Western RUS draft out for consultation

[Rapidash]

NR PDF link is on the right hand side.

Absolute monster of a document, and I've only read a few pages. I focused alot on Devon Metro services, cause...well...it's me?.

I particularly liked the 2tph PGN - EXM! Made possible with better signalling apparently! Also a focus on reducing the down time between arrival/departures and waiting for IC services.

Confirms the current bouncing baby rumour of the 165/6's headed to Bristol and the 150 flock headed to Exeter and beyond.

Barnstaple services to switch from Exmouth to Honiton/Axminster - guess thats the 158's sorted then!

Some possible pipe-dreams include:

Quad track between EXD and NTA - fairly certain there's a river in the way
Extra platform at Paignton - boot the heritage line back to Churston

So yes, lots to read in there, and I think alot of positives for the next few decades.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's actually the first "Route Study".

Lots of detail, but the electrification section caught my eye (p43):
It also says the NR Electrification Strategy RUS will be re-published in 2015 ("early 2015" in one entry) to feed the CP6 planning process.

Future Electrification proposals
For the Western Route, schemes identified for potential further
consideration as part of the Electrification Strategy are anticipated
to be:
• a ‘cross-country’ package of options comprising:
–– Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction (Bristol Parkway)
including the Worcester loop and spurs to Worcester Foregate
Street and Gloucester
–– Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester
–– Swindon to Cheltenham Spa
• a ‘Chilterns, Birmingham Snow Hill and Malverns’ package of
options including:
–– Chiltern Main Line including diversionary routes between
West Ealing/Hanwell Junctions and Greenford South and
West Junctions
–– Worcester Foregate Street to Hereford
• a ‘south west’ package comprising electrification between:
–– Bristol Temple Meads and Weston-super-Mare
–– Weston-super-Mare and Plymouth and Paignton, including
the Exmouth branch
–– between Newbury and Taunton, linking with the Bristol –
Plymouth route and including the diversionary routes
between Westbury and Bathampton/Thingley Junctions, and
between Castle Cary and Exeter St Davids via Yeovil Junction
–– possible onwards extension from Plymouth to Penzance
• a ‘Wessex’ package of:
–– Basingstoke to Exeter St Davids
–– Westbury to Redbridge and Eastleigh.
Electrification of the lines listed below has also been identified for
further consideration by freight operators:
• Filton Junctions – Avonmouth
• Bristol West Junction – Portbury Docks.

 

[Rapidash]

Interesting. I seem to recall someone here said that it was pretty much going to happen down here when the rest of the XC network was fully complete. Maybe it will happen in my lifetime!

 

[The Planner]

Read our weasly words though, "potential" and "consideration", thats far from a commitment!

 

[Rapidash]

It's the Westcountry, our watchwords are 'potential' and 'under consideration'! Took 60 years for the Kingskerswell bypass to happen, leccyfication will be probably be in 2114

 

[WatcherZero]

Quite a different format from the RUS but I kinda like how much it presents the raw data rather than only post number crunched analysis. Simply breaks down capacity and what could be done to fix it.

Bit annoyed though that it says if you want to see the route study release schedule take a look at the website. Problem is that information on the website is presently behind a password wall.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/upload...ute_Plans/Documents/Route Study Programme.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some interesting suggestions for the Gloucester/Cheltenham/Worcester area.
- 1tph each Paddington-Gloucester and Paddington-Cheltenham-Worcester
- 1tph Swindon-Cheltenham-Worcester-Birmingham
- Cardiff-Gloucester-Worcester-Great Malvern local instead of the Bristol route
- 4-tracking Cheltenham-Gloucester to get dynamic loops
More trains via Evesham are discounted because of the congestion at Oxford and expense of further redoubling.

The XC axis is forecast for higher speeds/frequencies including Cardiff-Bristol Parkway-Birmingham-Manchester (faster than anything via the Marches line).

 

[anthony263]

There is still going to be the issue of fitting all these extra services through the Severn Tunnel.

Also issue about how to path all these service over lickey although the Swindon - Birmingham service could perhaps run at thoe opposite times as the Hereford - Brimingham service between Worcester and Brimingham.

Makes me wonder about the case for Wocester Parkway however

 

[WatcherZero]

Programme seems to have come out from behind the password wall now.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/upload...ute_Plans/Documents/Route Study Programme.pdf

Alarming thing is how late they are planning to do the Northern, West Coast and East Coast ones. Rash of other route plans should be expected imminently though.

 

[Class 170101]

Some interesting suggestions for the Gloucester/Cheltenham/Worcester area.
- 1tph each Paddington-Gloucester and Paddington-Cheltenham-Worcester
- 1tph Swindon-Cheltenham-Worcester-Birmingham
- Cardiff-Gloucester-Worcester-Great Malvern local instead of the Bristol route
- 4-tracking Cheltenham-Gloucester to get dynamic loops
More trains via Evesham are discounted because of the congestion at Oxford and expense of further redoubling.

The XC axis is forecast for higher speeds/frequencies including Cardiff-Bristol Parkway-Birmingham-Manchester (faster than anything via the Marches line).

Surely there would be no additonal congestion at Oxford if the existing terminators were extended northwards. Never mind the number of ECS moves from the inefficient layout it seems.

 

[158756]

Sussex Area Route Study Draft now up on the page linked in the first post.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Surely there would be no additonal congestion at Oxford if the existing terminators were extended northwards. Never mind the number of ECS moves from the inefficient layout it seems.

The gist of it was that there is no prospect of a clockface hourly service from Worcester via Oxford because of the remaining single track.
Electrification is suggested to Hanborough or Charlbury (very odd places to terminate the wires!) so that Thames Valley EMUs could reverse away from the congested Oxford area.
Plus there is new capacity via Swindon with the Kemble redoubling.
Worcestershire Parkway is mentioned in passing but does not figure strategically.

 

[Andyjs247]

Flyovers are being looked at for both Oxford North and Didcot East junctions according to the Oxford Mail in this article which appeared on Wednesday.

FLYOVERS could be built along sections of the county’s rail lines as part of plans to cope with extra passengers.

The proposals are part of Network Rail’s publication of the draft Western route study. The line between Oxford and Didcot is considered a major pressure point and options are being considered to build a rail flyover east of Didcot so that express trains from London and Reading could head towards Oxford without being held up. A flyover at Oxford North junction, where the line to Bicester leaves the Oxford to Banbury route, is also being considered.

I've not had chance to look at the draft RUS yet but I guess this is primarily due to anticipated extra traffic heading for East-West Rail.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Flyovers are being looked at for both Oxford North and Didcot East junctions

Also, surprisingly, at Southcote Junction (Reading) and Basingstoke (Reading line).
It takes some imagination to visualise traffic on this route being so heavy that grade separation is considered value for money.

 

[HowardGWR]

Also, surprisingly, at Southcote Junction (Reading) and Basingstoke (Reading line).
It takes some imagination to visualise traffic on this route being so heavy that grade separation is considered value for money.

It's the freight and is due to the original abandonment of the D, N and S.

Good to see the nomenclature in the report's Management Summary refers to 'main and relief lines'.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's the freight and is due to the original abandonment of the D, N and S.
Good to see the nomenclature in the report's Management Summary refers to 'main and relief lines'.

The single-track DN&S wouldn't be much help today, nor the similar M&SWJ.
Imagine all those container trains crossing the GW at Didcot and Newbury on the flat...
Line designations are indeed picturesque, but the GWR had to adopt Stephenson gauge eventually.

 

[HowardGWR]

The single-track DN&S wouldn't be much help today, nor the similar M&SWJ.
Imagine all those container trains crossing the GW at Didcot and Newbury on the flat...
Line designations are indeed picturesque, but the GWR had to adopt Stephenson gauge eventually.

You have apparently not understood the first part of my post. I was simply making the point that the extensive route enhancements at Reading (and now proposed at Didcot in the report) to cater for movements north -south Oxford to Newbury are due to the fact that the rail route between Didcot and Newbury was closed. We have no idea how things may have developed had that not happened. Flying junctions at Didcot are now being considered in the document. We have no idea how the junctions at Didcot may have been improved, had the D N & S survived. It did a great job in the wars, as did the MSWJR and S and D. Getting rid of one route was perhaps excusable but all three was a great mistake, IMO.

 

[The Planner]

Alarming thing is how late they are planning to do the Northern, West Coast and East Coast ones. Rash of other route plans should be expected imminently though.

They werent going to be touched before refranchising and sorting out the prelim HS2 stuff.

 

[HowardGWR]

Incidentally I have the idea that we are discussing this in the wrong section - I mean, it's all about infrastructure isn't it?

It needs a careful read, but I was initially surprised to see little connection with the Wessex part of the LSWR area, eastwards from Yeovil, while enhancements to Exeter from there westwards were being discussed in the summary. We will need to read the whole lot though!

 

[WatcherZero]

They werent going to be touched before refranchising and sorting out the prelim HS2 stuff.

They should have been at least at consultation phase earlier so that the forecast demand and supply, changes to service patterns and bottlenecks could influence bidders decisions on rolling stock and private infrastructure investment decisions. Bidders will be heading blind into a complete recast of the WCML and a likely recast of Northern/TPE.

 

[21C101]

The single-track DN&S wouldn't be much help today, nor the similar M&SWJ.
Imagine all those container trains crossing the GW at Didcot and Newbury on the flat...
Line designations are indeed picturesque, but the GWR had to adopt Stephenson gauge eventually.

I'm not convinced on that. All those container trains still cross the Berks and Hants on the flat and a flyover at Didcot would solve the problem at Didcot.

Also the DNS was double track from Didcot to Newbury.

South of Whitchurch it could have been diverted onto the double track Andover to Redbridge line near Hurstbourne, using a bit of the old Hurstbourne to Fullerton route and a short length of new track along the River Test Valley, which would have got it to Southampton Docks without any interface with the London to Southampton route.

 

[fgwrich]

I presume any future flyover for Basingstoke would be located to the western side of the station - reinstating the former through lines around the back of the station has been talked about for years, so reinstating these and doubling them to a new western located junction may presumably be the answer. That way it could also lead to the removal of that rather troublesome Flat Crossing that's plagued NR for a while since it's installation in 2007 (Very common to see TSRs on the UP Fast and Down Reading due to issues with the crossing).

 

[Noddy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29657045

Calls for more trains on the redoubled Swindon--Gloucester line.

It would certainly be good if FGW could push the ?7.14 Gloucester-Malvern train back to Swindon as that would improve early morning commuting along the Golden Valley line, and allow direct commuting between Swindon/Stroud and Tewkesbury/Worcester/Malvern. Doubt it'll happen though!

 

[The Planner]

They should have been at least at consultation phase earlier so that the forecast demand and supply, changes to service patterns and bottlenecks could influence bidders decisions on rolling stock and private infrastructure investment decisions. Bidders will be heading blind into a complete recast of the WCML and a likely recast of Northern/TPE.

You cant though, Euston and HS2 isnt nailed down and there is also the Crossrail issue so its not in a position to do it.

 

[jimm]

The gist of it was that there is no prospect of a clockface hourly service from Worcester via Oxford because of the remaining single track.
Electrification is suggested to Hanborough or Charlbury (very odd places to terminate the wires!) so that Thames Valley EMUs could reverse away from the congested Oxford area.
Plus there is new capacity via Swindon with the Kemble redoubling.
Worcestershire Parkway is mentioned in passing but does not figure strategically.

Nothing odd about going to Charlbury (busiest intermediate station between Oxford and Worcester, where rail is the default travel option for many residents) or Hanborough (traffic up from 66,997 in 2002-3, to 172,684 in 2012-13, with a 190-space car park extension opened just last year near-full on some days now) and with thousands more new homes planned for Witney and Carterton - 700 approved in the latter just this week) and turning round up the Cotswold Line means trains would be in and out of Oxford station fast, not occupying platforms, which the study makes clear will already be at a premium come 2019, never mind beyond then.

The study sets out all sorts of options for improving the Cotswold Line as a whole but is rather non-committal about them, putting the ball firmly in the court of 'funders' as to what options might be adopted.

Seems to be a degree of rewriting of history going on about the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton here. It was a rural backwater for most of its existence, struggled for finance before it was built, and wasn't even doubled until the 1940s, to carry D-Day traffic. Passenger trains went even before the Beeching report.

There were gradients galore, given the need to get over the Downs. Same as the rollercoasters that were the S&D and MSW. Not exactly ideal operating conditions for long, heavy container and car trains which are the core rail freight traffic at Southampton.

The study has to deal with where we are now, and where we could go - without fantasy reopenings - and flyovers at junctions aren't exactly an amazing new invention. If you've spent as much time as I have over the years sitting on trains from Oxford on the Didcot avoiding line waiting for a path on to fast line towards Reading, a flyover there can't come soon enough.

The parts of the study I have looked at closely seem full of good ideas to me, just that I wonder where the money will come from, even given the long time period it covers.

 

[21C101]

Running Oxford terminators onto Witney, Carterton & Eynsham Parkway Hanborough is a no brainer to my mind. They could do it tomorrow with no infrastructure needed - although they would need to extend the wires there once electrification to Oxford is done.

Funny to think it was a mon-fri peak hours only station a few years back with about three trains a day.

Alternatively they could run them to North Oxford Parkway, which I suspect will take a fair bit of traffic of Handborough when it opens, as it will be just as quick to drive to it down the A40.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldnt be able to turn back easily from Oxford Parkway from the south without a shunt as the crossover is at the north end. The bi-di is also a lot more restrictive that the normal direction signalling.

 

[HowardGWR]

Regarding North South freight (and pax) I wasn't suggesting reopening any particular line, now, I thought I made that clear. I simply made the point that all this threading from east to west and then back again, is due to the fact that any alternative north south route does not exist any more. The traffic does of course, unfortunately mostly on road, which is why the A34 has been updated, with all the consequent damage to our environment in that area. We need total grade separation and dual lines for freight and pax trains on this route, if the ambitions for freight are to be realised, IMO, as is postulated in this document.

I see there is talk of long loops on Didcot to Swindon. I think we will need 4 tracking from Didcot through to Wootton Bassett junction eventually. Glos MPs are already moaning that the dualling via Kemble has not brought extra services, so there will be extra from there too.

I like the new format though, for this kind of study.

 

[IanXC]

Analysis has shown that a standardised fleet of rolling stock, providing a harmonisation of average rolling stock speeds, would also enable greater efficiency in the utilisation of network capacity. This would also reduce conflicts in terms of differing rolling stock speed capabilities and the impact on end to end journey times. The Network RUS: Rolling Stock explored the potential for significant economies of scale through procuring a smaller, standardised range of stock types targeted at specific market sectors and the Western Route Study has evidence to support this particularly on the route into London Paddington, to Basingstoke and on the Berks & Hants line to Taunton.

Is that the case for IEP to replace the Far West HST fleet I hear....

 

[jimm]

Running Oxford terminators onto Witney, Carterton & Eynsham Parkway Hanborough is a no brainer to my mind. They could do it tomorrow with no infrastructure needed - although they would need to extend the wires there once electrification to Oxford is done.

Funny to think it was a mon-fri peak hours only station a few years back with about three trains a day.

Alternatively they could run them to North Oxford Parkway, which I suspect will take a fair bit of traffic of Handborough when it opens, as it will be just as quick to drive to it down the A40.

You would need infrastructure - some signals at the very least and a safe walking path for drivers changing ends, never mind the issues of occupation of the single line, which mean you couldn't run anything extra in the peaks anyway. It's tight enough to run the stock for the 07.12 from Charlbury out there from Oxford now and get it back without getting in the way of other services.

I don't know what gives you the idea it is 'quick' to drive down the A40 - it isn't, even in 'normal' conditions. Due to assorted roadworks around Oxford this week, there have been tailbacks much or all the way from Oxford back to Witney from very early in the morning peaks - see the Oxford Mail website for the gory details.

A link road from the A40 across to the A44 to reach Kidlington is still stuck on the drawing board, so it remains to be seen how many people actually divert to Chiltern - the only realistic alternative to the A40 going east from Witney, the A4095, goes right past Hanborough station - it hasn't had a 'd' in the name for 20+ years.

Glos MPs are already moaning that the dualling via Kemble has not brought extra services

One MP is moaning - an MP who knows full well why there are no extra services at the moment - no rolling stock exists to operate them - an MP who knows full well that GWML electrification will bring an hourly London service at Kemble for his constituents from 2017 - an MP who knows full well that the line will act as a diversionary route during wiring, so running lots of extra trains wouldn't work while that's happening - and an MP who knows there's a general election coming up, so feels obliged to make a bit of noise once every five years to let us know he's still around, even though he has one of the safest seats in the land. Still won't get him my vote...