often arriving at Waterloo five minutes "early", and that's with 450s and their very slow dwell times. With the increased performance of the 701s (at some stage in the future!) and some trimming of generous performance allowances a few minutes could surely be trimmed while retaining the same level of service at all stations.

 

[Bald Rick]

The current timetable is very generous with trains often arriving at Waterloo five minutes "early", and that's with 450s and their very slow dwell times. With the increased performance of the 701s (at some stage in the future!) and some trimming of generous performance allowances a few minutes could surely be trimmed while retaining the same level of service at all stations.

If everything else fits with it, then possibly. But a timetable recast such as this is a non trivial exercise.

 

[Goldfish62]

If everything else fits with it, then possibly. But a timetable recast such as this is a non trivial exercise.

The timetable hasn't had a full recast since 2004!

The service was going to be completely recast in December (now postponed), so much of the groundwork is done.

The consultation stated that timings would be expected to be sped up with the 701s.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

If everything else fits with it, then possibly. But a timetable recast such as this is a non trivial exercise

Quite so. For anyone who has been involved in timetabling of the Windsor side, without wishing to sound negative, it could prove extremely frustrating. If all conflicting moves work peachy across Barnes (Junction), there's a fair bet something will come adrift across Feltham Jn or Whitton Jn. The major bug bear by a long way though was Barnes through to Twickers, being a 2 track railway. I can say for sure that with any timetable, such as that pre covid, trying to slot additional moves through that area was a 'mare, not to mention the various level crossings that were a major source of public complaints (ie. barriers down across the roads for too long). When all said and done, compromise was the order of the day - there'll always be winners and losers. No idea how the service down that way looks today, so can't comment on the present..

 

[Bald Rick]

The service was going to be completely recast in December (now postponed), so much of the groundwork is done.

I admire your confidence!

not to mention the various level crossings that were a major source of public complaints (ie. barriers down across the roads for too long)

Indeed. I particularly enjoyed tasking to the leader of the London Borough of Richmond, when he asked what was being done about the LX down times. Nothing, of course. “Well you need to do something. What is the solution?”
Oh the solution is easy. We’d need to knock down about a hundred properties in your borough though…

 

[Tangent]

However, none of these really make a massive difference and for every fast train, a semi-fast / stopper would still need to run so capacity at Waterloo is an issue.

I have sometimes wondered whether you could remedy this by getting some services to run on the Ludgate Lines, via Pouparts & Stewarts Lane, into the Chatham side at Victoria.

 

[Goldfish62]

I admire your confidence!

I know you are privy to a lot of inside information, but are you actually saying that the post-Covid railway is in such a state that future recasts are out of the question?

 

[Snow1964]

Quite so. For anyone who has been involved in timetabling of the Windsor side, without wishing to sound negative, it could prove extremely frustrating. If all conflicting moves work peachy across Barnes (Junction), there's a fair bet something will come adrift across Feltham Jn or Whitton Jn. The major bug bear by a long way though was Barnes through to Twickers, being a 2 track railway. I can say for sure that with any timetable, such as that pre covid, trying to slot additional moves through that area was a 'mare, not to mention the various level crossings that were a major source of public complaints (ie. barriers down across the roads for too long). When all said and done, compromise was the order of the day - there'll always be winners and losers. No idea how the service down that way looks today, so can't comment on the present..

Actually Twickenham station was rebuilt on the other side of the road bridge in 1950s and it could easily have the fast trains on separate tracks, (1 loop and the Rugby bay are disused, but not demolished) with cross platform interchange fast/slow with the outside tracks leading to the Kingston loop, and the middle fast tracks merging into a reversible fast through the 3 platform St Margaret’s.

So wrong to say it is 2 track from Barnes, as it is 3 track from London side of St Margaret’s, and could easily be 4 non conflicting tracks for a mile either side of Twickenham, (slow, fast, fast, slow) And as fast trains don’t call at St Margaret’s if full segregation were to happen could timetable the fast-slow much more easily.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

post-Covid railway is in such a state that future recasts are out of the question

If I may just add (from past experience) of such timetabling conundrums: there's always room for a recast, but if one takes a (standard) one hour slot in any given SX day, which would be the starting point as a rule, when optimum connections are taken in to account, in this case at Twickers, Staines, Virginia Water, Weybridge etc, and conflicts (freights at Kew), North Downs (Wokingham) etc, but also such things as turn rounds at Windsor which for reasons I am not going to mention here were a very real point of contention (which I understood the route cause of) in some quarters some years ago, level crossing barrier down time as mentioned, all these things have an impact on the timetable plan.
It was often found, as a result of such 'detail', that which ever way the plan was re-thought/re worked, the end result would often come back to the same basic plan. I think Bald Rick may understand what I am trying to say here?

As you rightly point out, we are now post covid and in a different world to a degree, BUT, if loadings get back to anything like they were pre covid, then I suspect the very same basic timetabling problems will raise their heads again..... simply because of infrastructure restraints..

 

[Bread & cheese]

Wokingham Borough Council have issued a press release about the campaign to speed up trains to Waterloo:
https://news.wokingham.gov.uk/news/campaign-speed-up-trains-gathering-steam/

This contains a number of inaccurate statements.
Quote 1:
The 36-mile journey takes an hour and 17 minutes but the council says South Western Railway, the operator, could reduce this to just 59 minutes by introducing “fast” trains that don’t stop at stations between Twickenham and the capital

In fact Wokingham to Waterloo (36¾ miles) takes 1 hour 8 minutes (usual offpeak time).
Journeys from Earley to Waterloo take 1 hour 17 minutes, but this is a longer distance (40½ miles). (Distances from National Rail Timetable.)

Quote 2:
A fast train from Earley took 49 minutes in 1975

This seems most unlikely. I know for a fact that the fastest train from Earley to Waterloo in 1980 was scheduled to take 58 minutes.
(This was the 0728, calling at Winnersh, Wokingham (depart 0735), Bracknell, Ascot, Sunningdale, and Staines, scheduled to arrive at 0826. Normally formed of two 4-CIG units with 2+2 seating. I have highlighted the word scheduled because it was seldom precisely on time. It was usually slightly late, a matter of about 3 minutes, but about once a fortnight was significantly late, up to about 20 minutes. The schedules can be seen in the ABC Rail Guide for 1981 and the BR timetable for 1982 on the Timetable World website.)
It seems as if someone is again confusing journeys from Earley and journeys from Wokingham: the fastest train from Wokingham in 1980 was scheduled to take 51 minutes.

There may be other inaccuracies, but I haven't had time to check.

Aside from the inaccuracies, it seems as if there are people in Wokingham who are unaware of the popularity of Richmond and Clapham Junction, both as destinations in their own right, and as interchanges.

 

[Goldfish62]

If I may just add (from past experience) of such timetabling conundrums: there's always room for a recast, but if one takes a (standard) one hour slot in any given SX day, which would be the starting point as a rule, when optimum connections are taken in to account, in this case at Twickers, Staines, Virginia Water, Weybridge etc, and conflicts (freights at Kew), North Downs (Wokingham) etc, but also such things as turn rounds at Windsor which for reasons I am not going to mention here were a very real point of contention (which I understood the route cause of) in some quarters some years ago, level crossing barrier down time as mentioned, all these things have an impact on the timetable plan.
It was often found, as a result of such 'detail', that which ever way the plan was re-thought/re worked, the end result would often come back to the same basic plan. I think Bald Rick may understand what I am trying to say here?

As you rightly point out, we are now post covid and in a different world to a degree, BUT, if loadings get back to anything like they were pre covid, then I suspect the very same basic timetabling problems will raise their heads again..... simply because of infrastructure restraints..

I think my comments are being taken out of context. Notwithstanding the fact that are now fewer services running than pre-Covid and I see no prospect of those service levels ever returning I wasn't suggesting additional services being added nor was I suggesting revised stopping patterns.

What I was suggesting was that sectional running times could be revised and in some cases cut as a way to reduce journey times by a few minutes. Now, if that is still in the too difficult category then I really do wonder about the state of the railway.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Actually Twickenham station was rebuilt on the other side of the road bridge in 1950s

I am extremely familiar with Twickenham station, both personally and professionally, including it's history (may be that's saying too much) but the crux of my point was that the two track railway twix Barnes and (St. Margarets) was and is the critical part of the route that will drive a major part of any timetable plan applicable thereto. The distance (clear of) between St Margarets and Twickers is only one signal section, less than half a mile (36 chains). None of the present three platforms, 3, 4 or 5, is disused, as far as I know (as said I am not aware of the present timetable situation). In essence the short distances involved, which would not give any real gains to any 'fast' services, against the huge cost of any new track layout and resignalling needed, would likely never be sanctioned......

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Years ago, Twickenham was missed out in the peak but you lose the connection to Kingston, not that the timings currently work well. You really can't win with missing out stops from a connectional point of view. As for all stations from Feltham, Ashford is missed out on most Reading services.

To be fair you could change onto the same Kingston services at Richmond. I do not think fast Reading trains particularly need to call at Egham. What I don't agree with is the posts suggesting that should 4tph be reintroduced, Ascot and Virginia Water should be skipped. Both are principal stations on route.

2tph. London Waterloo, Richmond, Staines, Virginia Water, Ascot, Bracknell, Wokingham, Reading

2tph. London Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Longcross (1tph), Sunningdale, Ascot, Martins Heron, Bracknell, Wokingham, Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle, Earley, Reading

is probably how I'd do it, were paths not an issue. Though I don't doubt Sunningdale would benefit from the additional calls either.

 

[Goldfish62]

To be fair you could change onto the same Kingston services at Richmond. I do not think fast Reading trains particularly need to call at Egham. What I don't agree with is the posts suggesting that should 4tph be reintroduced, Ascot and Virginia Water should be skipped. Both are principal stations on route.

2tph. London Waterloo, Richmond, Staines, Virginia Water, Ascot, Bracknell, Wokingham, Reading

2tph. London Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Twickenham, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Virginia Water, Longcross (1tph), Sunningdale, Ascot, Martins Heron, Bracknell, Wokingham, Winnersh, Winnersh Triangle, Earley, Reading

is probably how I'd do it, were paths not an issue. Though I don't doubt Sunningdale would benefit from the additional calls either.

If you add in Sunningdale do you then also add in Martin's Heron, which is isn't much less busy. Then you'd have to add in Egham because it's far busier than both those stations.

Everyone along the route moans about how slow the trains are, but if you start depriving some stations of a faster service you're going to get as many moans.

Apart from revision of the sectional running times with the 701s as I've mentioned I really think the only scope is 1tph Longcross and fast between Wokingham and Reading as the pre-Covid peak extras always have done.

Other than that, forget it! It's a densely populated route with high turnover of passengers at most stations.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

What I was suggesting was that sectional running times could be revised and in some cases cut as a way to reduce journey times by a few minutes.

I do apologise, I didn't mean to come across in any negative way. More a case of me just trying to explain the difficulties that (in my time) often came to the fore. I am not always very good at explaining things (in writing!). I only speak from past experience, so can only judge the situation by same.
If the industry foresees that the old level of commuting will never return, then it may well be the case that what was once seen as essential extra pathing time (Junction margin conflicts etc) along any given route, could well be dispensed with in a future timetable, and thus gain a few minutes here and there. Until that sort of detail is worked out (and may be it has provisionally?) it won't become clear if in any given one hour slot, there proves to be scope to run any services on a 'faster' (fewer stops OR just speeded up) basis. That said (personally) I would be wary of taking stops (per hour) out of any line of route service, unless it could be proven that patronage at any such station involved would not be inconvenienced.

 

[JonathanH]

I do not think fast Reading trains particularly need to call at Egham. What I don't agree with is the posts suggesting that should 4tph be reintroduced, Ascot and Virginia Water should be

There is your problem. Virginia Water is a more important interchange, Egham has higher footfall. Different people have different perceptions of which are the important stations. As it happens, the pre-2004 timetable used to have all sorts of odd skip stop patterns in the peak between Staines and Ascot but they all basically took the same amount of time.

The 2004 timetable effectively standardised the calling patterns although the 0712 from Reading missed out Virginia Water to save a minute or two, meaning it slotted through a slightly different path at Richmond but the time saving was fairly marginal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[WAO]

I am extremely familiar with Twickenham station........None of the present three platforms, 3, 4 or 5, is disused, as far as I know

..but platform 2 (when I last passed it) is now only a London facing bay when it should be through. While the 4 track distance would be short, there are often trains standing at this busy station, perhaps waiting for a path, delaying others queuing outside.

WAO

 

[JonathanH]

Wokingham Borough Council have issued a press release about the campaign to speed up trains to Waterloo:
https://news.wokingham.gov.uk

It is all very well putting out press releases but what practical changes do they suggest as part of their campaign? Non stop from Twickenham (or Feltham) isn't going to do it without removal of stopping services.

 

[Skiddaw]

Not very much to the point, but this thread is making me come over all nostalgic. Before we relocated to Cumbria, Mr Skiddaw and I often took the Reading-Waterloo train when going to Tate Modern. We always bought a Costalot coffee and bacon roll to have en route and on the way back there was plenty of time to down a bottle of wine and a bag of crisps (from the M&S at Waterloo Station). My favourite bit was looking out for the halt at Longcross. I was well chuffed when one day the train actually stopped there! Ah, sweet memories.... how sad am I??

 

[Goldfish62]

I do apologise, I didn't mean to come across in any negative way. More a case of me just trying to explain the difficulties that (in my time) often came to the fore. I am not always very good at explaining things (in writing!). I only speak from past experience, so can only judge the situation by same.
If the industry foresees that the old level of commuting will never return, then it may well be the case that what was once seen as essential extra pathing time (Junction margin conflicts etc) along any given route, could well be dispensed with in a future timetable, and thus gain a few minutes here and there. Until that sort of detail is worked out (and may be it has provisionally?) it won't become clear if in any given one hour slot, there proves to be scope to run any services on a 'faster' (fewer stops OR just speeded up) basis. That said (personally) I would be wary of taking stops (per hour) out of any line of route service, unless it could be proven that patronage at any such station involved would not be inconvenienced.

No worries, and for what it's worth I'm in total agreement with everything you say above.

 

[jfollows]

Quote 2:
A fast train from Earley took 49 minutes in 1975

This seems most unlikely. I know for a fact that the fastest train from Earley to Waterloo in 1980 was scheduled to take 58 minutes.
(This was the 0728, calling at Winnersh, Wokingham (depart 0735), Bracknell, Ascot, Sunningdale, and Staines, scheduled to arrive at 0826. Normally formed of two 4-CIG units with 2+2 seating. I have highlighted the word scheduled because it was seldom precisely on time. It was usually slightly late, a matter of about 3 minutes, but about once a fortnight was significantly late, up to about 20 minutes. The schedules can be seen in the ABC Rail Guide for 1981 and the BR timetable for 1982 on the Timetable World website.)
It seems as if someone is again confusing journeys from Earley and journeys from Wokingham: the fastest train from Wokingham in 1980 was scheduled to take 51 minutes.

There may be other inaccuracies, but I haven't had time to check.

Aside from the inaccuracies, it seems as if there are people in Wokingham who are unaware of the popularity of Richmond and Clapham Junction, both as destinations in their own right, and as interchanges.

In the 6/5/74 to 4/5/75 timetable the up morning service from Reading and Earley were:
Reading 06:26 Earley 06:30 36 all stations to Staines, then Feltham & Richmond, Waterloo a.07:40
07:00/07:04 36 all stations to Ascot, join rear of train from Aldershot, all to Staines, then Waterloo 08:09
07:15/07:19 39 all stations to Staines, then Waterloo via Hounslow (no stops) 08:26
07:34/07:38 39 omit Longcross/Virginia Water, then non-stop from Staines via Hounslow 08:45
08:04/08:08 39 omit Egham, then non-stop from Staines via Hounslow 09:15
08:28/08:33 36 to Ascot, join rear of train from Aldershot, all to Staines then Feltham & Richmond 09:43
09:00/09:04 36 all to Ascot, then Staines, Waterloo arr. 10:00
09:30/09:34 36 join at Ascot 10:43
10:00/10:04 36 11:00
absolutely nothing approaching 49 minutes from Earley, the off-peak fast just made it in an hour from Reading so 56 minutes from Earley.
Your 07:28 shaved 9 minutes off "my" 07:19 from earlier years but I don't know if the infrastructure had changed much in the interim, 3 stops less after Ascot so it's just about possible I guess. “Yours” presumably didn’t go via Hounslow either.

Fastest from Wokingham was the off-peak fast, for example 09:12 to Waterloo 10:00 so that's 48 minutes.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

..but platform 2 (when I last passed it) is now only a London facing bay when it should be through. While the 4 track distance would be short, there are often trains standing at this busy station, perhaps waiting for a path, delaying others queuing outside

In my professional time (ice age) we used p2 for Rugby events, bringing 8 Subs up from Strawberry Hill during the match, to shunt and stable there. The idea being they formed a safety barrier to stop drunken fans taking a dive down on to the track, but also then forming either a Q (as required) additional train up to Waterloo if the platforms became too crowded, of if not required then ran empty to depot.
Although I can not prove by way of documentation, the railway did discuss and look in to the possibility of making p2 a through platform, so (and I'm guessing with this detail this far down the road) the Up Strawberry Hill road would be slewed (modestly) west of the over bridge to run through p2, but overall it wouldn't gain anything without the previously mentioned horrendous costs in remodelling the DOWN line infrastructure, which again comes back to the minimal benefits due to the short physical distances involved.

 

[RobShipway]

Having been someone that previously lived in the Martins Heron area, which is on the route Reading to London Waterloo prior to Ascot when travelling to London during rush hour periods, it used to take about an hour and fifteen minutes as there was a few stations that only received services during the rush hour periods. Longcross being an example of one of those stations.

Outside of rush hour, I believe from memory that Barnes and Putney stations got missed out as this was only for those commuters working in these areas.

However, at the time when many platforms on the route where being lengthened for 10 coach trains, I did suggest to the project manager who visited Martins Heron to explain what was going to happen, that it would be better to extend all platforms for 12 coach trains. I was told that there would never be the need for 12 coach trains on the Reading - Waterloo route.................

Now, it may have been something that South West Trains did with Bracknell Council, but prior to the platforms being extended, all residents certainly in the Bracknell Council area got sent a survey to fillout as to how they use local public transport, whether for work or general travel. Now okay this data is pre - covid, so a lot has changed in the last two years when it comes to foot fall. But you can probably safely say, that foot fall has fallen by half of what it was say in 2019.

I do apologise, I didn't mean to come across in any negative way. More a case of me just trying to explain the difficulties that (in my time) often came to the fore. I am not always very good at explaining things (in writing!). I only speak from past experience, so can only judge the situation by same.
If the industry foresees that the old level of commuting will never return, then it may well be the case that what was once seen as essential extra pathing time (Junction margin conflicts etc) along any given route, could well be dispensed with in a future timetable, and thus gain a few minutes here and there. Until that sort of detail is worked out (and may be it has provisionally?) it won't become clear if in any given one hour slot, there proves to be scope to run any services on a 'faster' (fewer stops OR just speeded up) basis. That said (personally) I would be wary of taking stops (per hour) out of any line of route service, unless it could be proven that patronage at any such station involved would not be inconvenienced.

I would have to agree with your comments about taking stops out Big Jumby 74.

It is as shame that many of the lines in and around Ascot station are now overgrown with trees, as I would have suggested if there was paths a stopping service from Reading to Ascot. Then at Ascot have a semi fast service to run to Waterloo missing out Longcross, Virginia Water, Egham, Ashford, St Margarets, North Sheen, Mortlake, Barnes, Putney, Wandsworth Town, Queenstown Road and Vauxhall. This service is run twice an hour, with the stopping service calling at all stations being run once an hour.

In the 6/5/74 to 4/5/75 timetable the up morning service from Reading and Earley were:
Reading 06:26 Earley 06:30 36 all stations to Staines, then Feltham & Richmond, Waterloo a.07:40
07:00/07:04 36 all stations to Ascot, join rear of train from Aldershot, all to Staines, then Waterloo 08:09
07:15/07:19 39 all stations to Staines, then Waterloo via Hounslow (no stops) 08:26
07:34/07:38 39 omit Longcross/Virginia Water, then non-stop from Staines via Hounslow 08:45
08:04/08:08 39 omit Egham, then non-stop from Staines via Hounslow 09:15
08:28/08:33 36 to Ascot, join rear of train from Aldershot, all to Staines then Feltham & Richmond 09:43
09:00/09:04 36 all to Ascot, then Staines, Waterloo arr. 10:00
09:30/09:34 36 join at Ascot 10:43
10:00/10:04 36 11:00
absolutely nothing approaching 49 minutes from Earley, the off-peak fast just made it in an hour from Reading so 56 minutes from Earley.
Your 07:28 shaved 9 minutes off "my" 07:19 from earlier years but I don't know if the infrastructure had changed much in the interim, 3 stops less after Ascot so it's just about possible I guess.

Fastest from Wokingham was the off-peak fast, for example 09:12 to Waterloo 10:00 so that's 48 minutes.

I doubt that you will ever find a fast service from Earley to London Waterloo in the peak. I know in the peak it used to take 1 hour and 15 minutes from Martins Heron, so I would expect it to be about an hour 40 minutes from Earley in the peak.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know you are privy to a lot of inside information, but are you actually saying that the post-Covid railway is in such a state that future recasts are out of the question?

no, I’m saying that the proposed recast by SWR had a great deal of work still to do, it was by no means off the shelf and ready to go.

Also that the post Covid railway is unlikely to progress with recasts that were rooted in a Pre covid railway (which the SWR one was, although it perhaps didn’t look like it).

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn’t there a department within Network Rail that can write back to local councillors along the lines of “don‘t be so stupid, this just won’t work?”

 

[London Trains]

Definitely very very far into the realms of fantasy, but would a Virginia Water avoiding curve and a flyover at Weybridge from the down slow towards Chertsey speed up the service?

Then a 2tph Waterloo to Reading fast service could be operated via the SWML calling at Clapham Jct, Surbiton, Walton, Weybridge, Addlestone, Chertsey, Longcross and all stations.

 

[WAO]

the railway did discuss and look in to the possibility of making p2 a through platform, so (and I'm guessing with this detail this far down the road) the Up Strawberry Hill road would be slewed (modestly) west of the over bridge to run through p2, but overall it wouldn't gain anything without the previously mentioned horrendous costs in remodelling the DOWN line infrastructure, which again comes back to the minimal benefits due to the short physical distances involved.

I completely agree about horrendous costs (and business cases) of change but the time to do this is at replacement, which does occur at intervals on such busy high-wear SR junctions. Then only a very marginal cost is involved as the whole infrastructure is being renewed, including signalling.

I remember the 1974 Feltham resignalling when the present form was I believe established. Platform 2 was bridged for PO/BRUTE trollies to cross, a requirement unhappily having ceased. I have read that the land needed for the P2 road westward has been retained, so it remains a glint in a NR/TOC's eye. I note that other praisworthy efforts have been made over the years to increase capacity, such as the 60mph on both down lines at Barnes Jn.

I like the idea of a SUB set as a Rugby crowd safety barrier - perhaps a use for the surviving unit at Margate!

WAO

 

[MarkyT]

Definitely very very far into the realms of fantasy, but would a Virginia Water avoiding curve and a flyover at Weybridge from the down slow towards Chertsey speed up the service?

Then a 2tph Waterloo to Reading fast service could be operated via the SWML calling at Clapham Jct, Surbiton, Walton, Weybridge, Addlestone, Chertsey, Longcross and all stations.

A west to south curve at Virginia Water existed in the past. It's shown on 1960s OS maps. I expect it was removed when or just before the area was resignalled and Feltham panel took over control of the area. A grade-separated junction with the main line at Weybridge would be very difficult. Proximity of the station to the junction is part of the problem.