What other possibilities are there to improve capacity around Reading?

[Mark J]

The DNSR route has also been obliterated in Didcot. You might in theory be able join the main line eastwards or westwards of the town but avoiding capacity issues doing that isn't obvious.

In Didcot, Hitchcock Way and a few houses around a road called Dirac Place are the biggest obstacles.

However, there are also some obstacles in Compton, Upton, Hampstead Norreys, the M4 and in the northern fringes of Newbury.

Not possible now, unless money was spent on demolishing a number of properties, or some diversions.

I do think there should be more protection for former track beds, especially those with a more realistic prospect of reopening.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Which are? Oxford itself will be an issue, as it always is.

The capacity of the GWML between Reading and Didcot in particular.

Half hourly service = 2x2.5 mins, so 5 mins saved = Extra path.

A Didcot Avoider Avoider (i.e. Grade Separated Mains to Oxford route) would be higher up my priority list than any attempt to bypass Southcote Junction.

An extra path on that section, but not necessarily value for money when you consider it would require further work to path the services at either end.

A Didcot East Jcn grade separation should be pretty high priority, but we need to start planning for a more direct route into Southampton from the Midlands if we're serious about major modal shift for goods transit.

 

[zwk500]

The capacity of the GWML between Reading and Didcot in particular.

This really isn't the biggest problem between Southampton and the Midlands.

An extra path on that section, but not necessarily value for money when you consider it would require further work to path the services at either end

No but you asked how it got an extra path. The value for money would be in improved resilience, as well as allowing CrossCountry to avoid so much pathing.

A Didcot East Jcn grade separation should be pretty high priority, but we need to start planning for a more direct route into Southampton from the Midlands if we're serious about major modal shift for goods transit.

Something at Basingstoke, Loops near Bramley/Mortimer, Didcot East Grade Separation, loops between Banbury and Birmingham, Kenilworth doubling would all be well above my list before a second route. And then I'd start looking at the Warminster route before the DNSR.

 

[AlastairFraser]

This really isn't the biggest problem between Southampton and the Midlands.

No but you asked how it got an extra path. The value for money would be in improved resilience, as well as allowing CrossCountry to avoid so much pathing.

Something at Basingstoke, Loops near Bramley/Mortimer, Didcot East Grade Separation, loops between Banbury and Birmingham, Kenilworth doubling would all be well above my list before a second route. And then I'd start looking at the Warminster route before the DNSR.

1) It's not the biggest issue, but it is quite busy and traffic isn't likely to be able to divert any time soon (unlike on other sections).

2.) Resilience isn't too bad on that section of the Cross Country route tbh, it's Oxford as has been said that provides a barrier to success.

3) Most of those measures make sense, except Bramley/Morto loops.
The NIMBYs in the area will make your proposal utter hell. I'd suggest the part of Pingewood by Island Road north of Green Park station, as it's quite isolated and the land isn't expensive.

Warminster is useful to some extent, but you need to consider a chord at Swindon Jcn onto the Stroud line to avoid the Bristol/Bath area when heading toward the West Mids.
That's not going to be cheap

 

[The Planner]

Warminster is useful to some extent, but you need to consider a chord at Swindon Jcn onto the Stroud line to avoid the Bristol/Bath area when heading toward the West Mids.
That's not going to be cheap

Gauge clearing the Golden Valley and the line to Landor St for Intermodals will cost vastly more.

 

[mangyiscute]

Is there much feasibility in sending freight via Salisbury and Gloucestershire to get to the midlands?
I'm not sure if much freight ran this way when Didcot-Oxford was shut

 

[zwk500]

The NIMBYs in the area will make your proposal utter hell. I'd suggest the part of Pingewood by Island Road north of Green Park station, as it's quite isolated and the land isn't expensive.

NIMBY's make everything utter hell, that's just part of the way it works now.

Warminster is useful to some extent, but you need to consider a chord at Swindon Jcn onto the Stroud line to avoid the Bristol/Bath area when heading toward the West Mids.
That's not going to be cheap

Running Round at Swindon or running up to Didcot are options - if a new chord is to go anywhere in that part of the world I'd say Westerleigh east chord would be most useful, and that's not going to pass a business case any time soon.

Is there much feasibility in sending freight via Salisbury and Gloucestershire to get to the midlands?
I'm not sure if much freight ran this way when Didcot-Oxford was shut

It's not gauge cleared as it stands, and unlikely to be any time soon. Also, if you send any freight up via Cheltenham the Lickey Incline will make itself felt.

 

[Falcon1200]

but we need to start planning for a more direct route into Southampton from the Midlands if we're serious about major modal shift for goods transit.

Far more cost effective to improve existing routes (which has already been done to some extent with the grade separation at Reading) than rebuild long-closed routes such as the D&NSR. As well as the cost of the, in effect new railway, that route would require grade separation at Didcot, which would be an interesting project; Presumably starting somewhere on the Appleford side of Didcot North Junction to gain sufficient height, with a reasonable gradient, to cross the four-track electrified GWML. Not going to happen, ever.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Gauge clearing the Golden Valley and the line to Landor St for Intermodals will cost vastly more.

Then which way do you send them - via new chords at Wooton Bassett and Westerleigh Jcns?

Far more cost effective to improve existing routes (which has already been done to some extent with the grade separation at Reading) than rebuild long-closed routes such as the D&NSR. As well as the cost of the, in effect new railway, that route would require grade separation at Didcot, which would be an interesting project; Presumably starting somewhere on the Appleford side of Didcot North Junction to gain sufficient height, with a reasonable gradient, to cross the four-track electrified GWML. Not going to happen, ever.

You can improve existing routes to an extent, but we also need to balance growing passenger traffic with freight.

NIMBY's make everything utter hell, that's just part of the way it works now.

Running Round at Swindon or running up to Didcot are options - if a new chord is to go anywhere in that part of the world I'd say Westerleigh east chord would be most useful, and that's not going to pass a business case any time soon.

It's not gauge cleared as it stands, and unlikely to be any time soon. Also, if you send any freight up via Cheltenham the Lickey Incline will make itself felt.

1) There's nearly no one living in Pingewood - mostly light industry or commerical enterprises, and the location I suggested is close to Reading sewage works (not a popular location for housing development)!
So I find it highly unlikely that anyone would object in that area.

2) Why would a Westerleigh East Chord have a particularly difficult business case? It must be useful for diversionary capability if the Severn Tunnel is closed too.

3) Gauge clearing is a fair point, but the Lickey Incline should be less of an issue with modern diesel or bi mode locos.

 

[The Planner]

Then which way do you send them - via new chords at Wooton Bassett and Westerleigh Jcns?

Westerleigh doesnt solve it as the gauge issues are still there, if you were to to do this, you go via Didcot as its the only W10 cleared route from the South to the Midlands.

2) Why would a Westerleigh East Chord have a particularly difficult business case? It must be useful for diversionary capability if the Severn Tunnel is closed too.

Its fallen over already then if you are relying on diversionary capability as a reason.

3) Gauge clearing is a fair point, but the Lickey Incline should be less of an issue with modern diesel or bi mode locos.

Lickey still has quite punitive restrictions even with modern diesel, a class 70 can only haul 1060t unassisted, a 66/6 1020. No good for Intermodal. Bi-Mode would likely cause issues due to supply capacity.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In Didcot, Hitchcock Way and a few houses around a road called Dirac Place are the biggest obstacles.
However, there are also some obstacles in Compton, Upton, Hampstead Norreys, the M4 and in the northern fringes of Newbury.
Not possible now, unless money was spent on demolishing a number of properties, or some diversions.
I do think there should be more protection for former track beds, especially those with a more realistic prospect of reopening.

A few sections of the DN&S are now cycleways: Didcot–Upton, Hampstead Norreys–Hermitage (the Eling Way), Hockley Viaduct. I wouldn't be surprised to see more converted over the coming years, particularly extending the Eling Way section.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Westerleigh doesnt solve it as the gauge issues are still there, if you were to to do this, you go via Didcot as its the only W10 cleared route from the South to the Midlands.

Its fallen over already then if you are relying on diversionary capability as a reason.


Lickey still has quite punitive restrictions even with modern diesel, a class 70 can only haul 1060t unassisted, a 66/6 1020. No good for Intermodal. Bi-Mode would likely cause issues due to supply capacity.

I meant passenger diversions.

Where are the specific pinchpoints Bristol to Birmingham?

Perhaps upgrading the supply capacity would help there.

 

[JonathanH]

A few sections of the DN&S are now cycleways: Didcot–Upton, Hampstead Norreys–Hermitage (the Eling Way), Hockley Viaduct. I wouldn't be surprised to see more converted over the coming years, particularly extending the Eling Way section.

Probably best left like that too.

It is somewhat odd that long lost railway lines, including fairly rural links such as the Didcot, Newbury & Southampton line, are in any way seen as the best way to improve capacity rather than a blank sheet of paper solution that matches the actual requirement, particularly since there are many places where evidence of the line ever having existed are gone.

 

[zwk500]

You can improve existing routes to an extent, but we also need to balance growing passenger traffic with freight.

We do, and growth is concentrated on existing corridors....

1) There's nearly no one living in Pingewood - mostly light industry or commerical enterprises, and the location I suggested is close to Reading sewage works (not a popular location for housing development)!
So I find it highly unlikely that anyone would object in that area.

Business can be vociferous opponents as well. But don't underestimate just how far people will now go out of their way to protect countryside.

2) Why would a Westerleigh East Chord have a particularly difficult business case? It must be useful for diversionary capability if the Severn Tunnel is closed too.

Diversionary capability = 'we won't use it normally'. Not a great way to begin a pitch to the DfT for tens of millions of precious, precious pounds. Also, Golden Valley fulfills the passenger diversions quite fine. It'll have a terrible business case normally because there'll only be low single digit numbers of paths using it and of those only a low percentage actually run. It would introduce 2 new junctions to busy high-speed main lines while having to avoid the social club in the corner.

Where are the specific pinchpoints Bristol to Birmingham?

Generally: Gloucester triangle can be tricky, King's Norton to Birmingham. Freight additional has the problem of being hunted down by the 100mph+ trains on the section between Gloucester and Bromsgrove where there are few loops and getting into them isn't easy.

Perhaps upgrading the supply capacity would help there.

Easy to say, but given it was specced for the local stopping service to give headroom for freight will be an almighty task. Any changes to the wires southwest of Bristol will likely need to wait until XC have a shift towards electric traction (which should happen, but I can't see where the money's coming from in the next 10 years at least).

 

[The Planner]

I meant passenger diversions.

Where are the specific pinchpoints Bristol to Birmingham?

Perhaps upgrading the supply capacity would help there.

Passenger diversions for what? you would use the Golden Valley route from Swindon to Standish to divert as its already there. Pinch points are Barnt Green to New St.

 

[AlastairFraser]

We do, and growth is concentrated on existing corridors....

Business can be vociferous opponents as well. But don't underestimate just how far people will now go out of their way to protect countryside.

Diversionary capability = 'we won't use it normally'. Not a great way to begin a pitch to the DfT for tens of millions of precious, precious pounds. Also, Golden Valley fulfills the passenger diversions quite fine. It'll have a terrible business case normally because there'll only be low single digit numbers of paths using it and of those only a low percentage actually run. It would introduce 2 new junctions to busy high-speed main lines while having to avoid the social club in the corner.

Generally: Gloucester triangle can be tricky, King's Norton to Birmingham. Freight additional has the problem of being hunted down by the 100mph+ trains on the section between Gloucester and Bromsgrove where there are few loops and getting into them isn't easy.

Easy to say, but given it was specced for the local stopping service to give headroom for freight will be an almighty task. Any changes to the wires southwest of Bristol will likely need to wait until XC have a shift towards electric traction (which should happen, but I can't see where the money's coming from in the next 10 years at least).

1.) While that is true, freight growth should not come at the expense of passenger growth.

2.) Pingewood has the M4 and Reading services, several business parks, a sewage works, the tip, and numerous lakes from gravel extraction. There is some nicer parts of countryside left, but most of it is flood plain and can't be build. Sidings on the site I suggested are within an existing industrial area and would not affect the condition of the remaining green belt at all.
3.) Diversionary capacity is just part of the business case, freight growth would be the primary reason.
Wasn't the S and C heavily upgraded on the justification of coal traffic pathing alone?

4.) OK, so upgraded loops potentially needed in conjuction with gauge widening in the future.

5.)Wires on the rest of the Bristol to Birmingham main line would be good, but upgrading the Lickey Incline is the most crucial part. An additional feeder could also have the benefit of permitting extensions e.g. Bromsgrove to Worcester, no?

 

[The Planner]

3.) Diversionary capacity is just part of the business case,

A very small part.

Wasn't the S and C heavily upgraded on the justification of coal traffic pathing alone?

Yes, but that was mostly IB signals.

5.)Wires on the rest of the Bristol to Birmingham main line would be good, but upgrading the Lickey Incline is the most crucial part. An additional feeder could also have the benefit of permitting extensions e.g. Bromsgrove to Worcester, no?

An additional feeder is incredibly expensive and would never merit it just to get freight up the Lickey, it would only be part of any wider electrification.

 

[AlastairFraser]

An additional feeder is incredibly expensive and would never merit it just to get freight up the Lickey, it would only be part of any wider electrification.

OK, so where's Bromsgrove to Bristol on the electrification priority list?

 

[The Planner]

OK, so where's Bromsgrove to Bristol on the electrification priority list?

Not very high up.

 

[Meerkat]

If you need loops between Reading and Basingstoke how high are the embankments through the old Bramley military storage depot? Thats a good mile of relatively straight line with no immediate neighbours. And whilst there would be some environmental issues its presumably technically brownfield.
Presumably electrifying the route would help the stoppers stay out of the way.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Not very high up.

Fair enough.

If you need loops between Reading and Basingstoke how high are the embankments through the old Bramley military storage depot? Thats a good mile of relatively straight line with no immediate neighbours. And whilst there would be some environmental issues its presumably technically brownfield.
Presumably electrifying the route would help the stoppers stay out of the way.

So the site of the old extensive sidings/ammunition depot was sold off some time ago for housing, and the remaining site is still used as a training area for the RAF coming down from RAF Halton in Bucks (near Aylesbury).

Electrification will deliver a host of improvements, but it is the lines at either end which are the bigger barriers.

 

[Meerkat]

So the site of the old extensive sidings/ammunition depot was sold off some time ago for housing, and the remaining site is still used as a training area for the RAF coming down from RAF Halton in Bucks (near Aylesbury).

Housing won’t miss a doubling of the track bed width.
Halton is closing and moving to Cranwell so they won’t need it, but it is a general training area and part of the reservist SAS is based on part of it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Housing won’t miss a doubling of the track bed width.
Halton is closing and moving to Cranwell so they won’t need it, but it is a general training area and part of the reservist SAS is based on part of it.

Tbf I didn't know about the changes, but you couldn't fit a doubling of the trackbed width within the current railway envelope.
So you'd have to encroach on Beckett Gardens playground or the gardens of the housing on Coopers Lane (on the western side of the tracks).

 

[Meerkat]

The railway through the site is a mile long between where houses adjoin, so I am not sure why doubling the width of the railway envelope is a problem unless being on an embankment makes it too expensive or their are approved housebuilding plans in the way??

 

[AlastairFraser]

The railway through the site is a mile long between where houses adjoin, so I am not sure why doubling the width of the railway envelope is a problem unless being on an embankment makes it too expensive or their are approved housebuilding plans in the way??

Ah, you're talking about the portion of the railway training area to the south. Yes, that's technically possible, but 3 major issues.
1) Acquiring the land off the MoD.
2) Land prices in Pingewood are much lower than in Bramley, so it will be cheaper there.
3) The NIMBY aspect I've mentioned before, industrial customers would have much less issue with freight services looping.