Wessex Route Study - draft out for consultation

[Kettledrum]

What's the maximum capacity (trains per hour) for the track between Southampton and Poole?

If the capacity exists, why not extended all of the "2 Per Hour Woking, Farnborough and all stations to Southampton (cross to Slow at Farnborough)" to Poole.

Is there anything apart from cost that would stop the single track section east of Dorchester South from being redoubled? Why can't all the trains that finish at Poole not carry on to Weymouth?

I can't understand why so more of the XC services don't carry on to Bournemouth instead of terminating at Southampton. The XC trains that do go to Bournemouth are frequently very busy, and currently there's very few direct trains to Bournemouth from the North East. If there is track capacity, why aren't XC using it - particularly as they are diesel and wouldn't exceed the capacity of the electric system. It's not as if XC are short of trains, as they don't use all their HSTs.

I can understand the earlier comments about them not continuing to Poole though - XC from Manchester are often late, and they need time to catch up and do the turnaround in Bournemouth.

 

[fgwrich]

I can't understand why so more of the XC services don't carry on to Bournemouth instead of terminating at Southampton. The XC trains that do go to Bournemouth are frequently very busy, and currently there's very few direct trains to Bournemouth from the North East. If there is track capacity, why aren't XC using it - particularly as they are diesel and wouldn't exceed the capacity of the electric system. It's not as if XC are short of trains, as they don't use all their HSTs.

I can understand the earlier comments about them not continuing to Poole though - XC from Manchester are often late, and they need time to catch up and do the turnaround in Bournemouth.

The majority of the Southampton terminators are actually extensions of the previous Newcastle to Reading terminator - that service terminates at Southampton as the turnaround time in Southampton wouldn't allow a run to Bournemouth and back in. Some units I believe also run ECS to Eastleigh Depot.

 

[Class 170101]

XC couldn't provide the service to Bourenmouth on certain days of the week. All HSTs are in use on Fridays and Sundays and three in use on Mondays.

As it is at the moment the state of the XC Fleet is extremely perilous. Three HSTs Tuesday to Thursday and Four on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays are currently in use with Voyagers running between Cardiff and Nottingham or Leicester due to Class 170 shortages all for the foreseeable future.

 

[edwin_m]

Is part of the problem that Poole only has the two running lines and no sidings nearby, so it would be difficult to turn round the XC service in between SWT services that are more frequent now than when XC last ran there?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

What's the maximum capacity (trains per hour) for the track between Southampton and Poole?

If the capacity exists, why not extended all of the "2 Per Hour Woking, Farnborough and all stations to Southampton (cross to Slow at Farnborough)" to Poole.

Is there anything apart from cost that would stop the single track section east of Dorchester South from being redoubled? Why can't all the trains that finish at Poole not carry on to Weymouth?

Power supply isn't up to it.

 

[Kite159]

Is part of the problem that Poole only has the two running lines and no sidings nearby, so it would be difficult to turn round the XC service in between SWT services that are more frequent now than when XC last ran there?

Isn't there sidings to the west of the station where the Poole stopper is stabled after it terminates?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

That would really annoy the residents of Camberley who are looking for a new junction (well part new and part reopening) with the SWML at Frimley to provide faster journey times to London.

They're never going to get it. Two reasons. The first is that they've just bulldozed the embankment & they're building houses in the triangle between the existing houses, SWML & Ash Vale line & Secondly there would be a flat junction at Sturt lane, that would cause too many conflicts, as you would need to double block the junction.

That means that trains from the South would be held at the West end of Farnborough & those going South would be held at Pirbright/Deepcut.

Completely impractical, the alternative is to reinstate the curve at Virginia Water and route via Weybridge, however that would still cause exactly the same problems there.

There's one solution and that would be to double the single line section and then create a flyover at Ash Vale, this would require the demolition of the now redundant signal box, a tight radius curving flyover which would impinge on military land (Ash ranges) and then back down towards Foxhills Tunnel, it could then use the existing Pirbright Junction without conflict.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm also going to rebuild Micheldever so that the current island platform becomes two terminating bays, move the up platform at Micheldever back to its original alignment and build a new down main and platform on the east side of the Island platform.

Wow! I'm impressed! I don't think I've ever seen such dedication by a rail enthusiast before. I do hope rebuilding the station doesn't cost you too much money, and that you're able to get planning permission for it.

This is because operationally this removes the conflicts that terminating trains at Basingstoke would cause.

More seriously, if there ever were plans to extend trains from Basingstoke in that way, I'd suggest a new station at Oakley for them to terminate at would be more useful.

 

[21C101]

More seriously, if there ever were plans to extend trains from Basingstoke in that way, I'd suggest a new station at Oakley for them to terminate at would be more useful.

I can see where you are coming from.

Reason I chose Micheldever is that it would be relatively simple. "All" you would need to do is reinstate the two platforms that got taken out of service in the 1960s to be the main through lines and the island platform currently in service becomes two terminating platforms.

Photo here shows the station in 1910. The island platform is still in use. The main up platform is still there without any track and I think the other down platform was demolished and would need to be rebuilt.

http://www.micheldevervillage.org.uk/archive_railway_photo3.html

Building one of Cleggies new Garden Cities there would help the case along

 

[59CosG95]

Building one of Cleggies new Garden Cities there would help the case along

Not sure what the "fast Hampshire set" would think of that; a new Waitrose may be the only thing to placate them!

 

[PhilipW]

Reason I chose Micheldever is that it would be relatively simple. "All" you would need to do is reinstate the two platforms that got taken out of service in the 1960s to be the main through lines and the island platform currently in service becomes two terminating platforms.

Photo here shows the station in 1910. The island platform is still in use. The main up platform is still there without any track and I think the other down platform was demolished and would need to be rebuilt.

Network Rail have other ideas for Micheldever in their document. They are considering creating a 4-mile dynamic loop by extending the existing Wallers Ash loop up through Micheldever.

So Micheldever will again have 4-tracks through it. The two new outer tracks (with no platform faces) will be for fast trains. The two inner tracks (with the existing platform faces) will be for stopping services and freight.

It sounds like a very good idea to me. A big extension in capacity and flexibility at probably a reasonable cost. I hope they go for it.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Isn't there sidings to the west of the station where the Poole stopper is stabled after it terminates?

There's two loop sidings where trains that terminate at Poole get stabled, they can also be used for locos to run round their train (when Virgin used to run to Poole loco hauled with mk2s the loco would run round the train in the loops.

Power supply isn't up to it.

How much cost and work would there be involved with upgrading the power supply?

I can't understand why so more of the XC services don't carry on to Bournemouth instead of terminating at Southampton. The XC trains that do go to Bournemouth are frequently very busy, and currently there's very few direct trains to Bournemouth from the North East. If there is track capacity, why aren't XC using it - particularly as they are diesel and wouldn't exceed the capacity of the electric system. It's not as if XC are short of trains, as they don't use all their HSTs.

I can understand the earlier comments about them not continuing to Poole though - XC from Manchester are often late, and they need time to catch up and do the turnaround in Bournemouth.

I can't see how much difference doing the turnaround is between Poole and Bournemouth, both can have a XC train pull into their platform 1. Don't know if Poole could deal with the trolley service trolley.

 

[21C101]

Network Rail have other ideas for Micheldever in their document. They are considering creating a 4-mile dynamic loop by extending the existing Wallers Ash loop up through Micheldever.

So Micheldever will again have 4-tracks through it. The two new outer tracks (with no platform faces) will be for fast trains. The two inner tracks (with the existing platform faces) will be for stopping services and freight.

It sounds like a very good idea to me. A big extension in capacity and flexibility at probably a reasonable cost. I hope they go for it.

So effectively they are going to implement pretty much what I suggested as the Island platform with the inner tracks could also be used to turn back services that currently terminate at Basingstoke eliminating the conflict (causing by trains crossing both fast lines from down to up) that presently occurs when trains terminate at Bas.

The new up fast outer track will already have a platform by default as its still there!

 

[swt_passenger]

I can see where you are coming from.

Reason I chose Micheldever is that it would be relatively simple. "All" you would need to do is reinstate the two platforms that got taken out of service in the 1960s to be the main through lines and the island platform currently in service becomes two terminating platforms.

But they intend to extend the existing loops all the way from Wallers Ash tunnel to Popham 2 tunnel, giving Micheldever station four through tracks, but use only the two existing platforms. This is all about providing dynamic loops to allow extra line capacity for both freight and passenger services. Parking a terminating service in one of the platforms stops the loops functioning as planned.

Maybe we'd be better off discussing what they are proposing, rather than suggesting things that are completely different?

 

[MarkyT]

More seriously, if there ever were plans to extend trains from Basingstoke in that way, I'd suggest a new station at Oakley for them to terminate at would be more useful.

That's a very good idea in principle, ideally a simple single terminal platform between the two main lines, with only the terminating trains calling there. Would get rid of the all lines conflict for reversing a slow train in Basingstoke platform 1 without extending the service all the way through to Micheldever which is about three times the distance, probably needing extra rolling stock. The five miles or so to Oakley could be accommodated within the existing regular 26 minute Basingstoke turnround off-peak today, during which the train has to go into the down yard siding to get out of the way of other traffic. The idea of the Micheldever dynamic loops is to allow fasts on the outer lines to overtake the slower Micheldever stoppers and freights on the inner tracks, so clogging up the middle through platforms with terminators on a half hour frequency would not be a good idea. Basingstoke Micheldever is about 12 minutes running time so with current timetable that would give a turnback layover of 2 minutes, dangerously short and certainly giving no time to shunt clear into an additional turnback siding beyond the platforms if that was provided as well.
Micheldever passengers would no doubt prefer to stick to their existing faster through trains to Waterloo, so it's unlikely extending the slows through to there would generate much custom, whereas a new station at Oakley might attract some new custom.

 

[3141]

Not sure what the "fast Hampshire set" would think of that; a new Waitrose may be the only thing to placate them!

"Fast Hampshire set" sounds like a souped-up class 444, but I guess you're having a sneer at Hampshire residents.

The County Council opposes a large new housing development at Micheldever in order to preserve the rural character of the land between Basingstoke and Winchester, both of which are likely to expand further under current plans.

On the other hand, when Sea Containers were drawing up a bid for the South Western franchise in 2006, Christopher Garnett pointed out how suitable Micheldever would be for a parkway station.

 

[21C101]

On the other hand, when Sea Containers were drawing up a bid for the South Western franchise in 2006, Christopher Garnett pointed out how suitable Micheldever would be for a parkway station.

Micheldever Station is or at least was a Parkway Station. It opened in 1840 as Andover Road and a turnpike (one of the last to be built) was built from Andover to the station (now the A303), hence the grand station building.

Its basically been redundant since 1854!

 

[The Ham]

Power supply isn't up to it.

...but by 2030 it may not be (remembering this is looking at projects for te next 30 years).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They're never going to get it. Two reasons. The first is that they've just bulldozed the embankment & they're building houses in the triangle between the existing houses, SWML & Ash Vale line & Secondly there would be a flat junction at Sturt lane, that would cause too many conflicts, as you would need to double block the junction.

That means that trains from the South would be held at the West end of Farnborough & those going South would be held at Pirbright/Deepcut.

Completely impractical, the alternative is to reinstate the curve at Virginia Water and route via Weybridge, however that would still cause exactly the same problems there.

There's one solution and that would be to double the single line section and then create a flyover at Ash Vale, this would require the demolition of the now redundant signal box, a tight radius curving flyover which would impinge on military land (Ash ranges) and then back down towards Foxhills Tunnel, it could then use the existing Pirbright Junction without conflict.

I didn't say that I thought it was sensible, rather that they would be very unhappy. They are, at least, aware that it would require a full grade separated junction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Building one of Cleggies new Garden Cities there would help the case along

What like the one currently being proposed at Winchfield with about 4,000 to 5,000 new homes?

Not that the developer is wanting to invest in the railway any more than a few enhancements to the station, but wants a lot of the residents to use the train.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's a very good idea in principle, ideally a simple single terminal platform between the two main lines, with only the terminating trains calling there. Would get rid of the all lines conflict for reversing a slow train in Basingstoke platform 1 without extending the service all the way through to Micheldever which is about three times the distance, probably needing extra rolling stock. The five miles or so to Oakley could be accommodated within the existing regular 26 minute Basingstoke turnround off-peak today, during which the train has to go into the down yard siding to get out of the way of other traffic. The idea of the Micheldever dynamic loops is to allow fasts on the outer lines to overtake the slower Micheldever stoppers and freights on the inner tracks, so clogging up the middle through platforms with terminators on a half hour frequency would not be a good idea. Basingstoke Micheldever is about 12 minutes running time so with current timetable that would give a turnback layover of 2 minutes, dangerously short and certainly giving no time to shunt clear into an additional turnback siding beyond the platforms if that was provided as well.
Micheldever passengers would no doubt prefer to stick to their existing faster through trains to Waterloo, so it's unlikely extending the slows through to there would generate much custom, whereas a new station at Oakley might attract some new custom.

Yep, you've pretty much got most of my reasoning. The only bit missing is that you could possibly (with some extra electrification) put a new Oakley station on the more lightly used Salisbury line instead of the Southampton line. That means the extended Basingstoke stoppers don't clog up paths on the main line. Plus, you could have the hourly Waterloo-Salisbury trains stop there as well. Provide cheaper parking than is available at Basingstoke, and you've given quite a few commuters an alternative to driving into Basingstoke.

 

[swt_passenger]

The package of options contained within the proposal for grade
separation of Basingstoke Junction, can additionally offer
opportunities to eliminate other existing train movement conflicts
in the area that constrain future capacity both on the South West
Main Line and the line to Reading. These options will become
increasingly important as and when more mainline paths become
available in the inner Wessex route area into Waterloo and when
proposed additional services operate via the Basingstoke to
Reading line. These options include linking the grade separation to
the Up Slow Main Line with a chord, double tracking the grade
separated line to permit conflict-free turnback moves and the
provision of a new independent through line on the north side of the
station, but would add additional cost to the base grade separation
scheme...

They've thought of Basingstoke turnback conflicts already. Page 111 refers...

 

[infobleep]

Yep, you've pretty much got most of my reasoning. The only bit missing is that you could possibly (with some extra electrification) put a new Oakley station on the more lightly used Salisbury line instead of the Southampton line. That means the extended Basingstoke stoppers don't clog up paths on the main line. Plus, you could have the hourly Waterloo-Salisbury trains stop there as well. Provide cheaper parking than is available at Basingstoke, and you've given quite a few commuters an alternative to driving into Basingstoke.

Why provide cheaper parking. Surely they would want to provide parking at Oakley at the same price as it currently is at Basingstoke and then increase the costs at Basingstoke. They way they gain additional revenue from those who choose not to drive to Oakley.

 

[The Ham]

Why provide cheaper parking. Surely they would want to provide parking at Oakley at the same price as it currently is at Basingstoke and then increase the costs at Basingstoke. They way they gain additional revenue from those who choose not to drive to Oakley.

However it is done the extra cost of the train ticket from Oakley to Basingstoke should result in the same amount of revenue for the TOC. (i.e. £10 parking at Basingstoke OR £8 parking at Oakley plus £2 extra cost in ticket price).

 

[MarkyT]

Yep, you've pretty much got most of my reasoning. The only bit missing is that you could possibly (with some extra electrification) put a new Oakley station on the more lightly used Salisbury line instead of the Southampton line.

The only problem with a platform on the Salisbury line would be that although directional conflict would be avoided just the same, the Oakley terminators would have to cross the Southampton fasts in the same direction AND block the same direction Salisbury line at the same time due to the Battledown flyover layout where the Southampton lines are on the outside of the alignment. Construction on the Salisbury line would probably be easier though as both tracks are broadly at the same level whereas on the Southampton line, the ramp leading to the flyover extends to nearly to the first road overbridge in Oakley, so finding space for the extra junctions and new platform could be difficult.

On balance I think the Salisbury line would be easier and you can always regulate the slow at Basingstoke in the down direction to avoid the conflict by letting a fast run ahead and then crossing behind it. I wouldn't bother stopping the Salisbury line trains at Oakley though unless it was to be developed as a significant parkway station, which could be unpopular bringing in a lot of extra traffic through the village.

A novel idea for the up direction could be an extra chord from the Salisbury line joining the up slow without passing under the flyover. It could join the up slow in parallel to the fast crossover from the Southampton line to the fasts. Then all trains from the Salisbury lines, including the extended Oakley slow service would have the choice to join either the fast or the slows in parallel with a move from the Up Southampton to the other line.

 

[infobleep]

However it is done the extra cost of the train ticket from Oakley to Basingstoke should result in the same amount of revenue for the TOC. (i.e. £10 parking at Basingstoke OR £8 parking at Oakley plus £2 extra cost in ticket price).

But surely the TOC wants to make additional money where possible and this would be an opportunity. Or am I being to cynical here?

 

[MarkyT]

They've thought of Basingstoke turnback conflicts already. Page 111 refers...

The Oakley option could be assessed and compared to the double track flyover suggested in the route plan as a different means to the same end.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about all the previous RUS and London and SE RUS proposals completely missing from the latest study?

As examples, what about the proposed additional platform at Eastleigh for down Portsmouth services, and the associated down freight line to allow driver changes away from the station. All forgotten about?

Then there was a proposal for track alterations to allow more services between Fareham and Southampton Central to run via Eastleigh and Southampton Airport thereby avoiding the Netley line capacity constraints - or is that completely overtaken by the discussion about improving signalling headways?

If proposing completely new ideas, how about making platform 2 at Fareham accessible from both ends, that would allow overtaking of stopping and faster services in the normal timetable, and also allow for easier turn back of Southern services when running late (as they do regularly)...

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

The Oakley option could be assessed and compared to the double track flyover suggested in the route plan as a different means to the same end.

How about spreading the up and down lines apart west of Basingstoke station and putting the down sidings between the up and down mains?

I wonder if they have any schematic details on how they would route their freight flyover though, and how would down XC services or any other through services from Reading be dealt with? Presumably the optimum layout would be a pair of through platforms (say P6 and P7) for the Reading lines with their junction being west of the station, (and west of my potentially resited sidings).

Then that could leave P5 as a short resited 'Reading bay' between P4 and the new P6, for the stopping service as now.

If only I had a means of drawing that...

 

[The Ham]

But surely the TOC wants to make additional money where possible and this would be an opportunity. Or am I being to cynical here?

...but they would make more money, as for everyone who parked at Oakley rather than Basingstoke they are making the same money but with the added advantage of more people being able to park and travel from Basingstoke in addition to the extra people who would then travel from Oakley on the train.

Pretty much the only way that the TOC would loose out is from those who live in Oakley (i.e. not paying parking) and/or those travelling on the WofE line (i.e. not being on the train so much).

 

[MarkyT]

As examples, what about the proposed additional platform at Eastleigh for down Portsmouth services . . . Then there was a proposal for track alterations to allow more services between Fareham and Southampton Central to run via Eastleigh and Southampton Airport thereby avoiding the Netley line

I think these two would be linked. If there if there were regular trains reversing at Eastleigh on the down side in addition to current services it would probably bust the capacity of the existing pair of platforms. I would prefer a direct curve avoiding Eastleigh as here:
http://www.townend.me/files/eastleighsouthchord.pdf

How about spreading the up and down lines apart west of Basingstoke station and putting the down sidings between the up and down mains?

Possible but you would still have to cross the fasts, although not both in the same movement. Might be difficult to retain the through speed capability on the fasts and ideally you would want a walkway alongside the centre siding for staff safety so a wide clearance between the fasts would be required. Expensive to redo all the junction work recently completed under the resignalling

I wonder if they have any schematic details on how they would route their freight flyover though, and how would down XC services or any other through services from Reading be dealt with? Presumably the optimum layout would be a pair of through platforms (say P6 and P7) for the Reading lines with their junction being west of the station, (and west of my potentially resited sidings).

Don't know any details but a simple single track Reading to down slow flyover at the east end might fit crossing Gresley Road through the 'wasteland' between the GW and LSWR routes and the east end up sidings, as the routes run broadly parallel for a short distance. Difficult fitting any more than a single extra line and platform on the up side through the station and across the Chapel Hill/Vyne Road bridge I think. I used to commute regularly through Basingstoke, changing between the Reading line and the LSWR so spent much time waiting for trains on platform 4 looking over the bridge and at the space available where an old connecting line used to run behind the station building!

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if they have any schematic details on how they would route their freight flyover though, and how would down XC services or any other through services from Reading be dealt with? Presumably the optimum layout would be a pair of through platforms (say P6 and P7) for the Reading lines with their junction being west of the station, (and west of my potentially resited sidings).

Then that could leave P5 as a short resited 'Reading bay' between P4 and the new P6, for the stopping service as now.

One possibility (maybe a little bit of a crazy one) could be to lift the Reading line (starting at the bridge to the east of the station) up so that there were new high level platforms above platforms 4 & 5 which then dropped back down on the west side of the station between the two fast lines (i.e. in line with platforms 2 and 3) and/or to the outside of the two slow lines.

From the bridge to the end of the existing platforms is about 450m, so that is a gradient of about 1:75 (assuming there is no scope for raising the line under the bridge and allowing 6m between lines), although could be a bit flatter.

The existing local Basingstoke to Reading services could then join/leave the line on the correct side ensuring maximum capacity on that line by trains from Reading passing under the new lines by the end of the platforms.

The big advantage to it would be the station footprint doesn't get any bigger and certain facilities (such as lifts) can be shared between platforms (i.e. the existing lift from the subway could be extended upwards to serve the new platforms).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think these two would be linked. If there if there were regular trains reversing at Eastleigh on the down side in addition to current services it would probably bust the capacity of the existing pair of platforms. I would prefer a direct curve avoiding Eastleigh as here:
http://www.townend.me/files/eastleighsouthchord.pdf

The only slight problem with a third line through Southampton Airport Parkway Station is that there isn't a lot of space between the platform and the road to the Airport (maybe as much as 15m). This would likely mean the extension of the newer of the two bridges across to the terminal building (no bad thing really) to maintain the pedestrian link.

 

[21C101]

Whatever else happens, I hope they do the flyovers at Woking and Basingstoke (including turnback facility on the latter) which will complete the grade separation on the main line that the LSWR started.

Funny to think that it was the paired four tracking and grade separation of the LSWR main line that directly inspired and led to the concept of the grade separated Motorway eventually resulting in the parallel M3 and its own version of Battledown Flyover at Popham.

(reference for this is page 37/8 of "The Motorway Achievement" Volume 1 by Ron Bridle, Peter Baldwin, John Porter & Robert Baldwin. Lord Montagu promoted the first ever motorway proposals from London to Brighton in 1906 which would have been a grade separated dual carriageway only allowing motor vehicles and another from London to Manchester in the 1920s. He had worked on the LSWR in the late C19th when the grade separated junctions were built and this inspired the idea. Both plans were done for by opposition from the railway companies and what we now call "nimbies")