Wessex Route Study - draft out for consultation

[59CosG95]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-t...wessex-route-study-draft-for-consultation.pdf Interesting how they've included wiring to Salisbury!

This Wessex Route Study seeks to establish the required capacity
and capability of the railway, from a systematic analysis of the
future requirements of the network. It seeks to accommodate the
conditional outputs articulated in the Long Term Planning Process
(LTPP) Market Studies, whilst maintaining operational performance,
and at a cost acceptable to funders and stakeholders.

Network Rail is developing a programme of Route Studies, in
conjunction with rail industry partners and other stakeholders. This
programme of geographic Route Studies runs alongside
development of Network-wide Route Utilisation Strategies. These
review national issues such as stations, depots, rolling stock and
electrification. A Freight RUS will provide a strategy for networkwide
freight issues such as gauge, train length, axle weights and
freight electrification....

 

[evergreenadam]

Network Rail has published the Wessex Route Study.

Not had a chance to read it yet, so would anyone like to give a synopsis?

 

[59CosG95]

Network Rail has published the Wessex Route Study.

Not had a chance to read it yet, so would anyone like to give a synopsis?

The main points are peak hour double-deck trains to Basingstoke (and potentially Southampton), OLE to Salisbury from Basingstoke and Redbridge as part and parcel of the electric spine, grade-separation of Basingstoke Junction, grade separation and platform remodelling at Woking, accelerated ETCS introduction between Waterloo and Woking, and improved pax circulation at Clapham Jct, Putney, Syon Lane, Wandsworth Town, Raynes Park, Norbiton, Kingston, Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge.

 

[HowardGWR]

The main points are peak hour double-deck trains to Basingstoke (and potentially Southampton), OLE to Salisbury from Basingstoke and Redbridge as part and parcel of the electric spine, grade-separation of Basingstoke Junction, grade separation and platform remodelling at Woking, accelerated ETCS introduction between Waterloo and Woking, and improved pax circulation at Clapham Jct, Putney, Syon Lane, Wandsworth Town, Raynes Park, Norbiton, Kingston, Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge.

Thanks. When I've read it I hope this will be the thread to continue discussion. If those are the headlines, it does not sound such a big deal does it?

Update: The link provided didn't work and I see NR has provided another. This is it.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/rus documents/route studies/wessex route study.pdf

Hope this helps.

 

[Monty]

That will be upset then Salisbury massive, no excuse then to not sign the juice.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.
I can't see anything about planning for AC trains from Southampton (or even dual-voltage XC services).

section 6.4:
• a significant cost is involved in converting the present-day DC
electric passenger fleet to dual-voltage capability, it being
assumed that it will not prove possible or practicable to keep in
place the third-rail DC system as well as the AC system
• whilst some minor passenger journey time improvements might
be achievable between Basingstoke and Southampton, there is
very little overall passenger benefit in the short to medium term
• from an asset management and maintenance perspective, the
scope of AC electrification may be insufficient to offer efficiencies
of scale.

The other DfT "big idea" they don't want is double-deck operation.
Discussed in some detail but eventually dismissed as "probably poor value for money".
But they continue to spend money on evaluating the business case.

 

[WatcherZero]

Talk is cheap

:P

 

[vikingdriver]

We've only just got electrickery in our homes, now this!

 

[Monty]

After now having a good read of the document. while I understand it's a long term plan for the route, the funds required to pay for all of this is going to be eyewatering. I suspect a lot of this will be changed and even possibly dropped altogether. Lots of it seems a bit pie in the sky tbh.

 

[59CosG95]

I'm sure that there'll be a few tricky sections, but the line's gauge has just been expanded, so in theory, wiring those chalk cuttings may be possible. Fisherton Tunnel may prove a little more trouble, however.

And then, if they DO electrify the lines, what trains will run down there? 444s (as 344s)? New-build stock? Or even (sky-high mode on) Mk4 stock and Class 88s?

 

[MarkyT]

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. I can't see anything about planning for AC trains from Southampton (or even dual-voltage XC services). The other DfT "big idea" they don't want is double-deck operation. Discussed in some detail but eventually dismissed as "probably poor value for money". But they continue to spend money on evaluating the business case.

I guess Network Rail has to study the proposal if a funder asks them to, and there's at least an outside chance they may have to accommodate it. The two issues are linked of course. If a lot of clearance work was required to accomodate OHLE, then is it much of an increment to also accomodate double deck? Or the other way round if you did double deck then you might effectively get OHLE clearances 'for free'!

As far as rolling stock compatibility and service planning are concerned, people often assume all the newer Siemens stock is readily convertible to dual system and could switch easily between AC and DC at station stops or on the move. This is at least true theoretically, in the sense the design was passively prepared for that eventuallty and carbody and roof well space was allocated for a main transformer and pantograph respectively. The traction control system on each unit would need a major reconfiguration however. Engineering design would be required first for each class affected followed by a conversion programme with each unit being adapted, tested and commissioned in turn, requiring at least some extra time out of traffic. Therefore some additional units in the fleet would be needed to cover the normal workload during the conversions.

Problems also remain with the Southampton area, where unlike the fast main lines between Basingstoke and at least Eastleigh (where only AC would remain), AC OHLE could be overlaid on top of existing DC 3rd rail electrification throughout between St Denys and the docks to allow DC only trains, AC/DC trains and AC only trains to run intermixed. That would be expensive and disruptive and not good electrical engineering practice which ideally attempts to reduce the extent of dual traction system track to shorter changeover or approach sections alone. Alternatively if, like the AC/DC EMUs, the new freight electrics could also switch to DC 3rd rail operation (like class 92) for the relatively slow and level transit through the city, all the knitting in the complex central area might be avoided.

 

[Monty]

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. For the short term at least I would have though the existing 444/450 fleet fitted with Pantographs would work these services however additional stock would be needed as the current Desiro fleet is stretched thin as it is. Not sure about the mk4s though or for any LHCS option for that matter who knows?

There are some monumental hurdles that will need to be overcome before most of this can become a reality, even extending the freight loops at Wallers Ash will require new bridges to be built as the loops themselves were shortened to allow the mainlines to be spread apart from one another over a weak bridge. The proposed additional platforms at Guildford and Southampton will be tricky too as space is at a premium in both locations and will probably require both stations to be completely rebuilt like Reading.

I won't go into double deck trains and things like ATO as they all have their own hurdles to overcome and I would be here all night, I'd also love to see how they would put in a Flyover at Basingstoke too.

In short I think we are looking at something that could take 50 years to achieve rather than 20-30 years and that's before we even talk about who foots the bill.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

Wiring to Salisbury and the Laverstock diversion for freight, (and to allow the Salisbury 6 stopper to be electrified) is actually what they conclude in the study, having read it in detail now.

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

Guildford remodelled with 10 platforms, a new P9/10 island and P7/P8 resited to provide the additional track needed

Southampton remodelled with 6 platforms over three islands with all existing buildings removed...

Portsmouth Harbour P2 re-instated OR an additional platform at Portsmouth & Southsea LL

 

[HowardGWR]

From what I have read so far, it's the western end that I find disappointing (as you might expect ). Faffing about with loops at Whimple when we are discussing up to the year 2043 is just not credible. The whole line Exeter to Salisbury needs redoubling and more besides, if two tier metro-local / express services are envisaged, which they are in this document.

 

[infobleep]

I guess Network Rail has to study the proposal if a funder asks them to, and there's at least an outside chance they may have to accommodate it. The two issues are linked of course. If a lot of clearance work was required to accomodate OHLE, then is it much of an increment to also accomodate double deck? Or the other way round if you did double deck then you might effectively get OHLE clearances 'for free'!

As far as rolling stock compatibility and service planning are concerned, people often assume all the newer Siemens stock is readily convertible to dual system and could switch easily between AC and DC at station stops or on the move. This is at least true theoretically, in the sense the design was passively prepared for that eventuallty and carbody and roof well space was allocated for a main transformer and pantograph respectively. The traction control system on each unit would need a major reconfiguration however. Engineering design would be required first for each class affected followed by a conversion programme with each unit being adapted, tested and commissioned in turn, requiring at least some extra time out of traffic. Therefore some additional units in the fleet would be needed to cover the normal workload during the conversions.

Problems also remain with the Southampton area, where unlike the fast main lines between Basingstoke and at least Eastleigh (where only AC would remain), AC OHLE could be overlaid on top of existing DC 3rd rail electrification throughout between St Denys and the docks to allow DC only trains, AC/DC trains and AC only trains to run intermixed. That would be expensive and disruptive and not good electrical engineering practice which ideally attempts to reduce the extent of dual traction system track to shorter changeover or approach sections alone. Alternatively if, like the AC/DC EMUs, the new freight electrics could also switch to DC 3rd rail operation (like class 92) for the relatively slow and level transit through the city, all the knitting in the complex central area might be avoided.

They wouldn't need additional rolling stock. They can just short form existing services and miss out stations during busy periods as they are doing now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wiring to Salisbury and the Laverstock diversion for freight, (and to allow the Salisbury 6 stopper to be electrified) is actually what they conclude in the study, having read it in detail now.

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

Guildford remodelled with 10 platforms, a new P9/10 island and P7/P8 resited to provide the additional track needed

Southampton remodelled with 6 platforms over three islands with all existing buildings removed...

Portsmouth Harbour P2 re-instated OR an additional platform at Portsmouth & Southsea LL

I've not read through the whole report yet, being at work all day but would they change the infrastructure south of Guildford when creating the 3 additional platforms at Guildford?

I'm not certain what having three additional platforms would achieve if they didn't. I'm sure if I suggested creating three additional platforms on here people might question how and why such a thing was needed.

Another fast service to Gatwick would be good. On Sundays though it's only fast every other hour to Gatwick and on alternate hours fast to Reading, no train between Reading and Gatwick being completely fast through out for most if not all of the day. It switches at Guildford from fast to slow or slow to fast. Less helpful if you need to get from Farnborough North to Shalford.

Would they be able to introduce more cross country services if more platforms were built at Guildford?

 

[Monty]

Wiring to Salisbury and the Laverstock diversion for freight, (and to allow the Salisbury 6 stopper to be electrified) is actually what they conclude in the study, having read it in detail now.

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

Guildford remodelled with 10 platforms, a new P9/10 island and P7/P8 resited to provide the additional track needed

Southampton remodelled with 6 platforms over three islands with all existing buildings removed...

Portsmouth Harbour P2 re-instated OR an additional platform at Portsmouth & Southsea LL

I know, I was agreeing that wiring that route was a good idea if the SWML part of the electric spine project goes ahead which is far from a done deal just yet.

Southampton and Guildford will still be massive jobs and I suspect that it's a goal for the longer term.

The mention of Portsmouth Harbour is indeed interesting, the reinstatement of platform 2 should really be a short term goal as it would help with the congestion there immensely. However it all depends what state the station is in, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the current station was condemned and entirely new one build in it's place.

 

[21C101]

From what I have read so far, it's the western end that I find disappointing (as you might expect ). Faffing about with loops at Whimple when we are discussing up to the year 2043 is just not credible. The whole line Exeter to Salisbury needs redoubling and more besides, if two tier metro-local / express services are envisaged, which they are in this document.

Theres a lot more than that. AC Electrification to Exeter is one of the options along with major extension of double tracking, to accomodate the proposed Devon Metro service to Axminster, diverted services from Castle Cary and the nonsense of the five minute wait at Tisbury being ended. The options appear to include in table 7.7:

* Double track Wilton to Tisbury Loop
* Extend double track west of Yeovil and bring old down main platform back into use
* Crewkerne loop or Crewkerne - Chard Dynamic Loop
* Loop at Whimple or Pinhoe - Axminster Redoubling

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.

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....

 

[ChiefPlanner]

In the very first - long days ago - wiring to Salisbury alone had an outstanding BCR of something like 17 / 1.

Bring it on I say - the clearance of Laverstock to Basingstoke for 9'6 boxes will have immeasurably helped reduce costs. Helps of course having dual voltage EMU capability around.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Faffing about with loops at Whimple when we are discussing up to the year 2043 is just not credible. The whole line Exeter to Salisbury needs redoubling and more besides, if two tier metro-local / express services are envisaged, which they are in this document.

AB -SO - LUTELY IMHO - the line would be redoubled throughout at the same time as electrification and signalling et al. the cost could be spread over a few years - Salisbury first as a no-brainer, then progressively add all the way down to Exeter.

Now, what I would really like is to get Derby-Exeter done and then start wiring from Exeter northeast so they meet somewhere between Salisbury and Exeter.

 

[swt_passenger]

I know, I was agreeing that wiring that route was a good idea if the SWML part of the electric spine project goes ahead which is far from a done deal just yet.

Oh sorry, I thought you wrote your first bit as though it was your own suggestion, my mistake.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

On the Basingstoke to Southampton DC to AC conversion is it a case of Network Rail getting cold feet (having originally pushed the idea of converting parts of the DC network to AC in the first place) and hoping the project will be quietly dropped?

If it does not go ahead than what happens to the 'life expired' 3rd rail given that the reason the conversion from Basingstoke to Southampton was approved in the first place was as a replacement of the 3rd rail with OHLE which is cheaper in the long run?

 

[swt_passenger]

If it does not go ahead than what happens to the 'life expired' 3rd rail given that the reason the conversion from Basingstoke to Southampton was approved in the first place was as a replacement of the 3rd rail with OHLE which is cheaper in the long run?

They'd have to renew it, with modern equipment as was used for the Desiro strengthening work about 10 years ago. There are still projects ongoing in CP5 to add more DC substations on all three 'southern' routes anyway - there's no indication that routine replacement will suddenly cease.

The main significance of the 'life expiry' of this particular route is just that it is a good time to do it, in conjunction with the electric spine for freight - as it avoids nugatory costs. If it is renewed with like for like technology, that puts the replacement with AC on the back burner for another 35-40 years.

 

[infobleep]

Theres a lot more than that. AC Electrification to Exeter is one of the options along with major extension of double tracking, to accomodate the proposed Devon Metro service to Axminster, diverted services from Castle Cary and the nonsense of the five minute wait at Tisbury being ended. The options appear to include in table 7.7:

* Double track Wilton to Tisbury Loop
* Extend double track west of Yeovil and bring old down main platform back into use
* Crewkerne loop or Crewkerne - Chard Dynamic Loop
* Loop at Whimple or Pinhoe - Axminster Redoubling

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.

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....

What is wrong with walking 5 minutes between stations? The official quickest route between Guildford and Alton using one ticket involves a 10 minute walk between North Camp and Ash Vale. That's twice as long. Perhaps they could find away of reducing that too in future then.

Needless to say there is a quicker unofficial journey using one ticket between Guildford and Alton, which involves changing at Aldershot but you just have to know about it as the popular journey planners won't list it.

 

[Bald Rick]

On the Basingstoke to Southampton DC to AC conversion is it a case of Network Rail getting cold feet (having originally pushed the idea of converting parts of the DC network to AC in the first place) and hoping the project will be quietly dropped?

If it does not go ahead than what happens to the 'life expired' 3rd rail given that the reason the conversion from Basingstoke to Southampton was approved in the first place was as a replacement of the 3rd rail with OHLE which is cheaper in the long run?

That rather assumes the feet were anything but frozen in the first place.

The con rail is a rather small proportion of the cost of DC third rail electrification, the big cost is all the transformers / rectifiers and parallel cabling. Oh and protecting the signalling.

 

[21C101]

That rather assumes the feet were anything but frozen in the first place.

The con rail is a rather small proportion of the cost of DC third rail electrification, the big cost is all the transformers / rectifiers and parallel cabling. Oh and protecting the signalling.

and telecoms, and rebuilding bridges in all directions.....

 

[Bald Rick]

and telecoms, and rebuilding bridges in all directions.....

Bridges? For third rail?

 

[21C101]

Bridges? For third rail?

Doh, I misread and thought you said a.c.....

 

[3141]

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....

Wow! The fastest trains from Waterloo to Basingstoke do it in about 45 minutes. From Basingstoke to Exeter Central is 124 miles. What would the line speed have to be to do that in under 75 minutes with four stops? In view of some of the curves, will it require Pendolinos?

 

[edwin_m]

If a lot of clearance work was required to accomodate OHLE, then is it much of an increment to also accomodate double deck? Or the other way round if you did double deck then you might effectively get OHLE clearances 'for free'!

Mostly neither I'm afraid. Double deck needs a bit more clearance above but the biggest issue is that British platforms are too close to the track to allow double deck stock to have a reasonable sized lower deck. Rebuild all the platforms and normal British stock can't stop at them because the stepping distances are too great. So conversion of a particular route to double deck needs either a special fleet of trains with moveable doorsteps, or closure for as long as it takes to rebuild every platform (and what about stations shared with other routes?). So it's a logistical nightmare and far more so than AC electrification where the existing railway can carry on running after a fashion while the work is being done.

As far as rolling stock compatibility and service planning are concerned, people often assume all the newer Siemens stock is readily convertible to dual system and could switch easily between AC and DC at station stops or on the move. This is at least true theoretically, in the sense the design was passively prepared for that eventuallty and carbody and roof well space was allocated for a main transformer and pantograph respectively. The traction control system on each unit would need a major reconfiguration however. Engineering design would be required first for each class affected followed by a conversion programme with each unit being adapted, tested and commissioned in turn, requiring at least some extra time out of traffic. Therefore some additional units in the fleet would be needed to cover the normal workload during the conversions.

The design, configuration, approval and first-of-type testing for AC on the 450 has already been done. It's called the 350/1. Since the 444 shares the same traction package this would be pretty straightforward too. Yes there will be some approval issues such as ensuring the regeneration mods are in the safety case, and each train would have to be out of service for a few days to fit and test the relevant equipment, but it doesn't strike me as a big risk and there's plenty of time to sort it out in parallel with the first stage of the infrastructure.

That's not to say that AC conversion is necessarily a good idea. As an engineer I consider the DC system to be a technology pushed beyond its limits, as well as a big waste of energy. However the money might be better spent extending AC onto non-electrified lines.

 

[MarkyT]

Mostly neither I'm afraid. Double deck needs a bit more clearance above but the biggest issue is that British platforms are too close to the track to allow double deck stock to have a reasonable sized lower deck. Rebuild all the platforms and normal British stock can't stop at them because the stepping distances are too great. So conversion of a particular route to double deck needs either a special fleet of trains with moveable doorsteps, or closure for as long as it takes to rebuild every platform (and what about stations shared with other routes?). So it's a logistical nightmare and far more so than AC electrification where the existing railway can carry on running after a fashion while the work is being done.

I agree DD works best with wide UIC stock and relatively low boarding so there's not a big step down to the lower deck. I've seen pictures of Japaneses narrow gauge bi-level though and they have high platforms I think, but I don't know what their carbody width is compared to UK classic lines. On the other hand I don't believe DDs are widespread there so perhaps that was an abortive experiment.

I certainly can't see special platforms being allocated to UIC width trains on a limited section of a trunk UK classic route such as the LSWR, where trains on the fasts go to places significantly further out and to share those platforms would effectively have to become 'classic compatible' with the moving step boards as proposed for HS2. The slows are equally difficult, shared with numerous inner suburban branches and if either slows or fasts were converted alone, then some flexibility of switching trains between them could be lost. I tend to agree DD is not appropriate for the UK classic network, not least because of concerns with loading times and station dwell, already very tight on trunk lines such as the LSWR.

The design, configuration, approval and first-of-type testing for AC on the 450 has already been done. It's called the 350/1. Since the 444 shares the same traction package this would be pretty straightforward too. Yes there will be some approval issues such as ensuring the regeneration mods are in the safety case, and each train would have to be out of service for a few days to fit and test the relevant equipment, but it doesn't strike me as a big risk and there's plenty of time to sort it out in parallel with the first stage of the infrastructure.

That's all good to hear and perhaps the really positive news could be that AC working on the highest speed segments could allow the units to really stretch their legs as the 350s do on the WCML, including a higher top speed and much better acceleration away from stops than they are capable of today with their artificial throttling on DC.

That's not to say that AC conversion is necessarily a good idea. As an engineer I consider the DC system to be a technology pushed beyond its limits, as well as a big waste of energy. However the money might be better spent extending AC onto non-electrified lines.

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.