Solent Continuous Modular Strategic Planning May 2020

[MarkRedon]

The existence and the conclusions of the Solent Continuous Modular Strategic Planning study of May 2020 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...ity-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf don't seem to have been commented upon in this forum - forgive and correct me if I'm wrong! If ever the plan is carried forward, it might involve:

The next steps are to take the following forward as projects in the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline (RNEP) process:
• Double tracking of the Botley Line to increase capacity;
• Conversion of the current bay platform at Fareham, Platform 2, into a through platform to provide a passing opportunity at Fareham - thereby improving timetabling flexibility and resilience;
• Totton down siding electrification and level crossing closure - to allow trains to terminate at Totton instead of terminating at and occupying a through platform at Southampton Central, whilst also providing enhanced connectivity for Totton which is an under-served station. These improvements would be useful for Waterside Rail (Fawley branch line) services should local aspirations for passenger services on this route prove viable;
• Alteration of signalling for Platform 1 at Eastleigh to enable operation as a bidirectional platform, and associated layout/crossover changes - this would improve flexibility in the Eastleigh area, and greater use of the relatively lightly-used Platform 1 by southbound trains from Chandlers’ Ford would help improve track/platform capacity elsewhere in the station area ;
• Reopen the disused Platform 2 at Portsmouth Harbour station to provide additional platform capacity at the station, or alternatively provide an additional platform at Portsmouth & Southsea.

The suggested changes look useful and achievable if affordable. However, it still depresses me that important inter-city flows such as Brighton to Southampton are so poorly catered for by rail and look like remaining that way.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The suggested changes look useful and achievable if affordable. However, it still depresses me that important inter-city flows such as Brighton to Southampton are so poorly catered for by rail and look like remaining that way.

The report quite clearly states: In engagement and surveys of over 1750 individuals and businesses by the LEP, transport connectivity was raised as an area for improvement by two thirds of responses. Slow rail journey times between Portsmouth and Southampton were identified as a significant issue for business.

Obviously that issue will be central to their thinking. Although the section between Brighton and Cosham Junction may not come into their purview, any improvement between Cosham Junction and Southampton will also benefit through passengers from Brighton.

I am surprised by the report's bold assertion that the Solent is outside London's commuter range.

 

[swt_passenger]

The report quite clearly states: In engagement and surveys of over 1750 individuals and businesses by the LEP, transport connectivity was raised as an area for improvement by two thirds of responses. Slow rail journey times between Portsmouth and Southampton were identified as a significant issue for business.

Obviously that issue will be central to their thinking. Although the section between Brighton and Cosham Junction may not come into their purview, any improvement between Cosham Junction and Southampton will also benefit through passengers from Brighton.

I am surprised by the report's bold assertion that the Solent is outside London's commuter range.

They do mention creation of an hourly path for a Brighton to Bristol service, as has been mentioned in previous route studies. They also mention the slow route (coastway and Netley line) and the lack of overtaking opportunities.

I very much doubt if Brighton to Southampton will ever be considered as an “intercity route”, as hoped for by the OP.

On a more general point, I wonder if some of these NR reports have only been quietly uploaded some time after their supposed publication date? IIRC the west of England line report also appeared with a much earlier date on the cover...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Very interesting reading.

I think the bare bones are correct that they need to sort out Fareham - St Denys; but one has to potentially question the idea of a 3tph Metro frequency.

2tph would be entirely sufficient, with a 2tph semi-fast (thinking mostly Swanwick, Woolston, Netley?) and a 2tph fast.

Not sure Havant requires a slow service to Southampton based on experience of changing trains there in peak; but what would obviously work nicely would be for Southern to provide a half-hourly service (potentially both from Victoria) as the semi-fast via Swanwick; then get GWR equivalent to provide the 2tph fast. One Brighton, one Portsmouth.

You then get left with a Harbour - Totton via Fareham and Southampton slow (far more useful and no change needed for Harbour); and you can add the half-hourly Eastleigh service in to create the connecting opportunities for Southampton so that Portsmouth isn’t just connected to Southampton on a half-hourly slow train.

I would have to oppose this ‘Solent Loop’ idea. If you live in Swanwick or Hamble etc, the Airport is too close and easy by car (at least when the M27 is finished); so you gain nothing. Best thing is to just make sure connections from say Swanwick to Winchester are easily done, which the passenger will appreciate, via Fareham or St Denys; same for things like Waterloo.

The report suggests the Solent is too far away to be commuter belt for London and actually I would agree. Experience says, however, people will instead park up at Botley or Airport Parkway; or they might change at Havant. So the crucial thing will be connections, which if everything runs at neat half-hourly increments will be able to be serviced.

 

[pompeyfan]

The idea of shoehorning in an additional short platform at Portsmouth and Southsea is an interesting one. There would be a higher chance conflicting moves and I’d imagine pathing would be interesting.

I’m most interested in the suggestion to re double much of the Botley line, Eastleigh DCS and finally the idea of making Fareham P2 and bidirectional through platform. Tighter restrictions on track curvature seem to be causing design issues.

 

[Michaeco]

As someone who was at school in Portsmouth in the 1960's, I remember Platform 2 at Fareham being a through platform. It was probably terminated when the Gosport branch was finally cut off and the geometry for the Southampton platform improved? Anyway, a great report and let's get it all done.

 

[Phillipimo]

As someone who was at school in Portsmouth in the 1960's, I remember Platform 2 at Fareham being a through platform. It was probably terminated when the Gosport branch was finally cut off and the geometry for the Southampton platform improved? Anyway, a great report and let's get it all done.

Fareham platform 2 was terminated when the A27 was dualled (in the 70s I think) . The bridge over the road needed replacing and they took the opportunity to use the platform with a reduced curvature on approach. I they want to use the full length of platform 2 I think they would need replace the bridge again which could be expensive.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fareham platform 2 was terminated when the A27 was dualled (in the 70s I think) . The bridge over the road needed replacing and they took the opportunity to use the platform with a reduced curvature on approach. I they want to use the full length of platform 2 I think they would need replace the bridge again which could be expensive.

At least they took the sensible approach of building the abutments to allow for a wider eastern span, if you look on Google streetview you can see the longer pads formed in the concrete to position a different deck arrangement.

[…]
I’m most interested in the suggestion to re double much of the Botley line, Eastleigh DCS and finally the idea of making Fareham P2 and bidirectional through platform. Tighter restrictions on track curvature seem to be causing design issues.

The proposals at Eastleigh have been somewhat diluted, only a few years ago they proposed a new platform 4 for the down direction towards Portsmouth, with full parallel moves towards Botley. The additional down line would have started somewhere in East Yard, beyond the road bridge; it would still have taken over the down carriage siding.

 

[pompeyfan]

To be fair the whole of Eastleigh station needs remodelling. The turn out speeds for passengers and freight are painfully slow, hindered further by approach control and TPWS that is in my opinion overly cautious. The time savings of allowing down freight trains in and out of Eastleigh at 30mph vice the current 15mph must be worth a path or two in itself.

 

[swt_passenger]

To be fair the whole of Eastleigh station needs remodelling. The turn out speeds for passengers and freight are painfully slow, hindered further by approach control and TPWS that is in my opinion overly cautious. The time savings of allowing down freight trains in and out of Eastleigh at 30mph vice the current 15mph must be worth a path or two in itself.

Perhaps they should replicate the recently extended up slow, with an equivalent down line as far as Stoneham Junction, with a much faster set of S&C there, like on the up side. Down freight that’s stopping could maybe use the down slow all the way from Shawford...

 

[WesternBiker]

It was discussed at Portsmouth City Council last week, so they're clearly taking it seriously. It has some nice aerial photographs of the putative developments at Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour.

https://democracy.portsmouth.gov.uk/documents/s28560/TT%2029%20Oct%2020%20-%20Solent%20Rail%20CMSP%20report.pdf

 

[DerekC]

Fareham platform 2 was terminated when the A27 was dualled (in the 70s I think) . The bridge over the road needed replacing and they took the opportunity to use the platform with a reduced curvature on approach. I they want to use the full length of platform 2 I think they would need replace the bridge again which could be expensive.

At least they took the sensible approach of building the abutments to allow for a wider eastern span, if you look on Google streetview you can see the longer pads formed in the concrete to position a different deck arrangement.

Judging by old maps, prior to the A27 dualling Platform 3 could only access the Gosport line. But as @swt_passenger says, it does look as though you could get away with replacing the eastern span with a wider deck to accommodate the turnout whilst leaving the abutments and western span as-is. Mind you, once NR's project people get into it, who knows!

 

[fgwrich]

Conveniently I was down in Fareham and Portsmouth yesterday and took some photos. Looking at Portsmouth and Southsea, there would be enough room for at least one additional platform on the low level side, if not two.

Fareham may be more interesting, as whatever you do at the south end of the station would need some modification at the northern end (eg, do you make platform 2 a bi-directional loop).

Eastleigh is a station where I’ve always felt needed a much better track layout. For example, why not knock what is currently a dead ended siding next to the Portsmouth route into Platform 3 and effectively routing all Down Portsmouth bound services from that. Platform 2 remains Bi-Directional.

 

[swt_passenger]

Conveniently I was down in Fareham and Portsmouth yesterday and took some photos. Looking at Portsmouth and Southsea, there would be enough room for at least one additional platform on the low level side, if not two.

Fareham may be more interesting, as whatever you do at the south end of the station would need some modification at the northern end (eg, do you make platform 2 a bi-directional loop).

Eastleigh is a station where I’ve always felt needed a much better track layout. For example, why not knock what is currently a dead ended siding next to the Portsmouth route into Platform 3 and effectively routing all Down Portsmouth bound services from that. Platform 2 remains Bi-Directional.

Did you notice @fgwrich how the abutments seem to be ready for a wider bridge, or was it a bit dark?

I reckon they’d probably get away without extending P2, the only normal “long” trains that are on the Waterloo via Eastleigh route could keep to P1 or P3 as now. Making P2 bi directional for maybe 6 car trains would cover most practical eventualities, the majority of services that currently need to use P2 during perturbations are SN or GWR.

Of course if there was a realistic likelihood of Netley line trains becoming 8 car they’d obviously need a bit more length.

 

[fgwrich]

Did you notice @fgwrich how the abutments seem to be ready for a wider bridge, or was it a bit dark?

I reckon they’d probably get away without extending P2, the only normal “long” trains that are on the Waterloo via Eastleigh route could keep to P1 or P3 as now. Making P2 bi directional for maybe 6 car trains would cover most practical eventualities, the majority of services that currently need to use P2 during perturbations are SN or GWR.

Of course if there was a realistic likelihood of Netley line trains becoming 8 car they’d obviously need a bit more length.

From the end of the platform, it would appear that the bridge abutments were ready for a wider bridge (Unfortunately I passed under the bridge on Sunday morning so could have taken a closer look if I'd seen this thread then) - I do wonder if it would be worth making platform 3 entirely for the Netley line (and removing part of the junction allowing for platform extensions) Platform 2 then either becomes Bi-Directional or soley for the Botley line services, platform 1 stays as is now.