• 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!

Night Riviera cost reductions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
I was referring to use somewhere else on the network more than on the Night Riviera, but once you have done a sleeper HST for this role, there is no reason not to use all the available Sleeper Mark 3s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There is always the only significant non-London air market in the UK... the south coast to Scotland.
But from Southampton I suppose you could do electric haulage after CP5 is finished.

I doubt a sleeper would make a dent in the Southampton/Bristol/Exeter air routes. The only way you'll do that is to reduce the journey time of the day trains to ~4hrs which is unlikely to happen before HS2 (and maybe not even then!) A rise in Air Fare and budget travellers will probably use the overnight coaches, business travellers will probably pay the extra and pass the costs on as expenses/fees to clients. Plus XCs fares are somewhat higher then the current air fares!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
They were leased, not sold, and returned to the UK a few years ago - and went straight into Long Marston.
Ah, thanks for that, I had presumed that they were sold outright. A couple of these carriages made their way fairly directly to preserved railways when they returned to the UK, do the remainder still reside at Long Marston do you know? I thought they had been broken up by this stage.
 

Woody

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2006
Messages
277
Woody - from my house to Tiverton parkway is 1 hr 40 driving. From mine to st erth 5 min drive, then st erth to Tiverton is average journey time of 3 hrs 15 by rail. I therefore drive when going to London and time is tight to somewhere on the m5, normally Taunton as my bro lives near to the rail station so saves parking at the station, and then complete journey by rail.
As your case proves the very slow Victorian rail infrastructure limitations west of Exeter when compared to the fast modern trunk roads is inevitably becoming a major determining factor in peoples longer distance travel choices from Cornwall and even Plymouth as the 21st century unfolds.Even the DFt has recognized these changing long distance travel patterns from Cornwall in the Great Western ITT document with its proposed reduction from 9 to 6 through Paddington/Penzance HSTs saying that some of the current HSTs through Cornwall have become little more than local commuter trains.The HST's in Cornwall are very busy from nearly all stations-but mostly with shoppers going to Truro and Plymouth.If the slow Exeter to Plymouth line is now a low national investment priority then the Plymouth to Penzance line must be completely off the Dfts national rail infrastructure radar.Even Cornwall County Council recognizes this reality by demanding at least a half hourly regional service between Penzance/Plymouth/Exeter.Unfortunately the combined consequences of a century of no real rail infrastructure improvements west of Exeter and John Majors botched rail privatisation are now coming home to roost for the far South Wests railway particularly in the austere post 2008 global financial meltdown world.I am not suggesting for one moment that rail is not needed in Cornwall but merely that the railways will have to adapt their offering to reflect new financial and infrastructure realities and that sadly that means an increasing emphasis on regional rather national rail services in places like Cornwall.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Although people don't like me suggesting it, there is always the option of trying to shift London-South West trains to some sort of 110mph Superexpress Sprinter (172 with 110mph operation?) so that you can put all available resources into trying to get SP100 differentials on the Cornish Main Line.

There isn't that much 125mph running on the B&H route anyway.

And three three coach 172s coupled together would enable you to put an hourly service through to Penzance and Paignton and still save money compared to using HSTs.
 

WestCountry

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Messages
280
Location
Cambridge, UK
Although people don't like me suggesting it, there is always the option of trying to shift London-South West trains to some sort of 110mph Superexpress Sprinter (172 with 110mph operation?)
Turbostars are rattly enough at 100, thanks! :roll:
Perhaps if they could make something like a 175, but that didn't catch fire etc so much and went a bit quicker?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Ah, thanks for that, I had presumed that they were sold outright. A couple of these carriages made their way fairly directly to preserved railways when they returned to the UK, do the remainder still reside at Long Marston do you know? I thought they had been broken up by this stage.

I would say if you wanted some functional sleepers, these would probably be your best bet, as they are the most likely to actually be somewhere near running order
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Location
Blackpool south Shore
As your case proves the very slow Victorian rail infrastructure limitations west of Exeter when compared to the fast modern trunk roads is inevitably becoming a major determining factor in peoples longer distance travel choices from Cornwall and even Plymouth as the 21st century unfolds.Even the DFt has recognized these changing long distance travel patterns from Cornwall in the Great Western ITT document with its proposed reduction from 9 to 6 through Paddington/Penzance HSTs saying that some of the current HSTs through Cornwall have become little more than local commuter trains.The HST's in Cornwall are very busy from nearly all stations-but mostly with shoppers going to Truro and Plymouth.If the slow Exeter to Plymouth line is now a low national investment priority then the Plymouth to Penzance line must be completely off the Dfts national rail infrastructure radar.Even Cornwall County Council recognizes this reality by demanding at least a half hourly regional service between Penzance/Plymouth/Exeter.Unfortunately the combined consequences of a century of no real rail infrastructure improvements west of Exeter and John Majors botched rail privatisation are now coming home to roost for the far South Wests railway particularly in the austere post 2008 global financial meltdown world.I am not suggesting for one moment that rail is not needed in Cornwall but merely that the railways will have to adapt their offering to reflect new financial and infrastructure realities and that sadly that means an increasing emphasis on regional rather national rail services in places like Cornwall.

For places like Cornwall, attracting businesses to set up, or to remain in the county is often how many hours / frequency of services from London. The Dawlish 'bypass' needs serious consideration.
Truro & Plymouth has reasonable commuter traffic & are shopping towns. Truro is an afternoon out, Plymouth is a day trip. I'm sure it is an extra earner, not the core business!
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
There isn't that much 125mph running on the B&H route anyway.
There's none at all on the Berks and Hants Line although 125 mph stock is still needed for the Main Line between Paddington and Reading.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Turbostars are rattly enough at 100, thanks! :roll:
Perhaps if they could make something like a 175, but that didn't catch fire etc so much and went a bit quicker?

But Class 175s have no access to sprinter differentials and would thus have no significant advantage over HSTs in this application, they are also far heavier than Sprinter derivatives are and have no end gangways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's none at all on the Berks and Hants Line although 125 mph stock is still needed for the Main Line between Paddington and Reading.

I am not so sure that 110mph trains would lose so much time compared to HST timings to make it infeasible to run such a unit in place of the HST.
For instance for the first few miles there are MU differentials on the main line and the train would be faster accelerating.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
I would say if you wanted some functional sleepers, these would probably be your best bet, as they are the most likely to actually be somewhere near running order
That is, if they haven't been cut up by now: It was a few years ago when they returned to the UK. Those that have reached preserved railways look every bit as decrepit as the vehicles that have been in long term store in the UK.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
I am not so sure that 110mph trains would lose so much time compared to HST timings to make it infeasible to run such a unit in place of the HST.
Would not want 110 mph DMUs delaying 125 mph IEP trains between Paddington and Reading though.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Would not want 110 mph DMUs delaying 125 mph IEP trains between Paddington and Reading though.

As I understand it there will be less than ten trains an hour out of Paddington on the fast lines, which means there may be time for a 110mph limited Sprinter derivative to clear the fast lines somewhere west of Maidenhead prior to it being caught by the one behind it, even without flighting.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The Dawlish 'bypass' needs serious consideration.

The GW ITT is looking to resore part of the closed line between Plymouth and Oakhampton by reinstating the line to Tavistock.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69167

The only problem is for GW to run trains from London would mean either missing out the main Exeter & Plymouth stations (not even sure it would be possible at Plymouth) or for the trains to stop and head out in the opposite direction at both. If the Dawlish bypass is built I would expect that the only direct trains that would use it under normal timetabling (if there were any at all) would be by extending the Exeter service out of Waterloo (as trains running Paddington-Reading-Basingstoke-Exeter or via Yeovil would be slower than turning the trains around and would require lots of work to increase capacity/line speeds). However GW would not be at all keen on letting SW services run deep into its area. espicially if it had funded any of the track works.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
The GW ITT is looking to resore part of the closed line between Plymouth and Oakhampton by reinstating the line to Tavistock.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69167

The only problem is for GW to run trains from London would mean either missing out the main Exeter & Plymouth stations (not even sure it would be possible at Plymouth) or for the trains to stop and head out in the opposite direction at both. If the Dawlish bypass is built I would expect that the only direct trains that would use it under normal timetabling (if there were any at all) would be by extending the Exeter service out of Waterloo (as trains running Paddington-Reading-Basingstoke-Exeter or via Yeovil would be slower than turning the trains around and would require lots of work to increase capacity/line speeds). However GW would not be at all keen on letting SW services run deep into its area. espicially if it had funded any of the track works.

It also misses out Newton Abbott, and thus Torbay. The old Launceston branch would avoid a reversal at Plymouth, but it would necessitate a new connection between Lydford and Tavistock.

The GWR's plan for the 1940s was a short-cut between Starcross and Newton Abbott, using parts of a former branch line. If it had been built, it would have shortened times to Plymouth by about 15 minutes (probably the same today assuming a maximum of 110mph) but the sea wall would probably be disuesed today.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Could always single sections of the Cornish Main Line to pay for linespeed improvements....
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
125 running between Bristol and Exeter is certainly possible, mostly because XC can use it as well. The real problem along the rest of the route is the twisty nature of it (being cobbled together from branches did not help) and the best theoretical answer to that would probably be tilt, but that's unlikely on cost grounds.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
125 running between Bristol and Exeter is certainly possible, mostly because XC can use it as well. The real problem along the rest of the route is the twisty nature of it (being cobbled together from branches did not help) and the best theoretical answer to that would probably be tilt, but that's unlikely on cost grounds.

Even 75 SP90 speed limits along the entire route west of Plymouth would likely lead to a major improvement in travel times, there is no need for some insane 110mph EPS speed limit to be implemented.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
That was tried by BR, it cost quite a bit to undo that mistake a few years ago.

Like Burngullow for example - Look how restrictive that was! If anything, proposing to single sections of the Cornish Main Line to pay for linespeed improvements is a preposterous idea, and one we've already had before which has been shown to not work at all. Yes, i might work in the short term but will cost you severely in the longer term.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
The GWR's plan for the 1940s was a short-cut between Starcross and Newton Abbott, using parts of a former branch line. If it had been built, it would have shortened times to Plymouth by about 15 minutes (probably the same today assuming a maximum of 110mph) but the sea wall would probably be disuesed today.
I believe it was to be a new inland route rather than using the old branch via Chudleigh which would have been quite slow.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Like Burngullow for example - Look how restrictive that was! If anything, proposing to single sections of the Cornish Main Line to pay for linespeed improvements is a preposterous idea, and one we've already had before which has been shown to not work at all. Yes, i might work in the short term but will cost you severely in the longer term.

Yes, but continuing as we are is clearly not sustainable, the lines are haemorrhaging traffic. Just look at how the weekend traffic to Newquay and the like has collapsed, even since privatisation - XC replacing the HSTs with single voyagers is not just because they are "evil".

The line needs line-speed improvements or it will wither away, at the same time there is no money available for such a low priority route.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Yes, but continuing as we are is clearly not sustainable, the lines are haemorrhaging traffic. Just look at how the weekend traffic to Newquay and the like has collapsed, even since privatisation - XC replacing the HSTs with single voyagers is not just because they are "evil".

But aren't rail services into and inside Cornwall flourishing? Aren't the HST's to Newquay from London well loaded?
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
But aren't rail services into and inside Cornwall flourishing? Aren't the HST's to Newquay from London well loaded?
They are! Hence one of the reasons as to why FGW still adds the extra coach into their HSTs for their Summer Sat services to Newquay. And yes, rail services into and in Cornwall as a whole are flourishing, if that’s the word to use, not just flourishing but colossally on the up. So i do not agree that the best way to speed up one service or the mainline services is by reducing the available track capacity. Which in turn, would lead to the same stupid decisions, problems and costs created by BR - Places such as Bungalow, Wrexham to Crewe, The WOE Etc...If we are to increase services, why cut the available track?

(Edit, Sorry - it's ment to say Burngullow but spell check likes Bungalow)
 

Woody

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2006
Messages
277
I believe it was to be a new inland route rather than using the old branch via Chudleigh which would have been quite slow.

Back in 1937 the dawlish avoiding line project from Exminster to Newton Abbot including some four tracking and a 2 mile tunnel through the Halden hills behind Teignmouth and Dawlish would have been completed in 1941 but for the start of the 2nd World War.
The scheme was funded by interest free Government loans to the then GWR.The land was bought and even "Pegged" out ready for construction to start.Also a new rail route onward from Newton Abbot to a point near Marley tunnel bypassing Totnes and Dainton and Rattery banks was also surveyed at the same time with hopes of a future further new route onward to Plymouth eventually and all to be engineered to a minimum I mile radius curvature for high speed.
For those interested here are the 1935/36 Great Western Railway plans for the new route from Exminster to Newton Abbot bypassing Teignmouth and Dawlish which are held at the Devon Record Office Archives at Sowton in Exeter under the following references.


Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) QS/DP/860 1935
Contents:
1) Railway No 1 (Newton Abbot and Dawlish): via parishes of Kingsteignton, Bishopsteignton, Urban Districts of Teignmouth and Dawlish; length 8 ¾ miles; commencing and terminating at junctions with South Devon Railway.
2)Bridge, River Diversions and Lands at Exeter: parish of Upton Pyne and Borough of Exeter.

Included are sections of intended works and published map showing 1).
Scale: 25" to the mile
Surveyor: R. Carpmael (Engineer)
Plans (pen, ink) and book of reference

Great Western Railway. QS/DP/868 1936
Contents:
1) Railway No 2. (Dawlish and Exminster): via Urban District of Dawlish, parishes of Mamhead, Kenton, Powderham, Exminster; length 7½ miles; commencing at junction with railway No 1 (see QS/DP/860), terminating at junction with South Devon Railway; includes sections of railway and road diversions en route.
2) Lands at Totnes (and at Denham in County of Buckingham).
Scale: 25" to the mile
Surveyor: R. Carpmael (Engineer)
Plan (pen, ink) and book of reference

Unfortunately the 2nd World War stopped these schemes progressing and speedwise Cornwall and Plymouth have been left on little more than a branch line really west of Exeter to Penzance.The route would of left the existing line at Exminster hugging the Halden hills down the Exe valley behind Starcross at Kenton down to the back of Dawlish where it would have gone through a 2 mile tunnel avoiding Dawlish and Teignmouth emerging from the hillside at Bishopsteignton halfway up the the Teign estuary.History will probably record that this was the far South Wests last chance for any rail infrastructure and therefore journey time improvements.How times have changed
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Back in 1937 the dawlish avoiding line project from Exminster to Newton Abbot including some four tracking and a 2 mile tunnel through the Halden hills behind Teignmouth and Dawlish would have been completed in 1941 but for the start of the 2nd World War.
The scheme was funded by interest free Government loans to the then GWR.The land was bought and even "Pegged" out ready for construction to start.Also a new rail route onward from Newton Abbot to a point near Marley tunnel bypassing Totnes and Dainton and Rattery banks was also surveyed at the same time with hopes of a future further new route onward to Plymouth eventually and all to be engineered to a minimum I mile radius curvature for high speed.
For those interested here are the 1935/36 Great Western Railway plans for the new route from Exminster to Newton Abbot bypassing Teignmouth and Dawlish which are held at the Devon Record Office Archives at Sowton in Exeter under the following references.


Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) QS/DP/860 1935
Contents:
1) Railway No 1 (Newton Abbot and Dawlish): via parishes of Kingsteignton, Bishopsteignton, Urban Districts of Teignmouth and Dawlish; length 8 ¾ miles; commencing and terminating at junctions with South Devon Railway.
2)Bridge, River Diversions and Lands at Exeter: parish of Upton Pyne and Borough of Exeter.

Included are sections of intended works and published map showing 1).
Scale: 25" to the mile
Surveyor: R. Carpmael (Engineer)
Plans (pen, ink) and book of reference

Great Western Railway. QS/DP/868 1936
Contents:
1) Railway No 2. (Dawlish and Exminster): via Urban District of Dawlish, parishes of Mamhead, Kenton, Powderham, Exminster; length 7½ miles; commencing at junction with railway No 1 (see QS/DP/860), terminating at junction with South Devon Railway; includes sections of railway and road diversions en route.
2) Lands at Totnes (and at Denham in County of Buckingham).
Scale: 25" to the mile
Surveyor: R. Carpmael (Engineer)
Plan (pen, ink) and book of reference

Unfortunately the 2nd World War stopped these schemes progressing and speedwise Cornwall and Plymouth have been left on little more than a branch line really west of Exeter to Penzance.The route would of left the existing line at Exminster hugging the Halden hills down the Exe valley behind Starcross at Kenton down to the back of Dawlish where it would have gone through a 2 mile tunnel avoiding Dawlish and Teignmouth emerging from the hillside at Bishopsteignton halfway up the the Teign estuary.History will probably record that this was the far South Wests last chance for any rail infrastructure and therefore journey time improvements.How times have changed

Fascinating! Thanks for that.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The scheme was funded by interest free Government loans to the then GWR.The land was bought and even "Pegged" out ready for construction to start.

It is a shame that the land was sold back, as if the land is still owned it would make the scheme much more cost efective to build than almost any alternitive. Even constructing the tunnels and the like to allow the same rolling stock as HS1 to future proof it.
 

Woody

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2006
Messages
277
It is a shame that the land was sold back, as if the land is still owned it would make the scheme much more cost efective to build than almost any alternitive. Even constructing the tunnels and the like to allow the same rolling stock as HS1 to future proof it.

The land was sold off in 1949 as the country was virtually bankrupted by the war and there were much higher priorities such as building houses and funding the then new NHS. Unfortunately west of Exeter the main rail route has been totally ignored by successive Governments since then as has been shown by the recently announced £9.4billion rail infrastructure investment plans and in these equally austere times I cant see that changing either in the far South West.The only major transport investment taking place west of Exeter now is a road scheme,the £120million 3 mile Kingsteinton bypass which will no doubt encourage even more car usage from Torbay/Newton Abbot.One really has to wonder where the main line railway west of Exeter to Penzance is now heading in the 21st century.I suspect that it will eventually become a regional rather than a national operation west of Exeter if nothing significant is done.Already large numbers of people choose to drive on fast dual carriageway trunk roads from Cornwall (A30) and even Plymouth (A38) then via the M5 to Exeter or Tiverton Parkway to save up to an hour and a half on their journey time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top