Wessex Route Study - draft out for consultation

[DynamicSpirit]

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

You mean - as opposed to a station in the Southern suburbs that has had both a battle and a Belgian municipality named after it?

 

[swt_passenger]

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

It doesn't really, the Western route study, (which is only a couple of weeks older), explained that the extra XC service via EWR was to be Basingstoke to Man Picc.

But it also left the two existing XC services as they are now, i.e. hourly Bournemouth and hourly Reading with the alternate hour extension to Southampton. That's what makes this sudden mention of Hull relatively unexpected...

 

[21C101]

You mean - as opposed to a station in the Southern suburbs that has had both a battle and a Belgian municipality named after it?

Waterloo is right on the south bank of the Thames about 10 minutes walk from the Temple end of the city over Waterloo Bridge and 5 minutes from Bank via the Drain.

West end is not far by tube or change at Clapham Junction, can also get to most of South London from there as well as Gatwick Airport.

Paddington is an absolute PITA. I know several people who come in that way to an office on the east side of zone 1. It takes the thick end of an hour (35-45 minutes) to get from office to main line platform at Paddington and is a PITA. Indeed I used to work at Paddington station offices many years ago, coming in from south London, it was a horrible journey and sometimes took me two hours to get home to SW16.

 

[edwin_m]

Paddington is an absolute PITA. I know several people who come in that way to an office on the east side of zone 1. It takes the thick end of an hour (35-45 minutes) to get from office to main line platform at Paddington and is a PITA. Indeed I used to work at Paddington station offices many years ago, coming in from south London, it was a horrible journey and sometimes took me two hours to get home to SW16.

Depending on the exact destination, Crossrail might change that.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

CRI is useful for defining the maximum size of each train. As you say most lines default to 16. The only exceptions are:

SO620 - NEWHAVEN HARBOUR To SEAFORD, CRI Limit 8

SW135 - EASTLEIGH TO FAREHAM. CRI Limit 14

SW140 - ST. DENYS TO PORTCREEK JUNCTION, CRI Limit 14

SW160 - BROCKENHURST TO LYMINGTON PIER, CRI Limit 8

The restriction for the Poole to Weymouth section is expressed differently as follows:

SW105 - CLAPHAM JUNCTION TO WEYMOUTH
POOLE To WEYMOUTH

Electric trains are restricted between Poole and Weymouth as follows, the maximum train lengths for the line are:-
4 car class 450
5 car class 444
Additionally only one Class 73 locomotive on electric traction may operate between Poole and Weymouth at any time.

Apart from that I don't think there's any further restrictions on the number of trains allowed on each section of electrified track, but in most cases where there is a traction supply constraint, single line operation or long block sections limit the number of trains that are able to run simultaneously in any particular substation area. Any increase in track capacity proposed such as dividing long block sections, or providing double track in place of single would trigger a review of the traction supply capability and there may be upgrades required as a consequence.

AC electrification is not immune to these kinds of restrictions, with cut price extensions of the wires to Kings Lynn for instance imposing some limitation on the size and frequency of trains.

 

[21C101]

Depending on the exact destination, Crossrail might change that.

The chaps coming into Paddington are metaphorically counting the days. Particularly the ones having to use the suburban trains to Reading/.


Re Marky T. I thought the East Grinstead line also had restrictions, however that may have gone when they did the general upgrade for the 377s on southcentral.

I think it was the power supply restrictions to Kings Lynn that killed the idea of Thameslink services running north of Cambridge.

 

[tbtc]

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

I don't think that SWT's network is particularly complex in reality - e.g. Waterloo - Clapham Junction looks like an eight-track railway, but it's really four two-track routes that don't see a great deal of interworking/ swapping.

I reckon you could do it bit by bit - e.g. convert the Barnes lines (esp when Crossrail2 cuts the direct service from Richmond to Kingston) out to Reading whilst leaving the Wimbledon lines for a later date.

The "South Central Metro" is a different story, but nobody is suggesting converting that to AC any time soon. From memory, the next bit of DC may be Kent (which will need rebuilding sometime soon IIRC?)

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 don't remember anyone serious claiming that - so I don't think that the needle has swung back in favour of DC with this latest RUS.

Existing DC routes will probably still be converted to AC once they reach the stage where all infrastructure becomes life expired , but we have a stand-off between the DfT and Network Rail about how much of a priority anything else is.

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

I'm sure I recall seeing people claim that it would cost crazy money to convert lines to deal with 26m IEP carriages - yet it seems feasible on more and more lines.

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

Hopefully. Lots of 158/159s to cascade elsewhere (if Basingstoke - Salisbury - Southampton is wired).

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.

You've mentioned this a few times, and I've not been convinced.

But now, with the idea of wiring Basingstoke - Salisbury - Southampton on the agenda, I'm coming round to your way of thinking.

If bi-mode IEP allows a half hourly Paddington - B&H - Exeter service (i.e. extending the Bedwyn service further west) then cutting the existing Waterloo - Exeter service at Yeovil would get my vote (free up a lot of DMUs, though I'm not wholly convinced of huge benefits of regular direct services between Junction and Pen Mil).

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

There's a real elephant in the room here - we can't just extend to sixteen/twenty coach trains (and beyond), we can't price millions of existing passengers off trains, we apparently can't build new lines through green belt... not sure what we'll do.

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

True about the RUS.

Re the cost/skills, I wonder if we are going to see a stand-off between Network Rail and the DfT regarding who'll pay for more electrification (hardball?)

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

That surprises me - given that (obviously) any Waterloo - Portsmouth services are slower that way and that any Waterloo - Eastleigh - Portsmouth/ Bournemouth service (which I'd have thought would have a better case).

Obviously there are intermediate places - Fareham has a decent catchment area - but I'm still surprised that this would be a priority (as an outsider, not claiming any insight).

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.

I wish the industry would advertise things like this better - that's a really good advert for trains

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...

Paddington is an absolute PITA

Biased much?

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

Via the single track line that sees one train a day?

 

[30907]

Just one comment, from early in the thread, re the Basingstoke flyover:

Re - route Down (and maybe Up) Branch trains through the old GW station (the Reading bay) and there's space West of the station by the old West yard for a grade separated junction.

 

[Olaf]

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 sounds a bit dated, even statist - Customers come first, and the customer is always right; that is the sole reason for the existence of the railways.

 

[21C101]

That sounds a bit dated, even statist - Customers come first, and the customer is always right; that is the sole reason for the existence of the railways.

It also shows a lack of understanding of the fact that many people would rather drive than change trains halfway through their journey with the risk of being stuck there for an hour if it goes wrong.

Particuarly people with heavy luggage going to Gatwick Airport (the reason for that service from Victoria to Southampton)

 

[HowardGWR]

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

There's actually a 'lorra sense' in that. Those of us who live west of Yeovil would welcome a very fast service to London. As another poster mentioned, with XR, one could reach an end destination much quicker and conveniently, depending where that destination was.

 

[Olaf]

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?

Sorry, I do not know about that. I am also not sure what NR means - are they talking about trains being on the platform at interchange stations on the hour, and every 30mins/20mins/15mins?

I'm guessing that this comes out of the Digital Railway initiative, but I was not aware that they were even considering the practice - would it be possible to adopt it on the UK's railways with the proposed levels of traffic density?

 

[21C101]

Sorry, I do not know about that. I am also not sure what NR means - are they talking about trains being on the platform at interchange stations on the hour, and every 30mins/20mins/15mins?

I'm guessing that this comes out of the Digital Railway initiative, but I was not aware that they were even considering the practice - would it be possible to adopt it on the UK's railways with the proposed levels of traffic density?

It would be a good start if a few connections could be held!

I'm reasonably sure on the Southern/Switzerland one although it was a long time ago I was told/read that.

 

[Olaf]

I don't remember anyone serious claiming that - so I don't think that the needle has swung back in favour of DC with this latest RUS.

Existing DC routes will probably still be converted to AC once they reach the stage where all infrastructure becomes life expired , but we have a stand-off between the DfT and Network Rail about how much of a priority anything else is.

These are the options/objectives of the Electrification Network RUS refresh remit dated 04/12/2012:

Options:
1. Identify further AC (OLE) electrification of lines currently without electric traction
2. Consider the case for conversion of the third rail DC network to AC and the established merits/demerits
3. Categorise the post CP5 electrification schemes into a form of priority, identifying which schemes to be considered candidates for delivery in CP6 and in the period up to 2040
4. Consider the locations where provision of further electrification would maximise the ability of freight operators to use electric locomotives and the proportion of electric freight.

So yes,it is not a done deal, just a topic for consideration as part of the refresh.

Re the costs - the conversation is between the ORR and NR during the negotiations over the program of work to be carried out in the next CP, and then over the control of costs during the CP. The DfT is invoked in the spec of the HLOS, the allocation of funds, and then with teh big stick when projects risk the allocated budget.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's a real elephant in the room here - we can't just extend to sixteen/twenty coach trains (and beyond), we can't price millions of existing passengers off trains, we apparently can't build new lines through green belt... not sure what we'll do.

Yes I agree, but I also think that the level of growth we have seen in recent times will also level off - it too can not go on growing indefinitely. In the UK the growth we have been seeing is only bringing us back in line with the rest of the EU. Looking at the numbers from 2010, none of the EU27 achieved more than 11% split in favour of rail over other forms of transport, and the average was about 7%. We are 'past' that level of split already. If the predicted growth in traffic for 2043 materialises, then the UK would be at the top of that list.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be a good start if a few connections could be held!

Yes, certainly; Reading, Birmingham, Crewe/HS2, etc come to mind, but holding vehicles in platforms will, generally, have an adverse impact on line capacity without corresponding measures to accommodate it and to re-time journeys between these interchanges in order to achieve the clock-face coordination.

I'm reasonably sure on the Southern/Switzerland one although it was a long time ago I was told/read that.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Xavi]

There is zero chance of curtailing Waterloo to Exeter services at Yeovil.

 

[Kettledrum]

There's a real elephant in the room here - we can't just extend to sixteen/twenty coach trains (and beyond), we can't price millions of existing passengers off trains, we apparently can't build new lines through green belt... not sure what we'll do.

The elephant in the room used to simply be ignored, but the changes over the last 7 years in the Government's attitudes have been amazing.

The scale of infrastructure projects and initiatives is simply breath-taking....High Speed 2, East West Rail, electrification, Crossrail and more.

Even the elephant about the capacity of the South-West routes being full is on the agenda, with double deck trains and crossrail 2 being considered. Ten years ago, this would have been thinking the unthinkable.

Building new lines though Green Belt can be controversial, as HS2 has shown... on the other hand, there are communities where there are big campaigns to construct loops, re-open routes, build chords, re-open stations, so it's not impossible.

In the case of the routes into Waterloo, there's lots that could happen.

My money would be on crossrail 2 or come sort of underground solution at the London end, followed by AC electrification from at least Basingstoke to Exeter, and reinstating double track on sections that were singled in the past.

I don't think the elephant is being ignored any more.

 

[The Ham]

There is zero chance of curtailing Waterloo to Exeter services at Yeovil.

You're right, it will happen at Salisbury.

I am aware that there are a lot of people who do not like changing trains, however if you think that the TOC's are going to keep all services west of Yeovil (Salisbury) as through services run by DMU's when there is a strong financial case for them not to (lower fuel costs, lower leasing costs and lower track access charges), then there is a higher chance than you are stating that trains will be split.

I was suggesting a way which minimised the impact of having to change trains (including minimising the number of stations impacted)

If half of services were retained as through services then that is 50% of people unaffected. Retain the peak hour services and you're probably looking at about 75% of people. The fact at Yeovil it's an across platform change with overall journey time remaining the same and people have the choice of still using the retained through services and you are probably down to low single figure percentages of people who will be bothered.

Especially if the service to Yeovil was increased to half hourly to reduce the length of waiting time if a connection was missed on the fairly rare occasions that the train was running late. Therefore, of those bothered, the actually people who stop using the service will probably be fairly similar to, if not much smaller than, the number of new customers in a year from those stations. As such the risk to the TOC is minimal, add in their cost savings and they will likely be happy with the outcome.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I agree, but I also think that the level of growth we have seen in recent times will also level off - it too can not go on growing indefinitely. In the UK the growth we have been seeing is only bringing us back in line with the rest of the EU. Looking at the numbers from 2010, none of the EU27 achieved more than 11% split in favour of rail over other forms of transport, and the average was about 7%. We are 'past' that level of split already. If the predicted growth in traffic for 2043 materialises, then the UK would be at the top of that list.

An amount of the increase will be down to population growth. This will impact the growth figure in two ways.

First off 7% off 1000 is more than 7% of 900, so the percentage of people using trains can stay the same whilst increasing the number of people on the trains.

Secondly with little in the way of road building planned road congestion will get worse, making the attractiveness of rail travel higher. For instance, off peak it would take me 30 minutes however even on a fairly normal day it takes double that (not even allowing for days where traffic is a nightmare). Therefore I use the train, which takes about an hour, and I'm yet to be late for work (there have been a few delays in when I get home but only a few in the the 6 months I've been doing it)

 

[swt_passenger]

That surprises me - given that (obviously) any Waterloo - Portsmouth services are slower that way and that any Waterloo - Eastleigh - Portsmouth/ Bournemouth service (which I'd have thought would have a better case).

In the current franchise track access schedule the Waterloo to Portsmouth via Eastleigh appears in two parts in separate service groups. Between Waterloo and Eastleigh it is one of the 4 tph main line services, paired with the Poole to give 2 tph semi-fast as far as Eastleigh.

Between Eastleigh and Portsmouth Harbour it becomes an all stations stopper, and between Fareham and Portsmouth Harbour provides a roughly 2 tph service in combination with the Southampton to Portsmouth stopper.

So for operating convenience the two services are joined at Eastleigh; but they aren't really there as an option for Waterloo to Portsmouth passengers.

But the route already gets 2 tph in the peak flow direction, with some extras that only run from PMH to Basingstoke or vice versa, all this suggestion is really doing is running the peak service all day, by 2043, by which time they also expect to be running 4 tph fast Waterloo to Southampton Central.

 

[21C101]

You're right, it will happen at Salisbury.

I am aware that there are a lot of people who do not like changing trains, however if you think that the TOC's are going to keep all services west of Yeovil (Salisbury) as through services run by DMU's when there is a strong financial case for them not to (lower fuel costs, lower leasing costs and lower track access charges), then there is a higher chance than you are stating that trains will be split.

I was suggesting a way which minimised the impact of having to change trains (including minimising the number of stations impacted)

If half of services were retained as through services then that is 50% of people unaffected. Retain the peak hour services and you're probably looking at about 75% of people. The fact at Yeovil it's an across platform change with overall journey time remaining the same and people have the choice of still using the retained through services and you are probably down to low single figure percentages of people who will be bothered.

Especially if the service to Yeovil was increased to half hourly to reduce the length of waiting time if a connection was missed on the fairly rare occasions that the train was running late. Therefore, of those bothered, the actually people who stop using the service will probably be fairly similar to, if not much smaller than, the number of new customers in a year from those stations. As such the risk to the TOC is minimal, add in their cost savings and they will likely be happy with the outcome.

25kv Electrification will be from Basingstoke through to Exeter (and maybe even Barnstaple and Plymouth via Okehampton ) not Salisbury or Yeovil.

It is a very and increasingly profitable line and cash cow for SWT and I very much doubt they will countenance anything that puts that in jeopardy - and after the Dawlish and Levels flooding when for a while the only way to the west was from Waterloo, neither will the DfT Rail Executive

Sorry but making people change at Yeovil is 1970s thinking.

 

[Olaf]

The elephant in the room used to simply be ignored, but the changes over the last 7 years in the Government's attitudes have been amazing.

The scale of infrastructure projects and initiatives is simply breath-taking....High Speed 2, East West Rail, electrification, Crossrail and more.

Even the elephant about the capacity of the South-West routes being full is on the agenda, with double deck trains and crossrail 2 being considered. Ten years ago, this would have been thinking the unthinkable.

Building new lines though Green Belt can be controversial, as HS2 has shown... on the other hand, there are communities where there are big campaigns to construct loops, re-open routes, build chords, re-open stations, so it's not impossible.

In the case of the routes into Waterloo, there's lots that could happen.

My money would be on crossrail 2 or come sort of underground solution at the London end, followed by AC electrification from at least Basingstoke to Exeter, and reinstating double track on sections that were singled in the past.

I don't think the elephant is being ignored any more.

I think the point being made was that it is expedient of extending train-set lengths is not something that can go on indefinitely; i.e. their is more than likely a limit to the overall length of trains, and as such, that at some point the options to adopt modern double-deck vehicles may need to be adopted. That said, there may also be a limit to the modal transfer to the railways which leads to a tail-off in the growth of patronage.

Overall though I agree with what you have said; a lot of progress has been made, and Wessex and Sussex Route Studies have shown that the simpler options have now mostly been exhausted, and that bigger infrastructure interventions will now most likely be required going forward.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're right, it will happen at Salisbury.

I am aware that there are a lot of people who do not like changing trains, however if you think that the TOC's are going to keep all services west of Yeovil (Salisbury) as through services run by DMU's when there is a strong financial case for them not to (lower fuel costs, lower leasing costs and lower track access charges), then there is a higher chance than you are stating that trains will be split.

I think bi-modal operation is more likely to be adopted for the through services than "splitting" at the end-point of any future electrification on the line. Splitting is not a service; it is a technology solution and does not put the Customer first.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sorry but making people change at Yeovil is 1970s thinking.

A tri-mode IEP for Waterloo-Exeter would be fun.
Hitachi have all the ingredients in its 395/800 technology.

 

[21C101]

I think bi-modal operation is more likely to be adopted for the through services than "splitting" at the end-point of any future electrification on the line. Splitting is not a service; it is a technology solution and does not put the Customer first.

A tri-mode IEP for Waterloo-Exeter would be fun.
Hitachi have all the ingredients in its 395/800 technology.

The other very feasible option is push-pull diesel loco haulage of EMUs west of Salisbury, as was done from Bournemouth to Weymouth between 1967 and 1988. However, if you are persuing a scheme to 25kV electrify Reading-Basingstoke-Southampton-Fareham-Romsey-Andover-Salisbury-Westbury-Bath, a couple more substations and wires to Exeter are a fairly obvious and marginal add on, especially as the singling means far fewer bridge rebuilds.

 

[Olaf]

An amount of the increase will be down to population growth. This will impact the growth figure in two ways.

First off 7% off 1000 is more than 7% of 900, so the percentage of people using trains can stay the same whilst increasing the number of people on the trains.

You are correct about the growth factor, and its implications for the volume of the growth. However, the current rate of growth can not be unbound. Part of it is addressing un-serviced, latent demand, and part of it is organic growth. There is also more than likely to be a proportion attributable to modal shift. The limiting bound however is the cost of delivering the additional capacity necessary to accommodate the growth in patronage. The costs will increase now that the simpler solutions have been exhausted. The result is that the delivery of the new infrastructure and technology interventions necessary to accommodate the growth will also feed through to the operational baseline. The impact is that costs to the end user and/or tax payer will go up, or capacity will be constrained because the funds can not be found. Thus, you end up with a limit to teh modal shift to the railways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other very feasible option is push-pull diesel loco haulage of EMUs west of Salisbury, as was done from Bournemouth to Weymouth between 1967 and 1988. However, if you are persuing a scheme to 25kV electrify Reading-Basingstoke-Southampton-Fareham-Romsey-Andover-Salisbury-Westbury-Bath, a couple more substations and wires to Exeter are a fairly obvious and marginal add on, especially as the singling means far fewer bridge rebuilds.

It is certainly an option, but I think that approach has been dismissed in favour of bi-modal, at least in so far as mainline services.

However, it is all academic at the moment; there is no current plan to electrify the section of line between Basingstoke and Salisbury. If, at a future date there is a project to electrify part of the line then there is the possibility that there will be alternative options available for the provision of services on the unelectrified sections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So now they are considering ETCS Level 3 for deployment in the UK.

 

[Class 170101]

In my view Double Deck trains are definitely flying pig terrority and not compatible with an increase in the number of services and current dwell times, I think the report quoted 36 services in the high peak hour.

The report also made reference to these trains only being used at peak times so as to reduce the number routes required for conversion - a cost saving measure but that doesn't seem to deal with off peak and weekend loadings which seem to be just as high with 12 carriage trains running at weekends and evenings (and busy as well). SWT will not lease assets nor will a train builder build assets that will see limited use - look at the trouble the DfT is having getting new DMUs built that may not see a full life term.

Realistically to create extra capacity for Main Line services to use, I believe Crossrail two is far more feasible and realistic in diverting suburban services away from Waterloo releasing suburban capacity for Main Line services to use. However I would venture to suggest that as Crossrail two's route serves more the West End than the City that capacity will be needed between Clapham Junction and the City to accommodate people changing trains.

 

[21C101]

In my view Double Deck trains are definitely flying pig terrority and not compatible with an increase in the number of services and current dwell times, I think the report quoted 36 services in the high peak hour.

The report also made reference to these trains only being used at peak times so as to reduce the number routes required for conversion - a cost saving measure but that doesn't seem to deal with off peak and weekend loadings which seem to be just as high with 12 carriage trains running at weekends and evenings (and busy as well). SWT will not lease assets nor will a train builder build assets that will see limited use - look at the trouble the DfT is having getting new DMUs built that may not see a full life term.

Realistically to create extra capacity for Main Line services to use, I believe Crossrail two is far more feasible and realistic in diverting suburban services away from Waterloo releasing suburban capacity for Main Line services to use. However I would venture to suggest that as Crossrail two's route serves more the West End than the City that capacity will be needed between Clapham Junction and the City to accommodate people changing trains.

I would agree that Crossrail two, plus flyovers at Woking and Basingstoke, completing the grade separation of the whole route has to be the way forward.

The issue with the city is a valid one. It appears that the solution will be changing to Crossrail 2 at Tottenham Court Road but I don;t think that is adequate, especially if you are working in the south of the square mile

The proposed Battersea Northern Line extension would not have far to further extend to Clapham Junction, but it will be the Charing Cross branch, not the city branch, so thats no use.

It looks to me like the vague plans for the DLR to be extended to Victoria via City Thameslink and Charing Cross will have to be realised to avoid overcrowding of Clapham Junction post crossrail 2, but even then bailing out at Clapham Jct to go to Waterloo and the Drain might still be attractive.

 

[edwin_m]

The issue with the city is a valid one. It appears that the solution will be changing to Crossrail 2 at Tottenham Court Road but I don;t think that is adequate, especially if you are working in the south of the square mile

Wouldn't changing at Victoria (which will have been revamped by then and no doubt further enhanced for CR2) onto the District/Circle solve that one?

Alternatively there would probably be a cross-platform interchange at Wimbledon or elsewhere to transfer to and from trains that would still serve Waterloo.

 

[21C101]

Wouldn't changing at Victoria (which will have been revamped by then and no doubt further enhanced for CR2) onto the District/Circle solve that one?

Alternatively there would probably be a cross-platform interchange at Wimbledon or elsewhere to transfer to and from trains that would still serve Waterloo.

AIUI wimbledon Crossrail will be underground so I guess Raynes Park would be the best place for interchange.

Wimbledon to Bank is 5 stops including one change

Wimbledon to Monument via Xrail 2 and District from Victoria would be 11 Stops including one change.

 

[JamesRowden]

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

I think that once HS2 phase 2 opens: the Birmingham to Leeds-Edinburgh journeys that the Plymouth/Southampton/Reading-Newcastle/Edinburgh services presently offer will be trumped by the Birmingham-Edinburgh, Birmingham-Newcastle and Birmingham-Leeds HS2 services. Also: people travelling between the North East and the Reading-Southampton section will be able to use HS2 from Old Oak Common; and people travelling between the North East and the Coventry-Oxford section will be able to change onto HS2 at Birmingham. Therefore: redirecting the Southampton-Newcastle service to Hull would seem a reasonable option.

 

[59CosG95]

AIUI wimbledon Crossrail will be underground so I guess Raynes Park would be the best place for interchange.

Wimbledon to Bank is 5 stops including one change

Wimbledon to Monument via Xrail 2 and District from Victoria would be 11 Stops including one change.

Wimbledon to Bank via Xrail 2 and Central from Tottenham Court Road is 9 stops including a change.

 

[21C101]

Wimbledon to Bank via Xrail 2 and Central from Tottenham Court Road is 9 stops including a change.

I meant 5 stops via Waterloo and W&C

If you were using Xrail 2 you would change to Crossrail 1 at Tott Ct Rd not Central line, which is 7 stops (and you have the option of getting out at Moorgate rather than Liverpool st if you go to the back of the Xrail 1 train.)