Network Rail West of England Line Study 2020

[Grecian 1998]

Network Rail have published a study about the WoE line, particularly the Salisbury - Exeter section, which can be seen here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...udy-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Whilst it's a long document, the first 9 pages are a summary of the key points. Interestingly it contains the admission on p7 that ''It is impossible to deliver a reliable “on time” railway that has a resilient timetable without reducing the amount of single track on this line.''

Unsurprisingly it doesn't suggest full double tracking is needed - that will always be a pipe dream unless vast gold deposits are discovered around Crewkerne. It does however list a number of improvements which seem to be in order of priority. Not surprisingly capacity at the western end is a priority to allow a Barnstaple - Axminster service and a more frequent GWR service during disruptions. Extending the Tisbury loop in both directions is also a priority - again not surprising when a large number of down trains park up in the Wiltshire countryside for several minutes, eventually set off when the up train has passed, only to then call at the station 30 seconds later.

Surprisingly a loop at Crewkerne on the 17 mile single line between Chard Jct and Yeovil Jct doesn't seem to be considered (although extending double track west from Yeovil Jct is), and extension of the loop at Axminster still seems to fall short of Chard Jct for some reason.

An obvious question will be where the money comes from with any improvements, along with whether they're really necessary if public transport demand falls off a cliff for several years. However the fact that NR seem to suggest the current timetable cannot be delivered consistently with the current infrastructure seems significant.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I will read it all but can I cheat and ask is electrification even mentioned?

 

[The Ham]

I will read it all but can I cheat and ask is electrification even mentioned?

Yes, although primarily the following is added in various places:

Network Rail are currently undertaking a “Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy” to determine the most appropriate technologies to deploy on the remaining areas of the unelectrified rail network. This work will provide recommendations during 2020.

Although probably the key point is:

The necessity to provide diversionary routes for long-distance high speed services and freight may require some or all of the West of England line to be electrified using 25kV Overhead Line if diesel traction is to be fully removed from the network.

 

[BrianW]

Using 'Control F' I see nine instances of the word 'electrification' and 17 of 'electri'- not a lot in 81 pages. The gist seems to be that as a 'next step' it should be 'considered'. And as the Ham has just now observed...
I didn't detect a great enthusiasm; more of small-scale improvements focused on reliability.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

On a skim read there is a paragraph at the bottom of page 10 where it is mentioned and also a paragraph at the top of page 28.

 

[The Ham]

Page 81 has some interesting suggestions (and they are suggestions by stakeholders rather than things which are being planned), including a Salisbury to Reading service.

 

[fgwrich]

Page 81 has some interesting suggestions (and they are suggestions by stakeholders rather than things which are being planned), including a Salisbury to Reading service.

Talk about reinventing the wheel as Network SouthEast previously operated Salisbury to Reading with the Thumpers.

I have to admit I’m a little disappointed in what is proposed. I would have liked to have seen some of the perhaps easier fixes carried out such as Gillingham > Templecombe double tracking, which would then give you Gillingham to Yeovil double tracked. I’m also a little surprised that Axminster goes eastwards, but still doesn’t get joined up to the loop at Chard. Effectively, while increasing the numbers of passing loops on the line, it will still create ‘bubbles’ where you could still be held awaiting for the section ahead to clear.

 

[The Ham]

Talk about reinventing the wheel as Network SouthEast previously operated Salisbury to Reading

I can see the logic in doing so, in that it removes the need to turn trains around at Basingstoke, however if have thought doing that (i.e. extending to Salisbury) with the Basingstoke Stoppers (although would need electrification) would gain you the most capacity at the station/junction as you remove 2 long platform occupations and 2 flat junction (all lines blocked) movements an hour.

 

[30907]

Re Gillingham to Templecombe - I wonder whether Buckhorn Weston tunnel is a factor (plus needing to rebuild Templecombe). The latter applies at Crewkerne too.

My suspicion is that Chard Junction loop will become redundant with the extended double track sections at Yeovil and Axminster, but it is probably best to leave well alone.

 

[fgwrich]

Re Gillingham to Templecombe - I wonder whether Buckhorn Weston tunnel is a factor (plus needing to rebuild Templecombe). The latter applies at Crewkerne too.

My suspicion is that Chard Junction loop will become redundant with the extended double track sections at Yeovil and Axminster, but it is probably best to leave well alone.

Having read my way to the bottom of the report (it was a long morning!) It would appear that there is something with the tunnel that may not allow double through it, so it will be double up to the first over bridge before the cutting. As for Templecombe though, I can't see any reason why it couldn't be rebuilt or modified - the new platform is a non-permanent metal structure built out over the trackbed, and the loop to Yeovil begins just at the end of the platforms.

The Axminster / Chard bit is a bit of an odd one - The new loop is projected to begin just before the Axe Valley level crossing. Looking at mapping, that gives you around a mile or two of fairly straight track before Chard Loop begins. Redundant or not, I'd have thought it better to knock the two together at least.

At the far western end it looks like there is consideration to extend the double track from Pinhoe (hooray!) but to do this, the M5 Bridge would need work due to it's design only catering for a single track line underneath it (wonderfully shortsighted). Otherwise, the 6KM loop will run from west of Wimple to between Cranbrook & Pinhoe. Consideration is also noted here for extending the loop eastwards through Wimple as well.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Re Gillingham to Templecombe - I wonder whether Buckhorn Weston tunnel is a factor (plus needing to rebuild Templecombe). The latter applies at Crewkerne too.

My suspicion is that Chard Junction loop will become redundant with the extended double track sections at Yeovil and Axminster, but it is probably best to leave well alone.

Gillingham Tunnel (formerly Buckhorn Weston Tunnel) has always been extremely wet - I believe it had single line working for some time in the early 60s whilst work was done to improve it. The track is currently slewed down the middle rather than on one side, so there might be some additional drainage on the old formation.

Having read my way to the bottom of the report (it was a long morning!) It would appear that there is something with the tunnel that may not allow double through it, so it will be double up to the first over bridge before the cutting. As for Templecombe though, I can't see any reason why it couldn't be rebuilt or modified - the new platform is a non-permanent metal structure built out over the trackbed, and the loop to Yeovil begins just at the end of the platforms.

Whilst the new platform could be removed, there are two particular problems with Templecombe. The overbridge next to the platform at the east end of the station was replaced in 2000 with a single line bridge, so you'd have to build another bridge or shift the station slightly further west. Additionally, if you bring the up platform into use, you'd have to build an Equality Act compliant access to the up platform. Neither of these are cheap. Providing trains aren't scheduled to meet just west of Templecombe (causing delays if the westbound service runs late), it doesn't seem like a major bottleneck compared to many of the others on route.

 

[30907]

The Axminster / Chard bit is a bit of an odd one - The new loop is projected to begin just before the Axe Valley level crossing. Looking at mapping, that gives you around a mile or two of fairly straight track before Chard Loop begins. Redundant or not, I'd have thought it better to knock the two together at least.

I have a feeling (checked with Googlemaps) that the loop points at Chard Jn (only used by trains that are booked to stop) are quite low speed so would need replacing if the Axminster loop were extended that far.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

The bridge immediately to the east of Templecombe station is an UNDERbridge. If the abutments are OK a new deck is a lot less drastic than a new overbridge would be. the access to a second platform is, of course, a problem.
Pat

 

[Helvellyn]

This seems to be all about adding resilience. Salisbury - Exeter is now hourly, and when you add in GWR diversions it can be the SWR service that takes a hit.

Zooming out it is also about resilience for the SWML between Basingstoke and Waterloo. Up services that arrive late at Salisury, and that remain late at Basingstoke, can disrupt a whole host of other services. Those delays could be caused by Down trains themselves being disrupted, and delaying Up trains on the Single line sections. So more loops should help mitigate knock-on delays and protect capacity if GWR divert.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s main point is that any improvements are purely resilience and GWR diversion without new stock.
so come on - let’s get the bi-modes ordered pronto!!
Can Salisbury platform 1 be reinstated without handicapping the depot (or would it make it easier to get units straight into/out of Service from/to the depot without multiple reversals?)?
It mentions that more depot/stabling space is needed - any ideas? There is space to the south east of Salisbury station but that would be the opposite side from the depot. Where is the mentioned Yeovil stabling proposed, in the Up yard? Can Exeter Waterloo Yard be expanded for stabling and reversals clear of the platform?
A more general question - would It be better to have loops that start/finish further from the platforms so that the single line is cleared before slowing right down for the stop?

 

[SJDCornwall]

As already stated by several people on this thread, it seems very strange and short sighted not to extend Axminster loop back to Chard loop, I would have thought this would be a no brainer in the longer term as two sets of points can be removed plus associated signaling therefore making one long loop without silly little bits. Also it would be better if Tis bury was redoubled from Tisbury gates through to Wilton which again means a reduction in sets of points and associated signaling. This would help to make the route a lot more resilient. Neither option involves rebuilding bridges that been singled or other very expensive/disruptive engineering projects to attain and would be an easy win. With several very long dynamic loops only plain simple signaling is required to break up the sections for capacity and control reasons. Yeovil Junction should be redoubled to just before Crewkerne station for the same reason-this would help to keep costs down but help when the route is required for diversions. The remaining single line parts could be then be lived with for the time being until hopefully the rest of the line could be redoubled but this would be an expensive disruptive exercise as there are a number of bridges that will need to be rebuilt plus issues with tunnels and level crossings and also providing second platforms at stations such as Templecombe, Crewkerne, Feniton Whimple and Cranbrook.

 

[Meerkat]

As already stated by several people on this thread, it seems very strange and short sighted not to extend Axminster loop back to Chard loop, I would have thought this would be a no brainer in the longer term as two sets of points can be removed plus associated signaling therefore making one long loop without silly little bits. Also it would be better if Tis bury was redoubled from Tisbury gates through to Wilton which again means a reduction in sets of points and associated signaling. This would help to make the route a lot more resilient. Neither option involves rebuilding bridges that been singled or other very expensive/disruptive engineering projects to attain and would be an easy win. With several very long dynamic loops only plain simple signaling is required to break up the sections for capacity and control reasons. Yeovil Junction should be redoubled to just before Crewkerne station for the same reason-this would help to keep costs down but help when the route is required for diversions. The remaining single line parts could be then be lived with for the time being until hopefully the rest of the line could be redoubled but this would be an expensive disruptive exercise as there are a number of bridges that will need to be rebuilt plus issues with tunnels and level crossings and also providing second platforms at stations such as Templecombe, Crewkerne, Feniton Whimple and Cranbrook.

You are assuming that the basic earthworks are fit for redoubling without any work. That’s not a gimme any more is it?

 

[30907]

A more general question - would It be better to have loops that start/finish further from the platforms so that the single line is cleared before slowing right down for the stop?

Yes, and I think that is part of the exercise.

As already stated by several people on this thread, it seems very strange and short sighted not to extend Axminster loop back to Chard loop, I would have thought this would be a no brainer in the longer term as two sets of points can be removed plus associated signaling therefore making one long loop without silly little bits. Also it would be better if Tis bury was redoubled from Tisbury gates through to Wilton which again means a reduction in sets of points and associated signaling.

You have to balance the saving of points (you'd probably need the same number of signals) against the cost of installing and maintaining the additional track, including slewing the existing line in some places.

(I did wonder about the Tisbury loop being extended eastwards only, and a dynamic loop at Gillingham, to save the second platform at Tisbury, but it probably doesn't fit the timetable so neatly.)

 

[MarkyT]

I did wonder about the Tisbury loop being extended eastwards only, and a dynamic loop at Gillingham, to save the second platform at Tisbury, but it probably doesn't fit the timetable so neatly.

The regular hourly Exeters always pass at Tisbury throughout the day, then between Templecombe and Yeovil, then at Axminster. The loop sensibly has to be around Tisbury. Putting it at the station itself, with a reasonable length section either side preferably, gives most resilience and the ability for a train to wait for an opposing late runner at a platform rather than following an additional unexpected stop in the middle of nowhere, which is always better for peace of mind of passengers and offers somewhere to detrain them in case something further goes wrong. For the Axminster loop, Railtrack/Network Rail originally wanted to extend the Chard loop and avoid reconstructing the station, but that didn't work from a timetabling perspective and as I expected, after a quantity of abortive work, the scheme reverted to the SWT preferred option that was actually built.

The extension of the loops proposed west of Yeovil are primarily for GWR diversionary purposes running alongside SWR services. I believe the proposals are based on the operational concept of close running 'flights' of trains in alternate directions to traverse the remaining single line sections. In addition to the longer loops, that will require many intermediate signal blocks throughout the single lines. Hybrid virtual ETCS blocks could be one way to achieve that cost-effectively with little intermediate signalling equipment, as long as all rolling stock used was capable of supporting the method. Assuming 80xs are or can be made capable of this mode, the requirement needs to be considered in specifications for new train procurement for the Waterloo route.

 

[fgwrich]

As already stated by several people on this thread, it seems very strange and short sighted not to extend Axminster loop back to Chard loop, I would have thought this would be a no brainer in the longer term as two sets of points can be removed plus associated signaling therefore making one long loop without silly little bits. Also it would be better if Tis bury was redoubled from Tisbury gates through to Wilton which again means a reduction in sets of points and associated signaling. This would help to make the route a lot more resilient. Neither option involves rebuilding bridges that been singled or other very expensive/disruptive engineering projects to attain and would be an easy win. With several very long dynamic loops only plain simple signaling is required to break up the sections for capacity and control reasons. Yeovil Junction should be redoubled to just before Crewkerne station for the same reason-this would help to keep costs down but help when the route is required for diversions. The remaining single line parts could be then be lived with for the time being until hopefully the rest of the line could be redoubled but this would be an expensive disruptive exercise as there are a number of bridges that will need to be rebuilt plus issues with tunnels and level crossings and also providing second platforms at stations such as Templecombe, Crewkerne, Feniton Whimple and Cranbrook.

Interestingly it is noted and listed as an option within the document to look at running the double track from Wilton Junction through the Tisbury Loop and through the station as well, however it will no doubt be scaled back to the cheaper option of a dynamic loop starting in the Dinton / Chilcompton area. Having being a fairly regular user of this line however, I believe there are some concerns with regards to the embankment west of Wilton Junction - steep sides and a slewed single track doesn't help it. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but it will be a factor in any extension of the double track through here. As for Chard Loop - I used a few of the HST Diverted services last year, and on two occasions were looped in every loop between Yeovil Junction and Pinhoe while passing GW, SW & freight (a rather scruffy ex DB 59!) services along there. While the loop or extension of the double track at the Pinhoe end will go some way to alleviate this, I do still feel it would have been better to knock chard into Axminster to create one long Dynamic Loop.

Hopefully a fix will be found for Salisbury Depot / station layout. I do find it a little ludicrous that, as a result of it being the only road in and out of the depot means that the former platform 1 is in effectively a through siding / loop. I've always felt that it the middle platforms could / should be used for the terminating services from Waterloo or the GW services, while using the outer platforms for the Waterloo / Exeter / Waterloo services.

 

[The Ham]

You are assuming that the basic earthworks are fit for redoubling without any work. That’s not a gimme any more is it?

Indeed, however I would point out that the extra cost of that and building it as a longer section of double track would be much cheaper than coming back at a later date and doing it then.

Now whilst not essential to the current project, an extra (say) £25 million to give you a much more flexible railway is relatively small change.

If, as others have pointed out, there's steep earthworks then the extra spending would also make sure that they were fit for purpose going forwards and so remove a significant risk of landslips causing issues over that section.

Whilst I understand why everyone is keen to keep costs down, there are times when it's just better to increase the costs slightly (maybe even with some of that funding coming from the renewals budget) so that there's a better railway which is more resilient to issues (especially those caused by extreme weather events), even if the "value" of the project is a tiny bit worse.

 

[edwin_m]

If electrification is being contemplated for the Waterloo service then they really ought to make that decision first. This may result in some adjustments to proposed loops to take account of better train performance - otherwise the time saved may just be wasted sitting in the next loop.

 

[Meerkat]

Now whilst not essential to the current project, an extra (say) £25 million to give you a much more flexible railway is relatively small change.

’much more flexible’ to do what? There are all sorts of other limitations on running more trains, even if there is demand, and that little £25m might push the business case for doing anything out of acceptability

 

[Philip Phlopp]

If electrification is being contemplated for the Waterloo service then they really ought to make that decision first. This may result in some adjustments to proposed loops to take account of better train performance - otherwise the time saved may just be wasted sitting in the next loop.

Electrification is down to provide a 15 minute journey time saving Waterloo to Exeter, there's another 20 to 30 minutes to be gained by re-doubling (from memory).

 

[The Ham]

’much more flexible’ to do what? There are all sorts of other limitations on running more trains, even if there is demand, and that little £25m might push the business case for doing anything out of acceptability

Much more flexibility on the use of the remaining single track sections of the line by having a longer loop (for instance not delaying an up service by 3 minutes when a down service is running 6 minutes late).

The cost depends on how much the rest of the project is and the cost benefit ratio, if the total scheme cost is £500 million worth a 2.1:1 ratio then an extra £25 million would still leave it at 2:1 and so acceptable. However even it were to be 1.7:1 (which would only be the car if the total project was about £150 million & it resulted in zero benefits, both of which are fairly unlikely) then the question should come into play "how useful is this infill/how likely would this upgrade be needed in the future?" as well as "what extra maintenance/renewal costs might we have over that section if it's not renewed?

As if the answer is that it should be the next upgrade at a cost of £55 million and/or we're going to have to spend £10 million anyway then it's likely to be better to do it all at once rather than delay to do it another time.

Only doing the absolute bear minimum is a significant problem as it results in congestion and delays, neither of which are good for the industry.

 

[MarkyT]

If electrification is being contemplated for the Waterloo service then they really ought to make that decision first. This may result in some adjustments to proposed loops to take account of better train performance - otherwise the time saved may just be wasted sitting in the next loop.

Or they could use the improved performance to make some additional stops at new stations!

Electrification is down to provide a 15 minute journey time saving Waterloo to Exeter, there's another 20 to 30 minutes to be gained by re-doubling (from memory).

I can't see that unless stopping patterns are significantly changed to provide a very limited stop tier of service west of Salisbury. The problem is that would still be slower from Exeter to London than GWR and would require two per hour to retain equivalent service to all the intermediate stops, increasing rolling stock and staffing costs. Would the extra business gained make it cost effective, and at quieter times which service tier would be slimmed down. If the stoppers went back to two hour interval in late evenings and during parts of the weekend local transport function and attractiveness would be reduced.
The 15 minutes overall saving for electrification alone would only be a handful of minutes per single line section at the western extremities, so might be handled by judicious loop lengthening.

 

[Meerkat]

The problem is that would still be slower from Exeter to London than GWR

Iwould hope taxpayer cash wasn’t spent on competing with GWR for London-Exeter traffic!
But faster would make it more competitive with the car on part journeys.
The A303 means it’s much quicker to drive at the moment as opposed to the train which feels so slow by stopping repeatedly in the middle of nowhere.
Did used to laugh at the “Network Express“ with 16 stops!

 

[MarkyT]

Iwould hope taxpayer cash wasn’t spent on competing with GWR for London-Exeter traffic!
But faster would make it more competitive with the car on part journeys.
The A303 means it’s much quicker to drive at the moment as opposed to the train which feels so slow by stopping repeatedly in the middle of nowhere.
Did used to laugh at the “Network Express“ with 16 stops!

Not sure where these 'middle of nowhere' places are. Cranbrook for Exeter airport? Honiton? Axminster? Crewkerne? Alright, maybe Whimple and Feniton meet the definition but I think there really should be a second tier for East Devon taking over some of these more minor calls, which have enjoyed a two-hourly skip stop service in recent years. The proposals already cater for such a new service with an additional loop around the Cranbrook - Whimple area. The greater benefit of the additional service would be more frequency between both the minor stops and the more important stops in my first list and Exeter. I don't know if journey time is such a put off for part journeys. I've used the line numerous times for journeys from Torbay to Wiltshire, the Solent area, South London and South Coast, not least because tickets routed that way are usually cheaper and have fewer time restrictions than going via Westbury or Reading, and journey times are often remarkably comparable. I must admit to having gone no further than Clapham Junction on the trains from this end, but I would use it if to Waterloo if I was on a tight budget at short notice or it suited a journey break en route.

 

[Meerkat]

Not sure where these 'middle of nowhere' places are.

If you are on a fast train from London/Clapham/Woking/Basingstoke then everywhere but Andover, Salisbury and maybe Honiton looks like a rural village with little turnover, and the station in Honiton doesn’t exactly feel like a town station. The rest are ‘stopper’ stations.

 

[MarkyT]

If you are on a fast train from London/Clapham/Woking/Basingstoke then everywhere but Andover, Salisbury and maybe Honiton looks like a rural village with little turnover, and the station in Honiton doesn’t exactly feel like a town station. The rest are ‘stopper’ stations.

Axminster has similar passenger numbers to Honiton, both nudging 0.4m, like Gillingham, whereas Crewkerne, Yeovil Jn, Sherborne and Tisbury are all around the 0.2m mark, and everywhere shows a small decline in recent years, as noted in the report, assumed to be due to major weather-related interruptions to service and general quality issues. What you're really asking for is an additional express tier of service, which could only work with double-tracking unless many of these stations were closed. I don't think the extra passengers that might be gained on the major flows you suggest would compensate for the extra operational or capital costs of infrastructure, stock or staffing of a new tier. It is a low-cost railway today that has historically provided good, well-used service between these places en route, and connects them all to Exeter, Salisbury, Andover, Basingstoke and the London area, with myriad connections all over the south-east at Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction in the east and at Exeter and Salibury in the West. With quality improvements, it can re-establish that position and continue to serve and grow these markets. That's its bread and butter. I don't see a new express service tier on this route being justified at all.