Wessex Route Study - draft out for consultation

21C101 said:

Theres a lot more than that.

The problem NR seem to have with Basingstoke to Southampton is that it is too small to make economic sense. Electrifying to Exeter solves that problem. (and speeds journey times up by 16 minutes assuming existing stopping patterns)

That means three hours and one minute. Run a train only calling at Salisbury, Yeovil, Axminster and Honiton and you are down to 2.5 hours. Upgrade the linespeed from its 85mph current limit and you could be looking at less than two hours from Waterloo to Exeter Central....

Click to expand...

Much as I'd love to see more use made of the Waterloo to Exeter route for faster trains as you suggest, I'm struck by how severe the capacity problem is between Surbiton and Waterloo.

The probability of Crossrail 2 happening to alleviate this has just increased with this publication, and then maybe Salisbury, Axminster, Yeovil and Honiton will benefit from a much improved and hopefully electrified service between Waterloo and Exeter as you suggest.

As for double decker trains from Basingstoke to Waterloo, it's right that they look at them, but I suspect the infrastructure changes would be so prohibitive and expensive, that it wouldn't happen.

59CosG95 said:

OLE to Salisbury from Basingstoke

Click to expand...

Out of interest (as a non-local), if the 158/159s from Salisbury to Waterloo were replaced by 444/450s (or equivalent - i.e. 100mph EMUs with the same acceleration as the existing ones on the line, rather than the 90mph DMUs that aren't so fast off the mark) then would that create any additional paths through Surbiton?

Or am I being naive/ wishful thinking?

LNW-GW Joint said:

NR really hates the Electric Spine, doesn't it (at least the DC-AC bit).
It is still presented as a "DfT aspiration" and largely discussed in freight terms.

Click to expand...

This is the most frustrating thing about the report, for me - regardless of whether it promises "Wessex" a wholly gold plated railway tomorrow, or just one extra passing loop in thirty years time, the potential rift between the two big powers is a problem on a national scale.

Given all of the investment we are expecting over the next decade - could be a transformational time for the national railway - we need the left hand and the right hand to be working together.

(I can appreciate why NR are more interested in the practical stuff whilst the DfT seem more interested in the "headline" stuff - and the "Electric Spine" is a pretty story to sell to the press rather than a major priority - but I wish they'd keep their arguments behind closed doors and at least give the impression that they are on the same side!)

Monty said:

IF (and it's looking to be a mighty big if) the line from Basingstoke to Southampton is converted from DC to AC then wiring to Salisbury and then to Southampton via Laverstock Jct and Romsey would make sense as a diversionary route

Click to expand...

I agree.

Wire up the Basingstoke - Salisbury line (for the sake of the hourly terminator from Waterloo, even if all Yeovil/Exeter services remain fully diesel) then the Salisbury - Southampton line (to wire up the "6") and then you've got a good case for wiring from Salisbury to Bath, or for diverting Waterloo - Southampton services via Salisbury (whilst the line through Winchester is converted to proper modern electrification), you've got a better case for a number of projects - gets my vote!

swt_passenger said:

They keep referring to the XC service from Southampton to Hull - did anyone see that anywhere else?

Click to expand...

Good spot

hock:

21C101 said:

What seems most interesting is that page 142 implies that north downs electirification will likely be third rail, there seems a definite rolling back of the AC conversion idea

Click to expand...

Depends on where you are coming from, I suppose, but as a "non Southern Region" person, I read it as confirming that DC is basically obsolete for future projects, unless its just a short infill between existing DC sections.

Anything else would be AC (as far as I read it)

Kettledrum said:

As for double decker trains from Basingstoke to Waterloo, it's right that they look at them, but I suspect the infrastructure changes would be so prohibitive and expensive, that it wouldn't happen.

Click to expand...

Agreed that they have to keep various options apparently on the table at this stage, even if there's little chance of them realistically happening (see also the "New DMUs for Northern" thread).

I can see that suggesting something "futuristic" like double deck trains is a nice angle to "sell" to the media etc, who aren't likely to get as excited about "extra passing loops plus a grade separated junction" (even if these are maybe more practical).

The thing that surprised me with double deck services from Basingstoke to Waterloo is that I thought there are only a couple of services an hour that start/finish at Basingstoke (? - happy to be corrected), with virtually no scope for more services though Surbiton until Crossrail2 frees up some space, so that'd be a lot of disruption/ infrastructure/ cost for the sake of just a half hourly service.

If you were to do double decker trains (something I'm not convinced of the merits of, and don't mean to drag this interesting thread off topic by going down the "for"/ "against" route) then I'd have thought that they'd be more suited to lines where there'd be a higher frequency of double decker services (C2C, SE Metro)?

Well you could put Crossrail 2 out to Basingstoke and run double deck trains on that - that would drastically reduce the amount of infrastructure to be rebuilt I would think. I could see dedicated Crossrail platforms between Basingstoke and Wimbledon. To avoid compatibility issues with single deck trains also running through the Crossrail 2 core you could get clever and use gauntlet track 'interlacing' so that double deck trains are further away from the platform. This would prohibit using non-BR compatible platform heights (unless you got even more clever - interlaced rails don't necessarily have to be at the same heights) but you remove the width restriction entirely.

And the RER A shows that such a system can work with double deck trains - and even more intensive operation than Thameslink.

tbtc said:

This is the most frustrating thing about the report, for me - regardless of whether it promises "Wessex" a wholly gold plated railway tomorrow, or just one extra passing loop in thirty years time, the potential rift between the two big powers is a problem on a national scale....

Given all of the investment we are expecting over the next decade - could be a transformational time for the national railway - we need the left hand and the right hand to be working together.

Depends on where you are coming from, I suppose, but as a "non Southern Region" person, I read it as confirming that DC is basically obsolete for future projects, unless its just a short infill between existing DC sections.

Anything else would be AC (as far as I read it)

Click to expand...

Thats effectively reiteration of the situation thats been the case since since the 1960s.

Once the 1930s electrifcations were done the die was cast. There is essentially just too much of it to swap it over, especially given the complexity of the track layouts in inner south London. They did consider using 25kV for the Woking -Bournemouth electrification but went for third rail in the end.

Whats new is that the idea had taken hold in some quarters of converting the entire third rail network to 25kV a.c. with no new sections of third rail to be countenanced, even infill. This report seems to suggest that common sense has prevailed and mass conversion of the third rail is firmly in flying pig territory.

I can see that suggesting something "futuristic" like double deck trains is a nice angle to "sell" to the media etc, who aren't likely to get as excited about "extra passing loops plus a grade separated junction" (even if these are maybe more practical).

Click to expand...

Double deck trains have been tried before on the Southern (between Charing Cross and Dartford) and were in service for over 20 years. Unfortunately they were not a great success as, essentially our loading gauge is just too small

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Did anyone else spot that the double decker trains were being considered with 26m coaches?

If, therefore, Basingstoke to Waterloo is cleared for that as well as the diversionary section of the WofE line it's not a massive leap to assume that IEP's could be used to provide through services. Although that would very much depend on what actually happens.

Back on more sensible ground, to cover for the conversion of the 444's and 450's to dual voltage there could be an order for extra trains for the electric services to Salisbury, with at least some of them delivered early to cover for those units being converted. It would assume that electrification of the lines were to happen early in CP6.

Also, as I've suggested in the past, electrification to Yeovil could allow a cross platform change from a DMU to EMU, with the DMU running between Westberry and Exeter.

MarkyT said:

For freight purposes the 'spine' south of Basingstoke IS a non-electrified line though, and according to the route plan one expected to see a four-fold increase in port intermodal traffic. The DC equipment is due for renewal anyway, so it's a one off opportunity.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's a fairly finely balanced decision whether to go ahead with this conversion and it could go either way. One factor that may influence is that conversion of the SWML would reduce the power used for the passenger trains, because of the much lower resistance losses at the higher voltage, so perhaps the power for the freights would effectively be free!

tbtc said:

I can see that suggesting something "futuristic" like double deck trains is a nice angle to "sell" to the media etc, who aren't likely to get as excited about "extra passing loops plus a grade separated junction" (even if these are maybe more practical).

Click to expand...

I think the double-deck option was tested and rejected in the first RUS; prior to that, I seem to recall Southern used some "double-deck" carriages, at least for a short while. Anyone have any info?

However, at some point the extending the length of trains, and the increasing the number of trains per hour are both going to reach their practical limits. If growth in demand continues beyond 2043 the option may have to be revisited, but yes it it would be disruptive and expensive.

Re AC-DC conversion; that will be covered in detail when the Electrification RUS is refreshed early in 2015. I suspect though that part of the problem is that NR does not have the necessary skilled planning resources to handle this work, and that it would probably be better if the program management was contracted to one of the specialists.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

21C101 said:

Double deck trains have been tried before on the Southern (between Charing Cross and Dartford) and were in service for over 20 years. Unfortunately they were not a great success as, essentially our loading gauge is just too small

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Click to expand...

Thanks.

The Ham said:

Also, as I've suggested in the past, electrification to Yeovil could allow a cross platform change from a DMU to EMU, with the DMU running between Westberry and Exeter.

Click to expand...

Which would cause outrage with the rapidly increasing number of users of Crewkerne, Axminster, Honiton, Feniton, Whimple, Pinhoe and Exeter Central since they gained a 7 day a week clockface hourly interval same journey time for all trains service to London.

The governments got enough trouble with transport issues in the southwest without pulling a stunt like that one. Although there are probably a couple of retired ex WR managers reading this in a bath chair in the Brunel Geriatrics Home kicking themselves for not thinking of this in the sixties, and thereby succeeding in closing the route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

edwin_m said:

I agree, it's a fairly finely balanced decision whether to go ahead with this conversion and it could go either way. One factor that may influence is that conversion of the SWML would reduce the power used for the passenger trains, because of the much lower resistance losses at the higher voltage, so perhaps the power for the freights would effectively be free!

Click to expand...

To make it worthwhile I think you would have to convert all the way to Weymouth and do the lines from Bas/Soton to Exeter and Bath too, along with Newbury-Westbury and probably Eastleigh-Fareham

The picture I get is, "yes we will do it, but only as part of a wider scheme, so you Govt will need to fund the other lines to make it worth our while".

The logical changeover point seems to me to be a couple of miles south of Brookwood (Pirbright jct) on plain line, rather than Basingstoke.

I reckon it might happen on this stretch, not least as it would allow 125mph running on the SWML, but any further conversion is flying pig stuff, as nowhere else on the Southern gives the chance of higher speeds or a procession of a.c. hauled freight locos. If it does get done to Weymouth that will make ICXC services to Weymouth a possibility. With hindsight, doing the Bournemouth electrification as d.c. was an error.

Seems that NR was not aware of the proposal for the relocation of Kingston station when this draft was produced - that might prevent the Kingston turn-back being implemented.

Olaf said:

Re AC-DC conversion; that will be covered in detail when the Electrification RUS is refreshed early in 2015. I suspect though that part of the problem is that NR does not have the necessary skilled planning resources to handle this work, and that it would probably be better if the program management was contracted to one of the specialists.

Click to expand...

Agreed it will be interesting to see what the Electrification RUS recommends. I think I saw a document discussing other routes for conversion in CP6 with the BML as one option using the lessons learned from Basingstoke - Southampton conversion.

21C101 said:

To make it worthwhile I think you would have to convert all the way to Weymouth and do the lines from Bas/Soton to Exeter and Bath too, along with Newbury-Westbury and probably Eastleigh-Fareham

Click to expand...

Problem with somewhere like Fareham as the end of the wires is that with no services normally terminating there, so it has to become a changeover point, so do you leave the changeover at Eastleigh, or run AC services all the way through Fareham to somewhere else. Portsmouth starts looking a bit complex, because Southern provide half the service.

As has come up in earlier discussions, AC at Southampton Central becomes a bit of an issue for Southern's 2 tph as well.

As an aside I notice that in this 'route study' they are now suggesting a 2 tph Waterloo - Portsmouth service via Eastleigh.

21C101 said:

Which would cause outrage with the rapidly increasing number of users of Crewkerne, Axminster, Honiton, Feniton, Whimple, Pinhoe and Exeter Central since they gained a 7 day a week clockface hourly interval same journey time for all trains service to London.

The governments got enough trouble with transport issues in the southwest without pulling a stunt like that one. Although there are probably a couple of retired ex WR managers reading this in a bath chair in the Brunel Geriatrics Home kicking themselves for not thinking of this in the sixties, and thereby succeeding in closing the route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


To make it worthwhile I think you would have to convert all the way to Weymouth and do the lines from Bas/Soton to Exeter and Bath too, along with Newbury-Westbury and probably Eastleigh-Fareham

The picture I get is, "yes we will do it, but only as part of a wider scheme, so you Govt will need to fund the other lines to make it worth our while".

The logical changeover point seems to me to be a couple of miles south of Brookwood (Pirbright jct) on plain line, rather than Basingstoke.

I reckon it might happen on this stretch, not least as it would allow 125mph running on the SWML, but any further conversion is flying pig stuff, as nowhere else on the Southern gives the chance of higher speeds or a procession of a.c. hauled freight locos. If it does get done to Weymouth that will make ICXC services to Weymouth a possibility. With hindsight, doing the Bournemouth electrification as d.c. was an error.

Click to expand...

Changing at Yeovil doesn't have to be for every service (I.e. keep through services for peak hours and/or a two hourly through service with a change the other hour with the same journey time due to making up the change time due to savings from electrification). Alternatively could be beneficial for if the service frequency increase.

With regards to the change point between electric power types, AUI, it is best to do so at a point where trains are not going very fast. Therefore it tends to be best to do so at a major station where most if not all trains stop. Therefore Basingstoke or Woking.

The Ham said:

Changing at Yeovil doesn't have to be for every service (I.e. keep through services for peak hours and/or a two hourly through service with a change the other hour with the same journey time due to making up the change time due to savings from electrification). Alternatively could be beneficial for if the service frequency increase.

Click to expand...

But the whole selling point of that line is an hourly through service to London, every hour, at the same time, with the same journey time seven days a week (obviously other than early morning late evening) - unlike certain other lines to Exeter I could mention (which is why people from places like Ilminster often choose Crewkerne over Taunton now)

Massive efforts have also been put into hourly bus interchange hubs at Templecombe (for Wincanton), Yeovil (for town), Crewkerne (for Chard), Axminster (for Bridport, Lyme Regis and Seaton) and Honiton (for Sidmouth).

Making passengers change at Yeovil Jct would be catastrophic for revenue, even if it was only half the trains.

With regards to the change point between electric power types, AUI, it is best to do so at a point where trains are not going very fast. Therefore it tends to be best to do so at a major station where most if not all trains stop. Therefore Basingstoke or Woking.

Click to expand...

The Eurostars managed it on the go at 80-100mph at Dollands Moor.

So after reading through the study, the AC-DC conversion between Southampton and Basingstoke is still assumed to happen by the end of CP6.

Interesting that it states that W12 is now the standard gauge for freight route clearances (last paragraph of Section 2.1.3, page 31) and will be used for the Andover diversion while the SWML was cleared for W10.

21C101 said:

Double deck trains have been tried before on the Southern (between Charing Cross and Dartford) and were in service for over 20 years. Unfortunately they were not a great success as, essentially our loading gauge is just too small....

Click to expand...

Olaf said:

.....I seem to recall Southern used some "double-deck" carriages, at least for a short while. Anyone have any info?

Click to expand...

The Southern DD stock is not an example that is of any use in the current consideration of DD trains. They were not proper DD trains either and bore no similarities to any modern DD trains in their design or layout.
As such that experience is of absolutely no relevance to what may, or may not, be proposed today.

The only thing that hasn't changed, is the restrictions imposed by the British loading gauge.

What's this?

Improving Connectivity
Network Rail has been working on a project examining a different approach to planning the network and services that can operate, based on other European countries, such as Switzerland. A separate consultation will be published on this concept in November 2014 on the Network Rail website to gain feedback in the value of this approach and where it could be applied across the network.

Click to expand...

- Last paragraph, Section 2.1.5, page 34.

swt_passenger said:

Problem with somewhere like Fareham as the end of the wires is that with no services normally terminating there, so it has to become a changeover point, so do you leave the changeover at Eastleigh, or run AC services all the way through Fareham to somewhere else. Portsmouth starts looking a bit complex, because Southern provide half the service.

As has come up in earlier discussions, AC at Southampton Central becomes a bit of an issue for Southern's 2 tph as well.

As an aside I notice that in this 'route study' they are now suggesting a 2 tph Waterloo - Portsmouth service via Eastleigh.

Click to expand...

One option I doubt they would consider is the following. Scrap Southern's services to Southampton. Terminate all services at the point where trains switche from AC to DC. That might inconvenience some passengers but one could argue one has to balance passenger needs with costs of running and maintaining a railway.

BananaRepublic said:

The Southern DD stock is not an example that is of any use in the current consideration of DD trains. They were not proper DD trains either and bore no similarities to any modern DD trains in their design or layout.
As such that experience is of absolutely no relevance to what may, or may not, be proposed today.

The only thing that hasn't changed, is the restrictions imposed by the British loading gauge.

Click to expand...

Yes I understand that, nevertheless, double-deck vehicles will not be totally new to the network.

If the proposal for double-deck operation was to be adopted, it will likely entail the adoption of one of the standard European gauges for the route given to the commitment to comply with those standards.

An aside:
So from the numbers, a fully loaded 8-car class 455 is equivalent to about 5km of road space, bumper to bumper, if all those passengers were to travel by car.

infobleep said:

One option I doubt they would consider is the following. Scrap Southern's services to Southampton. Terminate all services at the point where trains switche from AC to DC. That might inconvenience some passengers but one could argue one has to balance passenger needs with costs of running and maintaining a railway.

Click to expand...

The same study is proposing through services from Brighton to Bournemouth now though (which comes as a something of a surprise). But the point is that there is not really a convenient point to do such an apparently simple end on switch of supplies. There are also a number of inter-connected routes forming triangles in South Hants, if you consider Romsey/Redbridge/Eastleigh, or Eastleigh/Fareham/St Denys, or Cosham/Bedhampton/Hilsea.

Similarly it is not really a sound proposition to have services into Portsmouth being DC from the west via Cosham and AC from the east via Havant, because the dual electrified section into Portsmouth would be far too long.

swt_passenger said:

The same study is proposing through services from Brighton to Bournemouth now though (which comes as a something of a surprise). But the point is that there is not really a convenient point to do such an apparently simple end on switch of supplies. There are also a number of inter-connected routes forming triangles in South Hants, if you consider Romsey/Redbridge/Eastleigh, or Eastleigh/Fareham/St Denys, or Cosham/Bedhampton/Hilsea. Similarly it is not really a sound proposition to have services into Portsmouth being DC from the west via Cosham and AC from the east via Havant, because the dual electrified section into Portsmouth would be far too long.

Click to expand...

This goes back to a suggestion I made earlier in the thread. With all the longer distance SWT passenger units able to run on AC or DC, and able to switch easily between the two on the move or at defined changeover stations, complex urban areas like Portsmouth and Southampton and the coastal route connecting them could remain DC only to cater for the DC only traffic without having much expensive and undesirable dual fitted track mileage beyond the necessary short changeover sections. The problem with this is freight, for which AC is such a great advantage on the spine route between the ports and the midlands and north. That could be solved by the new electric freight locos being ordered with a third rail capability, like older class 92s. The relatively compact yet complex urban areas around the Solent are fairly low speed and mostly level so the performance limitations of freight running on DC are not such a great problem as on the higher speed sections beyond, where the AC performance and equipment savings provide so many benefits. Any new electric passenger units ordered for Cross Country services from the north onto the Southern hybrid AC/DC network could also specify DC capability. Freight locos with DC capability could also help support a mixed electrification strategy for the North Downs route from Reading to Redhill and on to Ashford and Europe as part of a London freight bypass route, avoiding dual electrification through Guildford station and approaching Reading from Wokingham (unless SWT Waterlooo - Reading service was already operated by dual system units in which case this section could be AC only).

Further to my previous comment about double deckers on Japan narrow gauge railways, I found this diagram on a japanese wikipedia page:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/車両限界#mediaviewer/File:Rolling-Stock-Gauge-in-Japan.svg

Blue and grey show narrow gauge dimensions and green is standard gauge Shinkansen

Google translates the Japanese key as follows:

Blue: Local railway vehicle ruler: "local railway construction provisions" numbers in 1919 () the old vehicle limit: "Railway Construction provisions" in 1900
Grey: Normal railway vehicle limit: "Normal railway structure rule" 1987)
Green: Vehicle limit of Shinkansen

The narrow gauge profiles (especially the earlier one) are remarkably similar to the UK classic loading gauge, including a platform edge cutaway for high boarding, so no wonder Hitachi were able to offer a body shell for Kent domestic and Intercity Express purposes based on an existing narrow gauge design. Regarding squeezing in the second deck I think this illustrates what might be done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_(train)#mediaviewer/File:JR_East_E26_Suronefu-E26_side.jpg

Note this is a sleeper so station dwell time probably less of an issue!

BananaRepublic said:

The Southern DD stock is not an example that is of any use in the current consideration of DD trains. They were not proper DD trains either and bore no similarities to any modern DD trains in their design or layout.
As such that experience is of absolutely no relevance to what may, or may not, be proposed today.

The only thing that hasn't changed, is the restrictions imposed by the British loading gauge.

Click to expand...

which is one reason why they "bore no similarities to any modern DD trains in their design or layout"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

swt_passenger said:

Problem with somewhere like Fareham as the end of the wires is that with no services normally terminating there, so it has to become a changeover point, so do you leave the changeover at Eastleigh, or run AC services all the way through Fareham to somewhere else. Portsmouth starts looking a bit complex, because Southern provide half the service.

As has come up in earlier discussions, AC at Southampton Central becomes a bit of an issue for Southern's 2 tph as well.

As an aside I notice that in this 'route study' they are now suggesting a 2 tph Waterloo - Portsmouth service via Eastleigh.

Click to expand...

Basically, fairly simple track layout and everything stops there, unlike Portsmouth, Soton or Eastleigh, so not too much of a headache for the engineers.

If you convert Pirbright to Weymouth and Fareham Eastleigh/Soton it also gets rid of nearly all of the the substandard 1980s electrifications Bomo-Wey and Eastleigh/Soton - cosham which were done very cheaply and with very little poke. (Max 8 car on the Southampton/Pompey lines and 5 car on Bomo Weymouth)

And leaves everything east of the Waterloo -Portsmouth Line third rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

infobleep said:

One option I doubt they would consider is the following. Scrap Southern's services to Southampton. Terminate all services at the point where trains switche from AC to DC. That might inconvenience some passengers but one could argue one has to balance passenger needs with costs of running and maintaining a railway.

Click to expand...

Why, they are run by dual voltage 377s that seem to cope quite happily with doing the same at Farringdon?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

swt_passenger said:

The same study is proposing through services from Brighton to Bournemouth now though (which comes as a something of a surprise). But the point is that there is not really a convenient point to do such an apparently simple end on switch of supplies. There are also a number of inter-connected routes forming triangles in South Hants, if you consider Romsey/Redbridge/Eastleigh, or Eastleigh/Fareham/St Denys, or Cosham/Bedhampton/Hilsea.

Similarly it is not really a sound proposition to have services into Portsmouth being DC from the west via Cosham and AC from the east via Havant, because the dual electrified section into Portsmouth would be far too long.

Click to expand...

Indeed, thats why I think Fareham is the logical changeover point.

21C101 said:

But the whole selling point of that line is an hourly through service to London, every hour, at the same time, with the same journey time seven days a week (obviously other than early morning late evening) - unlike certain other lines to Exeter I could mention (which is why people from places like Ilminster often choose Crewkerne over Taunton now)

Massive efforts have also been put into hourly bus interchange hubs at Templecombe (for Wincanton), Yeovil (for town), Crewkerne (for Chard), Axminster (for Bridport, Lyme Regis and Seaton) and Honiton (for Sidmouth).

Making passengers change at Yeovil Jct would be catastrophic for revenue, even if it was only half the trains.

Click to expand...

...but that is the point, even allowing for the time taken to change trains the departure time from the local stations and the arrival time to Waterloo would still remain the same (even if the advertised arrival time was a little after the train normally arrived) each and every hour as the EMU would get up to speed faster and have a higher top speed. Therefore there wouldn't be so much of an issue. Those with a preference for direct services would have a choice, but even then (outside of the peaks) I doubt it would make much of a difference to most people.

Making commuters change would cause more problems, especially if loadings are such that getting their preference of seat on the connecting service was problematic.

Of course the big win is that there would be a regular service (timed to connect with services to/from London) between the two Yeovil stations. It also provides a regular service for the stations between Castle Cary and Westberry.

The Ham said:

...but that is the point, even allowing for the time taken to change trains the departure time from the local stations and the arrival time to Waterloo would still remain the same (even if the advertised arrival time was a little after the train normally arrived) each and every hour as the EMU would get up to speed faster and have a higher top speed. Therefore there wouldn't be so much of an issue. Those with a preference for direct services would have a choice, but even then (outside of the peaks) I doubt it would make much of a difference to most people.

Making commuters change would cause more problems, especially if loadings are such that getting their preference of seat on the connecting service was problematic.

Of course the big win is that there would be a regular service (timed to connect with services to/from London) between the two Yeovil stations. It also provides a regular service for the stations between Castle Cary and Westberry.

Click to expand...

What part of Passengers on 2.5 hour intercity journeys HATE changing don't you understand? Especially when they've come from somewhere like Seaton and already changed from Bus to train.

Changing at Yeovil, might not take much longer when it works properly, but no one wants to risk being stuck at Yeovil Junction for an hour if the connection is cancelled or the train to Yeovil junction runs late. Even if it works properly its a PITA, especially if you are old, disabled, children or heavy luggage. If they have to change they might as well drive up the A303 or fight their way up the A358 and through the Taunton traffic to Taunton (but maybe thats the real agenda?).

For a regular service between the Yeovil stations reopen the Clifton Maybank spur and west to south curve so that Westbury - Weymouth trains can reverse in and out of the disused down platforms at Yeovil Junction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Olaf said:

What's this?


- Last paragraph, Section 2.1.5, page 34.

Click to expand...

Didn't Switzerland originally get the idea from the Southern Railway after seeing the then revolutionary hourly/half hourly clock face to all destinations timetables in action on the newly electrified Brighton and Pompey lines in the '30s?

swt_passenger said:

As has come up in earlier discussions, AC at Southampton Central becomes a bit of an issue for Southern's 2 tph as well.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be a self-made issue? GTR have dual voltage units but they have chosen to allocate a lot of them to run on an AC only route when Thameslink have finished with them.

It is curious that the Wessex study proposes as an option double deck trains to accommodate future capacity gaps, but hasn't mentioned as an alternative, lengthening to 14 or 16-car trains as was suggested as a possible long term option in the Sussex RS.

swt_passenger said:

They keep referring to the XC service from Southampton to Hull - did anyone see that anywhere else?

Click to expand...

This is interesting. Have NR revealed some early thinking on how to accommodate HS2 Newcastle services on the ECML by diverting the XC Newcastle service to Hull instead?

21C101 said:

(Max 8 car on the Southampton/Pompey lines and 5 car on Bomo Weymouth)

Click to expand...

There is no 8 car limitation in that area, 12 car trains are commonplace as far as Southampton, even to Portsmouth via Eastleigh and Fareham; and of course as was discussed a few weeks ago 10 car trains definitely reach Poole.

The problem for Southern isn't a major one though, it's just that they require a significant uplift in the overall number of dual voltage trains for use on what is a proportionally very small part of the Victoria and Brighton service's overall route mileage.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stats said:

This is interesting. Have NR revealed some early thinking on how to accommodate HS2 Newcastle services on the ECML by diverting the XC Newcastle service to Hull instead?

Click to expand...

It's included without any explanation, so I can only assume the reasoning will appear in a future route study, either the ECML or the 'cross-boundary' one?

The Ham said:

Making commuters change would cause more problems, especially if loadings are such that getting their preference of seat on the connecting service was problematic.

Of course the big win is that there would be a regular service (timed to connect with services to/from London) between the two Yeovil stations. It also provides a regular service for the stations between Castle Cary and Westberry.

Click to expand...

As I've suggested recently on another thread... Build two chords to Yeovil Pen Mill from East and West. Electrify Basingstoke-Yeovil, and then replace Waterloo-Exeter with two hourly services:
1. Waterloo-Yeovil Pen Mill.
2. A diesel service Paddington-Reading-Newbury-Westbury-Castle Cary-Yeovil Pen Mill then stations to Exeter, which would absorb some of the expected growth on the line through Newbury.

Problem solved - and with the bonus of serving Yeovil properly (with a station actually in the town) and cross platform connections at Pen Mill

MarkyT said:

The narrow gauge profiles (especially the earlier one) are remarkably similar to the UK classic loading gauge, including a platform edge cutaway for high boarding, so no wonder Hitachi were able to offer a body shell for Kent domestic and Intercity Express purposes based on an existing narrow gauge design. Regarding squeezing in the second deck I think this illustrates what might be done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_(train)#mediaviewer/File:JR_East_E26_Suronefu-E26_side.jpg

Note this is a sleeper so station dwell time probably less of an issue!

Click to expand...

Apologies if the tone comes across incorrectly (aka. inappropriately), but you also have to consider the average size of the passenger. The average Japanese person is generally much smaller than the average British passenger. When I was travelling there they had low arch warnings in some of the stations that were at the same level as my ribcage from the floor, and on the crowded trains my companions and I were at least a foot taller as well (which made finding each other very easy!)

DynamicSpirit said:

As I've suggested recently on another thread... Build two chords to Yeovil Pen Mill from East and West. Electrify Basingstoke-Yeovil, and then replace Waterloo-Exeter with two hourly services:
1. Waterloo-Yeovil Pen Mill.
2. A diesel service Paddington-Reading-Newbury-Westbury-Castle Cary-Yeovil Pen Mill then stations to Exeter, which would absorb some of the expected growth on the line through Newbury.

Problem solved - and with the bonus of serving Yeovil properly (with a station actually in the town) and cross platform connections at Pen Mill

Click to expand...

But Yeovil Pen Mill is hardly more in the town than Yeovil Junction is and the half hourly bus connection to the town centre from Yeovil Junction is just as quick if not quicker than the old push pull service to Yeovil Town was before Beeching.

Also, people from places like Honiton and Axminster want to go to London, not a station in the western suburbs named after a peruvian bear...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

swt_passenger said:

There is no 8 car limitation in that area, 12 car trains are commonplace as far as Southampton, even to Portsmouth via Eastleigh and Fareham; and of course as was discussed a few weeks ago 10 car trains definitely reach Poole.

The problem for Southern isn't a major one though, it's just that they require a significant uplift in the overall number of dual voltage trains for use on what is a proportionally very small part of the Victoria and Brighton service's overall route mileage.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right about Poole, it is beyond there that 5 cars are the limit from what I remember.

I'm sure there is some sort of limitation on the Pompey soton/eastleigh lines, cant remember what though.

21C101 said:

I'm sure there is some sort of limitation on the Pompey soton/eastleigh lines, cant remember what though.

Click to expand...

Online sectional appendix mentions the Conductor Rail Index (CRI) is 14 for St Denys to Portcreek and Eastleigh to Fareham - but that must still allow for 10 and 12 car trains - perhaps that CRI figure limits their speed. Someone else might know what the exact effect is.

Found a reference to the default CRI being 16 across the whole SR network, with 4 car EMUs being 4, and 442s being 7. Which probably means 14 is not actually a severe limitation in any case.

swt_passenger said:

They keep referring to the XC service from Southampton to Hull - did anyone see that anywhere else?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this may tie in with the Oxford to Bedford East - West rail project or not.

If that is the case, this may be an additional service.

The calling pattern I would desire would be Southampton Central, Southampton Airport Parkway, Eastleigh (connections from Portsmouth and LBSC Railway stations), Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading West, Didcot Parkway, Oxford, Bicester Town, Bletchley, Bedford Midland, Kettering, Leicester London Road, Derby, Sheffield, Barnsley, Wakefield Kirkgate, Pontefract Monkhill, Goole, Gilberdyke, Brough, and Hull.

Alternative calling points north of Sheffield could be Doncaster, then either Selby or Goole, then Gilberdyke, Brough, and Hull.

Alternative from Wakefield Kirkgate could be Leeds, Selby, Gilberdyke, Brough, and Hull.

Cheers

Adam