Exeter to Sailsbury line suggested improvements (e.g. redoubling, electrifciation)

[HowardGWR]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-salisbury-was-electrified-from-london.194818

I think we can agree with Wolmar on redoubling the whole of Salisbury to Exeter, plus third rail or OHLE to Salisbury, can we not? The 159s are well maintained and the interior could be made more spacious, if it were cost-effective. I suppose it depends on how many years they have left. They certainly don't 'chug' and are, above all, reliable.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think we can agree with Wolmar on redoubling the whole of Salisbury to Exeter, plus third rail or OHLE to Salisbury, can we not?.

Well I certainly do. Still surprised 3rd rail to Salisbury was not done in the Thatcher era.

 

[TheWalrus]

I don’t understand why people on here are often proposing electrification to Exeter for 1tph, surely it would not be cost effective? Redoubling west of Axminster would certainly be advantageous, but not electrification.

 

[MatthewRead]

What I would like is the re-extension of services west of Exeter to Paginton but I've been told they're aren't enough SWR DMU's to go around.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Well I certainly do. Still surprised 3rd rail to Salisbury was not done in the Thatcher era.

I've always been surprised that it was not done immediately after the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification. I'm not convinced that redoubling from Salisbury to Exeter is necessary. The train frequency doesn't seem to require it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think we can agree with Wolmar on redoubling the whole of Salisbury to Exeter, plus third rail or OHLE to Salisbury, can we not? The 159s are well maintained and the interior could be made more spacious, if it were cost-effective. I suppose it depends on how many years they have left. They certainly don't 'chug' and are, above all, reliable.

The 158/159s are going to get less spacious interiors, they are due extra standard seating shortly.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've always been surprised that it was not done immediately after the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification. I'm not convinced that redoubling from Salisbury to Exeter is necessary. The train frequency doesn't seem to require it.

It might have been a conscious decision not to add third rail at least to Southampton to Salisbury via Romsey, because immediately prior to electrification of the Fareham area, (which was done after Weymouth), local services usually ran from Portsmouth to Salisbury.

 

[Aictos]

I've always been surprised that it was not done immediately after the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification. I'm not convinced that redoubling from Salisbury to Exeter is necessary. The train frequency doesn't seem to require it.

But by redoubling the line between Exeter and Salisbury you CAN increase the frequency of services which would lead to passenger growth which in turn would provide the business case for redoubling in the first place.

Electrification should be done in two phrases, phase 1 to Salisbury then if business case is strong enough then phrase 2 should be to Exeter but then again phrase 2 could if done right include the figure of 6 services for Eastleigh, Exeter and Westbury.

 

[randyrippley]

I've always been surprised that it was not done immediately after the Bournemouth/Weymouth electrification. I'm not convinced that redoubling from Salisbury to Exeter is necessary. The train frequency doesn't seem to require it.

If it had been done it would have used the REP/TC sets displaced from the Weymouth line, but when the motors were stripped for reuse in the Wessex Electrics that became impossible. It would also have left Salisbury-Exeter stuck with class 33 power as the 50 and 47/7 fleet didn't have bagpipes. The route was too low in priority to get new stock

 

[Grecian 1998]

Redoubling the whole of the Salisbury-Exeter line seems pretty unlikely due to the cost. However there are a few improvements which could be attempted which should both improve capacity and resilience:

1. Redouble Tisbury-Wilton Jct and extend the track into the station. A fair chunk of the track is still in place around Dinton (or was until very recently as it was used by the MoD), so if the whole section can't be done, you could at least extend Tisbury loop eastwards. The down platform at Tisbury would need to be bought back from private ownership. This would be incredibly useful as currently virtually all services use the loop east of the station, meaning at least one service has to stop. This allows passengers to enjoy a view of the Wiltshire countryside but doesn't do much for the line's perception.

2. Extend the double track between Yeovil Jct and Templecombe into Templecombe station, so trains can pass in the station rather than to the west. However this would mean building a new footbridge with lifts for the up platform (i.e. the one used from 1983 to 2012) which is likely to be expensive. This was done at Axminster in 2009 but Axminster is a much busier station - indeed it's just overtaken Honiton and Gillingham to become the busiest intermediate station between Exeter and Salisbury. Additionally, due to the single track bridge immediately east of the station (it was installed in 2000 replacing the previous wider bridge), the plaforms might need to be shifted slightly westwards if that's possible.

3. Build a loop at Crewkerne. This would be particularly useful as there's currently a 17 mile single line section between Chard Jct and Yeovil Jct. I'm not sure though if again the land for the down platform would need to be bought back.

4. Build a loop at Whimple. This is most frequently brought up due to the fact it would allow an additional hourly Exeter-Axminster service so the village stops between Honiton and Exeter could be transferred to that service, and or allow a greater frequency of GWR Paddington services when diversions are in place. This looks the most straightforward given the up platform was extended over the former down line when the cider factory and connecting line were closed in 1991, and there isn't anything else in the way.

I'd love to see the line re-doubled in full - but the improvements above would be a lot cheaper and make a lot of difference. It would mean there was no more than 10 miles between passing loops Even then they would still cost not inconsiderable sums given the costs of the modern railway.

AIUI, the three options Network SouthEast looked at to replace the ageing class 50s and 47s were electrification, 2+5 HSTs, or new build DMUs. In the end the money wasn't there for the first two but as a recession hit in 1991 and Regional Railways had built more 158s than they then decided they needed due to the recession (yes really - the past is truly another country), NSE took the last 22 3-car units and designated them as class 159s.

 

[S-Bahn]

I'd re-double more of the track to allow increased frequency, but also upgrade Waterloo to Southampton line speeds and install OHLE to Southampton and Salisbury (as part of the proposed electric spine from the Midlands to the Southampton docks), and look to use IET's for Waterloo to Weymouth and Exeter

 

[PTR 444]

I think a new hourly local service between Honiton and Exeter St David’s would be very beneficial considering the growth along that corridor. It would stop at all stations en route and necessitate the need for the Waterloo - Exeter route to serve them, speeding up that service. Double tracking should be prioritised on this section before completing the rest of the WofE Line in later phases, preferably before 2040.

 

[30907]

Loops don't need to be at stations if they are "dynamic" ie long enough for trains to pass at line speed. You trade off extra p-way costs against extra station costs (accessibility in particular).

(There's also the Penrhyn solution (used in mainland Europe too) but it's inconvenient with longer trains or non-stopping ones.)

 

[swt_passenger]

I think a new hourly local service between Honiton and Exeter St David’s would be very beneficial considering the growth along that corridor. It would stop at all stations en route and necessitate the need for the Waterloo - Exeter route to serve them, speeding up that service. Double tracking should be prioritised on this section before completing the rest of the WofE Line in later phases, preferably before 2040.

A certain number of extra trains as far as Honiton and/or Axminster is already possible and is documented in the various route studies, possibly to be run by Exeter based GWR units as part of “Devon Metro”. But a regularly second train every hour at that end of the line needs another passing loop, at Whimple from memory, and as posted earlier by Grecian 1998. This service would rate as highly likely within a few years, rather than speculation.

 

[PTR 444]

A certain number of extra trains as far as Honiton and/or Axminster is already possible and is documented in the various route studies, possibly to be run by Exeter based GWR units as part of “Devon Metro”. But a regularly second train every hour at that end of the line needs another passing loop, at Whimple from memory, and as posted earlier by Grecian 1998. This service would rate as highly likely within a few years, rather than speculation.

If successful, I think there should also be the possibility of looking into extending the Exeter end to either Paignton, Barnstaple or Okehampton to provide a cross-Devon metro.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I think there should also be the possibility of looking into extending the Exeter end to either Paignton, Barnstaple or Okehampton to provide a cross-Devon metro.

Isn't that the way it works already? Conceptually there are a number of local services from a hub at St David's, but they rarely terminate there, rather the incoming service heads off to one of the other destinations.

 

[swt_passenger]

If successful, I think there should also be the possibility of looking into extending the Exeter end to either Paignton, Barnstaple or Okehampton to provide a cross-Devon metro.

That’s exactly what they do already propose, but more specifically they intend to connect Barnstaple and Axminster, with Paignton to Exmouth as a half hourly service. Okehampton is a separate service. The also explain that the Exeter to Axminster leg allows for demand at that end of the route and they don’t yet need 2 tph on the SWR service at stations east of Axminster.

 

[HowardGWR]

I had not noticed that the thread had been created by moving my post to it, thanks to mods.

As SWT writes, the half-hourly service from Axminster to Exeter and beyond is a future 'given'. The redoubling of the whole route had a very reasonable feasibility justification in the noughties and the South West Regional Assembly and local councils were supportive. I think what many of us miss in discussing these issues is that something has to be done to back up climate change ambitions and this restoration is in this respect something of a no-brainer, were it not for the fact that there must be scores of similar possibilities nationwide in this category of intra regional routes. One simply can ask 'if this route had remained a double track route, what would its use be now?' I can see that more stations would now be being re-opened on it, including a 'Chard Parkway' and a 'Shaftesbury Parkway' (was Semley).

 

[brad465]

Alongside most of the redoubling ideas put forward, a possibility I think should be pursued is new/cascaded rolling stock that can do 100+mph and upgrade line speeds to at least 100mph between Worting Jct and Salisbury. While I imagine there are other reasons the line speed is not more than 85/90mph, the long sections of straight running between these two places as a result of extensive earthworks is not an issue. I suspect the same could be done in places beyond Salisbury, such as to Yeovil, albeit the business case is lower, if the investment was worth making one day.

 

[Meerkat]

The long list of extra loops sounds expensive provision for resilience based on where the stations are rather than working where the loops would need to be to add services.
Assuming the plan would be to extend the other Salisbury train through is there enough seat capacity further in toward London even if all peak trains were max length to Salisbury (probably needing new trains - bi-mode 444 please!). Those trains are busy fast trains for Woking and Basingstoke.

i still think a priority should be a Wilton Parkway, to serve Wilton and reduce the traffic having to drive into central Salisbury. Would also be quicker place to run Stonehenge shuttles from (though Salisbury tourist bods might not like it).

 

[Grecian 1998]

The extra loops I mentioned would ensure there's no stretch of single line over 10 miles, which is pretty much essential for any new services. If there was an attempt to redouble the whole line, apart from the cost there are other pinch points e.g. the narrow M5 bridge at Pinhoe. I believe Honiton and Buckhorn Weston Tunnels also use part of the old double line formation for drainage, as the latter in particularly is pretty wet.

The problem with opening more stations is that you slow down the service even further. Most of the current stations work quite well as railheads between 7 and 15 miles apart e.g. Axminster serves the Devon/Dorset/Somerset border area, Gillingham serves North Dorset. There's a frequent bus from Shaftesbury to Gillingham taking about 20 minutes and it looks like there would be room to extend the car park if required. Somerset County Council decided earlier this year not to support the reopening of Chard Junction as it would largely abstract business from Axminster and Crewkerne rather than generate new users. Given there's very little around the station and no bus service so you'd have to drive there anyway, I can see their point.

The ruling line speed between Worting Junction and Salisbury is 90mph. Upgrading it to 100mph when there's only around 20 miles between stops isn't going to knock much time off the journey. The journey times currently for 159s between Basingstoke-Woking-Clapham Junction are only around a minute or two slower than 450s and 444s, and that's with the 100mph capability and superior acceleration of (much younger) EMUs.

The biggest time saving would be to extend Tisbury loop and tweak the timetable so the current situation where 50% of all services have to sit in a loop in the Wiltshire countryside doesn't arise. If a loop is put in at Whimple and the Exeter-Axminster stopping service is introduced the Waterloo service can also skip the Devon villages. There were some services in the 1990s booked for under 3 hours between Waterloo and Exeter Central when the service west of Salisbury was 2-hourly, so a few dynamic loops could achieve the same with an hourly service.

But of course it all costs money...

 

[JohnR]

there are other pinch points e.g. the narrow M5 bridge at Pinhoe.

I've heard this before, but have never seen any evidence that the M5 was built over the formation here.

 

[Cowley]

I've heard this before, but have never seen any evidence that the M5 was built over the formation here.

Here’s a screenshot from one of the drivers eye videos of the M5 bridge heading towards Honiton.

 

[JohnR]

The track has been slewed into the centre of the trackbed there, though, hasnt it?

 

[30907]

Perhaps, but the bridge isnt double track width - I'd guess 6m/20ft.

 

[Cowley]

Perhaps, but the bridge isnt double track width - I'd guess 6m/20ft.

I’m not exactly sure of the dates, but was thinking that Pinhoe to Honiton was singled around 1968? And the M5 section (including this bridge) was opened around 1975, so no need for them to provide a twin line bridge.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm not convinced that footbridges with lifts are required if some of the loops are lengthened to incorporate the platforms. These dates no great need for parcels offices, goods offices, milk docks etc so should be plenty of room to install footbridges served by long ramps (ramps are lot cheaper than lifts, especially if they traverse a cutting)

Most of these are semi-rural stations with quite a wide catchment area, but really these stations need to be able to handle full length trains (something like 240-270m depending on what length coaches next generation trains will use), so lengthening platforms might allow footbridges to be in new location. I might go further and suggest platforms should be about 30m longer than trains to stop some of the over cautious approaches as it wont matter if it finally stops about 20m further along, and would more braking leeway. Even saving 10 seconds per stop is 2-3 minutes overall. My memory might be fuzzy, but I'm sure the Southern extended some platforms to about 15-16 carriage lengths in 1930s. Therefore some platforms might already be nearer 300m

Having got longer loops (or even a token number of dynamic loops), need to be able to enter and exit them at a decent speed, but that actually makes the job of installing the long turnout easier, because doing it on the plain single line beyond the current loop. If any existing ones are in good condition probably possible to break them into sections for reassembly elsewhere. These days big cranes mean these can often be part assembled clear of the running lines.

As we nowadays have 110mph gangwayed EMUs, could easily have 110mph bi-modes on the line. I know the 159s are not yet life expired, but there are many other lines where there is a serious shortage of rolling stock, easy to cascade in old days, but more complicated when a leaseCo is involved. So I would also be looking to get the longer sections to this higher speed limit. With the higher speed loop approaches should be looking to cut station-station running times.

Regarding electrification. Stringing the wires up Wilton - Basingstoke - Reading is a logical progression (and third rail would be better than diesel if stupid no extension rule didn't exist). Not convinced that doing the section onto Exeter makes sense at current time.