Electrification/modernisation of LSW Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter

[70014IronDuke]

I've extracted some posts from this thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/did-network-south-east-ever-consider-using-hsts.164073/

Which was rapidly focusing on the LSW route modernisation possibilities

Apparently BR considered 5 options for the WoE route:

1. re-furbishment of existing stock (50s and 47/7s with Mk2s) to extend life

2. construction of new class of diesel loco (the proposed class 48 was considered for this) with new-build LHCS

3. new-build DMU stock, the class 158s which were already ordered and being built for Regional Railways; or the proposed class 171 (which would've been a fully air-conditioned InterCity version of the Class 165 and built to the standard loading gauge (this of course progressed into the Class 168).

4. 750V, 3rd rail electrification between Worting Junction & Exeter, using either brand-new or cascaded existing EMUs

5. The use of cascaded Intercity 125s freed up by the ECML electrification, in either 1+5 or 2+8 formation.

Of course option 3 is what prevailed with 3-car 158s being refitted and re-classed as 159s for the West of England route, the primary modifications being retention toilets and a larger and higher quality First Class.

HSTs were not “rejected” for Waterloo - Exeter: there were none available. They might have been considered at the early stage of planning HST redeployment after East Coast electrification, but the InterCity sector very quickly realised they were far too valuable an asset for IC services to let other sectors get their mitts on them.

HST's for WofE would have probably been good for some (probably cheaper tickets West of Salisbury to get bums on seats and more 158's for other operators) however electrification would have been very interesting (but no, or very few, Waterloo to Bristol services) as there could be splitting of services at Basingstoke in the off peak (as it would allow 5 coach services to each of Southampton and Exeter whilst running as a 10 coach train out of Waterloo, add this would reduce the number of drivers needed, which could be useful in late night services) or even allowing the more minor stations to be served by other services (possibly an extension of the Basingstoke Stoppers).

My question: Did BR make a case for electrification to Salisbury and then use Class 33s + 4TCs or some such for the Salisbury - Exeter section - similar to the original Bournemouth - Weymouth solution?

You could even have had a train split twice for faster services to the western stations, eg

Waterloo - Salisbury 4 car powered unit (like a 4REP) + 4TC + 4TC

At Salisbury, front 4TC continues, first stop Yeovil Jcn then all stations to Exeter
Second 4TC follows, all stations to Yeovil Jcn, where it terminates.

Obviously, in the up direction, the process is reversed. with a stopper from Yeovil Jcn arriving first, then the 'fast' from Exeter, both attaching their portions to a 4REP at Salisbury for the Waterloo turn.
If 12 car trains were too long, you could adjust the trains to 3TCs or some such.

Was any such solution considered?

 

[hexagon789]

I've extracted some posts from this thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/did-network-south-east-ever-consider-using-hsts.164073/

Which was rapidly focusing on the LSW route modernisation possibilities







My question: Did BR make a case for electrification to Salisbury and then use Class 33s + 4TCs or some such for the Salisbury - Exeter section - similar to the original Bournemouth - Weymouth solution?

You could even have had a train split twice for faster services to the western stations, eg

Waterloo - Salisbury 4 car powered unit (like a 4REP) + 4TC + 4TC

At Salisbury, front 4TC continues, first stop Yeovil Jcn then all stations to Exeter
Second 4TC follows, all stations to Yeovil Jcn, where it terminates.

Obviously, in the up direction, the process is reversed. with a stopper from Yeovil Jcn arriving first, then the 'fast' from Exeter, both attaching their portions to a 4REP at Salisbury for the Waterloo turn.
If 12 car trains were too long, you could adjust the trains to 3TCs or some such.

Was any such solution considered?

I don't know if they considered electrifying just to Salisbury, but one of the options for modernising the route in the early 1990s was electrification right the way through to Exeter; from the time period I'd have expected 442s or something similar to be used on the through service to Exeter.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I don't know if they considered electrifying just to Salisbury, but one of the options for modernising the route in the early 1990s was electrification right the way through to Exeter; from the time period I'd have expected 442s or something similar to be used on the through service to Exeter.

Electrifying all the route is one obvious option, at least on paper - but I've always understood that there was never a case for that. IT would mean something like 120 route miles of electrification. Going to Salisbury only would mean a mere 30 or so miles from Worting Jcn (albeit it all double track). There's obviously a huge difference in investment costs - and Salisbury - Waterloo is clearly more heavily utilised than the section beyond and always has been, I'd assume.

 

[hexagon789]

Electrifying all the route is one obvious option, at least on paper - but I've always understood that there was never a case for that. IT would mean something like 120 route miles of electrification. Going to Salisbury only would mean a mere 30 or so miles from Worting Jcn (albeit it all double track). There's obviously a huge difference in investment costs - and Salisbury - Waterloo is clearly more heavily utilised than the section beyond and always has been, I'd assume.

I agree, there's certainly more traffic as far as Salisbury. However, I think that if you electrified the GWML to Exeter, then you could electrify with 25 kV overhead to Exeter via Salisbury running dual-voltage sets perhaps.

 

[randyrippley]

I can remember this being discussed years ago, in I think Modern Railways(?) and the view then was that there wasn't a financial case for electrification west of Basingstoke.
I believe they looked at switching the REP/TC operation to the WofE after Weymouth was electrified, changing power at Basingstoke - but the resulting delays for coupling would have been too chaotic. It would also have increased the cost of the 442 fleet as they would have required new traction equipment as the recycled gear couldn't have been reused.
I also have a vague memory of reading an anecdotal tale that the Western Region weren't keen on push-pull services working into their territory....

 

[randyrippley]

m

............................Obviously, in the up direction, the process is reversed. with a stopper from Yeovil Jcn arriving first, then the 'fast' from Exeter, both attaching their portions to a 4REP at Salisbury for the Waterloo turn.
If 12 car trains were too long, you could adjust the trains to 3TCs or some such.

Was any such solution considered?

Given the length of the signal blocks the "fast" portion would have to be running something like 30 minutes or more behind the "slow" portion and would be unable to run any faster than the slow portion........ - and thats assuming clear runs through the single sections. So a 30+ minute delay at Salisbury waiting for it to catch up.

 

[70014IronDuke]

m


Given the length of the signal blocks the "fast" portion would have to be running something like 30 minutes or more behind the "slow" portion and would be unable to run any faster than the slow portion........ - and thats assuming clear runs through the single sections. So a 30+ minute delay at Salisbury waiting for it to catch up.

Really? The blocks are that long? Ridiculous. Anyway, there is another alternative - not as good, but, say, six cars could go on to Yeovil Jcn and the train split again, leaving just three to continue to Exeter, except where traffic demanded additional six coaches.

 

[Taunton]

Really? The blocks are that long? Ridiculous.

I think what is meant is not Block as in signalling, but the single line sections where the first train would go through, then one the other way, before the second goes. You need a bit of leeway as well. It would be possible for the second to follow when the first clears, but this then prevents opposite direction traffic on what is a busy both ways line. I believe that some Intermediate Block Signals have been installed on a few of the single line sections to allow trains to follow, but it's no substitute for doubling.

The trouble wiith the singled sections is that, although the original double track formation is still there, it has been used for various purposes, signal posts planted, cable trunking laid, drainage revised, tracks centred under bridges to avoid bridge work, etc, all of which would have to be replaced before any redoubling could start.

I believe they looked at switching the REP/TC operation to the WofE after Weymouth was electrified, changing power at Basingstoke - but the resulting delays for coupling would have been too chaotic.

My recollection of the first 1980s study was, along with electrifying all the way to Weymouth, the thought was to electrify Basingstoke to Salisbury, and use the displaced units to do the REP/TC operation to there with 4-coach TC/diesel beyond, which fitted better with the demand on the route, and allowed CIG units to do Waterloo to Salisbury only services as well. An economical substation plan fitted well with this. An early killer was that the REP/TC units themselves had been converted in 1967 from 1950s hauled stock, and were suffering from corrosion. The motors of course were new in 1967, and went into the new Weymouth trains. Southampton to Salisbury was part of this - the diesel trains generally operated Portsmouth to Salisbury, and the Portsmouth to Southampton section was of course electrified as part of the scheme.

 

[30907]

Of course, if the SR had retained Salisbury-Exeter, they might have gone for a REP/TC option, but I suspect the service pattern would have alternated fast and slow trains beyond Salisbury (I believe someone in Wimbledon DMO drew up such a timetable for steam working!) rather than having fast and slow portions off the same train.
ISTR though that the SR was thinking in terms of electric locos and hauled stock if the West of England line were to be electrified.

 

[randyrippley]

I think what is meant is not Block as in signalling, but the single line sections where the first train would go through, then one the other way, before the second goes. You need a bit of leeway as well. It would be possible for the second to follow when the first clears, but this then prevents opposite direction traffic on what is a busy both ways line. I believe that some Intermediate Block Signals have been installed on a few of the single line sections to allow trains to follow, but it's no substitute for doubling.

I meant both really............I still have memories of the bell ringing at Yeovil Junction to signal the up train entering the block at Crewkerne, appearing what seemed to be 20 minutes later. From what I remember, effectively each station west of Salisbury was its own discrete signal block giving you sections of 6-10 miles or so (I'm sure someone knows more accurately)

The trouble wiith the singled sections is that, although the original double track formation is still there, it has been used for various purposes, signal posts planted, cable trunking laid, drainage revised, tracks centred under bridges to avoid bridge work, etc, all of which would have to be replaced before any redoubling could start.

And some of the redundant platforms on the singled stations have been sold off..........

 

[randyrippley]

Really? The blocks are that long? Ridiculous. Anyway, there is another alternative - not as good, but, say, six cars could go on to Yeovil Jcn and the train split again, leaving just three to continue to Exeter, except where traffic demanded additional six coaches.

well..........that would be more sensible as you'd only need one diesel loco per train west of Salisbury. But you'd still have the uneconomic situation of a type 5 loco trundling along with a flyweight loading. A class 67 with three coaches? Guaranteed way to lose money. Why a type 5? There aren't any reliable small locos left..............unless you would be prepared to trust a rebuilt class 73 to the job. But if you were going to do that then you might as well forget the ersatz REP/TC idea and let the refurb electrodiesels haul the whole route with new build hauled coaches. But given the rate at which the route killed the Warships, the 50s and the 47/7 I doubt if those repainted wrecks would last long

 

[70014IronDuke]

well..........that would be more sensible as you'd only need one diesel loco per train west of Salisbury. But you'd still have the uneconomic situation of a type 5 loco trundling along with a flyweight loading. A class 67 with three coaches? Guaranteed way to lose money. Why a type 5? There aren't any reliable small locos left..............unless you would be prepared to trust a rebuilt class 73 to the job. But if you were going to do that then you might as well forget the ersatz REP/TC idea and let the refurb electrodiesels haul the whole route with new build hauled coaches. But given the rate at which the route killed the Warships, the 50s and the 47/7 I doubt if those repainted wrecks would last long

Perhpas it wasn't clear, but in the original post I was referring to thoughts on the modernisation of the line 1975-1990 period, ie before the introduction of Cl 159s. In that period,
a) third rail electrification Worting Jcn - Salisbury would have been allowed (as opposed to now, when I don't think it could be) and b) the obvious locomotives to be used for any push-pull service would have been Cl 33s.
As far as I know, the southern maintained these locomotives to high standards, and they had a very good reliability record.
Just to be clear, I am aware that running Type 5 (or even Type 4) locomotives with 3 or 4-coach loads would not be economical, and I wouldn't suggest it.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...

My recollection of the first 1980s study was, along with electrifying all the way to Weymouth, the thought was to electrify Basingstoke to Salisbury, and use the displaced units to do the REP/TC operation to there with 4-coach TC/diesel beyond, which fitted better with the demand on the route, and allowed CIG units to do Waterloo to Salisbury only services as well. An economical substation plan fitted well with this. ...

Thanks. This is exactly the core of what I was thinking, but I didn't know about this study. Thanks too for other explanations offered.
I think it is blatantly obvious that the transfer to the WR west of Salisbury in 1964 (or 63?) was a major disaster for the route.

I do not subscribe to the 'emotional' arguments made by some SR fans that the Western was 'always out to get the Southern' and close the route out of ancient rivalries. I can fully accept that - given the decision to develop the GWR route to Plymouth as the main inter-city route - economies were the order of the day, and eg some singling and rationalisations were needed. That is not the problem.

My bet is the problem was within the manergerial structures, because Paddington fundamentally didn't care about it, and even if someone did, he or she would have been well down the pecking order in terms of getting resources for development against the 'core' routes out of Paddington. (This is perfectly logical: Paddington-S Wales/Bristol/Plymouth are more important than Exeter-Salisbury-(Waterloo) - end of argument.)

The fact of the matter is that anything out of Exeter running to Waterloo was of fundamental concern to SR management, and breaking off the line west of Salisbury simply added a communication and planning complication that just hindered any effort towards positive developments. I don't think you need an MBA from Henley Business School to see this.

My suspicion is that had the SR been instructed by BRB to rationalise west of Salisbury themselves back in the 60s that they would have planned it all far better, including contingency for a possible resurection of the route. Come 1980 or so, they would have pushed for electrification to Salisbury, and almost certainly got on with it in the time-honoured, cost-efficient SR way inherited from Sir Herbert Walker et al. And all this would have meant we would have a line in far better shape for service developments today.

 

[30907]

My suspicion is that had the SR been instructed by BRB to rationalise west of Salisbury themselves back in the 60s that they would have planned it all far better, including contingency for a possible resurection of the route. Come 1980 or so, they would have pushed for electrification to Salisbury, and almost certainly got on with it in the time-honoured, cost-efficient SR way inherited from Sir Herbert Walker et al. And all this would have meant we would have a line in far better shape for service developments today.

I am inclined to agree.
That said, I wonder what that would have meant in infrastructure terms in the 60s? The SR (not having any comparable routes, admittedly) didn't do any singling until the mid 70s, so my suspicion is that they would have retained double track at first but closed as many signalboxes as possible. Tisbury might have had an all-day service from the start, and Templecombe might not have closed, but I'm not sure the line would have justified an hourly service West of Salisbury in those days.
Of course this is all pure speculation...but it's fun.

 

[coppercapped]

Thanks. This is exactly the core of what I was thinking, but I didn't know about this study. Thanks too for other explanations offered.
I think it is blatantly obvious that the transfer to the WR west of Salisbury in 1964 (or 63?) was a major disaster for the route.

I do not subscribe to the 'emotional' arguments made by some SR fans that the Western was 'always out to get the Southern' and close the route out of ancient rivalries. I can fully accept that - given the decision to develop the GWR route to Plymouth as the main inter-city route - economies were the order of the day, and eg some singling and rationalisations were needed. That is not the problem.

My bet is the problem was within the manergerial structures, because Paddington fundamentally didn't care about it, and even if someone did, he or she would have been well down the pecking order in terms of getting resources for development against the 'core' routes out of Paddington. (This is perfectly logical: Paddington-S Wales/Bristol/Plymouth are more important than Exeter-Salisbury-(Waterloo) - end of argument.)

The fact of the matter is that anything out of Exeter running to Waterloo was of fundamental concern to SR management, and breaking off the line west of Salisbury simply added a communication and planning complication that just hindered any effort towards positive developments. I don't think you need an MBA from Henley Business School to see this.

My suspicion is that had the SR been instructed by BRB to rationalise west of Salisbury themselves back in the 60s that they would have planned it all far better, including contingency for a possible resurection of the route. Come 1980 or so, they would have pushed for electrification to Salisbury, and almost certainly got on with it in the time-honoured, cost-efficient SR way inherited from Sir Herbert Walker et al. And all this would have meant we would have a line in far better shape for service developments today.

As so often Gerry Fiennes supplies some more of the background to these developments. In I Tried to Run a Railway (Ian Allan 1967) he gives the reasons for concentrating the London to West Country traffic on Paddington and later (p103 of the hardback edition) addresses the issues which arose on the ex-SR route from this decision.

Dorset were in more uncomfortable shoes. We were concentrating the traffic with London from Exeter and beyond on the Westbury route. I made no bones about telling Dorset that the line between Exeter and Salisbury must survive on the traffic which it generated - in the main, passengers and milk. The price of survival was assent to the closure of the small stations, and to the pruning of the railway to a single line, simplified signalling and at stations to bare essentials of buildings and staff.
We urged on them the need to develop the county, emphasising that Wiltshire to the north and Hampshire to the south and east had made their railways secure. Dorset was a desert in between. As an earnest of good intent we put 'Warship' diesels on the expresses and multiple units on the local services. We drew up timetables to introduce as soon as the small stations were closed accelerating the expresses by up to 20 minutes and giving the remaining stations an express to and from London every two hours. Dorset started to manoeuvre. Keep Yeovil Junction open as well as Crewkerne and Sherborne within three or four miles on either side. Templecombe must stay. There was some business with 'bus operators so they could not take up their licences. Tisbury of course. One M.P. came and told me with every circumstance of glee that he had pruned a plan for the expansion of the principal town in his constituency down from forty thousand to fourteen. I got fed up with them; and they have got what they deserved: an express service far slower than before: and to my belief uncompetitive with road. In the long run unless Dorset firstly develops and secondly co-operates to let the railway use its advantage in speed, it will lose the railway. And serve it right.

 

[Taunton]

Dorset started to manoeuvre. Keep Yeovil Junction open as well as Crewkerne and Sherborne within three or four miles on either side. Templecombe must stay. There was some business with 'bus operators so they could not take up their licences. Tisbury of course.

Gerry Fiennes is uncharacteristically inaccurate here, Tisbury is in Wiltshire. Yeovil, Crewkerne and Tempklecombe are in Somerset. Only Sherborne is in Dorset.

 

[30907]

Gerry Fiennes is uncharacteristically inaccurate here, Tisbury is in Wiltshire. Yeovil, Crewkerne and Tempklecombe are in Somerset. Only Sherborne is in Dorset.

And Crewkerne is considerably more than 4 miles from Yeovil Junction. However, Yeovil Jn station is in Dorset.
Switching off pedant mode, though, Fiennes' basic point was sound (and equally applied to Bedwyn-Taunton, as is evidenced by the level of service on most of that route until relatively recently). Proposing to close the Junction, and then leaving it with only one usable through platform was a mistake, though.

 

[randyrippley]

And Crewkerne is considerably more than 4 miles from Yeovil Junction. However, Yeovil Jn station is in Dorset.
Switching off pedant mode, though, Fiennes' basic point was sound (and equally applied to Bedwyn-Taunton, as is evidenced by the level of service on most of that route until relatively recently). Proposing to close the Junction, and then leaving it with only one usable through platform was a mistake, though.

Pedant mode back on, the county border was moved from the Barwick stream to the River Yeo around 20 years ago placing Yeovil Junction in Somerset. Or at least the operational part of the station......the revised border appears to follow the track and bisect the site, with the abandoned platforms (now part of the preservation group's site) still in Dorset.

Pedant mode off, the more I read about Fiennes, the more convinced I am that he was a fool.

 

[The Ham]

I do wonder what would have happened if there had been electrification to Salisbury.

Part of me thinks that it could have resulted in the loss of through services, maybe with those services west of Salisbury being an extension of the Salisbury 6 services. Even if the through services had survived, chances are they would have been on a 0.5 tph frequentcy with the other service requiring a change at Salisbury.

If course that would have some benefits, in that there would be a lot less diesel trains at Waterloo.

There would likely be other benefits, in that Salisbury could see more services. For instance I can see the benefits of extending the Basingstoke Stoppers to Salisbury to pick up the little stations to allow the services currently run by DMU to be run faster by doing these stops.

It would also make the case for further electrification of the remaining bits better, as Yeovil would have been the next step, as this would allow the Diesel services to be charged to run from Exeter to Yeovil (serving both stations), up to Westbury and then down to Salisbury and on to Southampton and round to Romsey. With cross platform change to Waterloo services at Yeovil Junction.

This would have allowed the Western Region to skip places like Frome and Burton just provide a connection at Westbury and Castle Cary on their B&H services. However would have likely meant that the Bedwyn services could have been extended to Westbury to also connect with these services. Likewise the Portsmouth - Cardiff services could skip Ditton Marsh and Warminster. Alternatively and/or in addition the Western Region may only run as far as Salisbury, with the Southern Region extending electrification between Salisbury and Southampton and running the service at the southern end.

Chances are under the current franchise model it would mean that Salisbury was the north/south bounary for GWR/SWR services and Yeovil would be the east/west boundary. With the 0.5tph from Exeter to Waterloo being originally part of the Wesex Trains services, which may have gone either way when it was merged into FGW. Alternatively it could have resulted in a slightly different path, with Wessex Trains surviving, possibly with it focusing on running services to connect through to Waterloo. This could have resulted in the retention of Paignton to Waterloo services.

 

[70014IronDuke]

As so often Gerry Fiennes supplies some more of the background to these developments. In I Tried to Run a Railway (Ian Allan 1967) he gives the reasons for concentrating the London to West Country traffic on Paddington and later (p103 of the hardback edition) addresses the issues which arose on the ex-SR route from this decision.

Interesting. So in Gerry Fiennes the WR had a manager that did care about this offshoot grafted onto his traditional territory, it would seem. Nontheless, even if Exeter-Salisbury made it out of the "any other business" section of WR management meetings at Paddington, and even with the best of intentions and planning, the artifical interface between SR and WR would not have helped developments.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I do wonder what would have happened if there had been electrification to Salisbury.
Part of me thinks that it could have resulted in the loss of through services, ....

Good point. That could have been a risk. But again, I don't think this would have happened had the line remained integral with the SR. The Southern was, even still is, very much a joined-up railway operation.

Even if the through services had survived, chances are they would have been on a 0.5 tph frequentcy with the other service requiring a change at Salisbury.

Well, after 1964 for many years that's all it was, surely? With the odd extra at peak hours, as I remember at least.

If course that would have some benefits, in that there would be a lot less diesel trains at Waterloo.

Interesting that Fiennes considered the introduction of Warships as a positive development! Was it advertised like that at the time to the public? I'm not sure if the fitters and electricians at Waterloo would have agreed.

There would likely be other benefits, in that Salisbury could see more services. For instance I can see the benefits of extending the Basingstoke Stoppers to Salisbury to pick up the little stations to allow the services currently run by DMU to be run faster by doing these stops.

AIRI, the 'fast' Waterloo - Exeter Warship-hauled services after 1964 only stopped at Andover twixt Basingstoke and Salisbury. Didn't they use Hampshire DEMUs on the stoppers?

It would also make the case for further electrification of the remaining bits better, as Yeovil would have been the next step, as this would allow the Diesel services to be charged to run from Exeter to Yeovil (serving both stations), up to Westbury and then down to Salisbury and on to Southampton and round to Romsey. With cross platform change to Waterloo services at Yeovil Junction.

Interesting idea. But I think electrification to Yeovil Jcn would be an aspiration too far.

 

[Taunton]

Part of me thinks that it could have resulted in the loss of through services, maybe with those services west of Salisbury being an extension of the Salisbury 6 services.

This actually started to happen. The key 1100 from Waterloo (the old ACE departure) was curtailed at Salisbury, connecting into the Brightom-Plymouh daily train. It of course caused a considerable upset. The principal driver for it was insufficient line capacity on the newly singled line for two closely following services, especially as at midday they would be crossing not one but two return services coming the other way.

It wasn't just Salisbury-Exeter that was singled by the WR, many of their important but not key routes had the same done. I'm suprrised Newport-Shrewsbury escaped. They are, only now, and very expensively, and only in part, being put back. The same happened to existing single lines. Taunton to Barnstaple, only a few years before closure, had about two-thirds of the stations with passing loops reduced to single plain line, with all the additional tracks, platforms, buildings etc completely razed down to ballast level.

 

[davetheguard]

Ever time I'm delayed by out of course running on the Salisbury to Exeter line -most recently two weeks ago; 15' late from Salisbury, leading to a 50' late arrival in Exeter- I think of Fiennes. Should I be pleased he "saved" the route; or curse him for all the delays his singling of the track causes?

Perhaps a bit of both, but I do wish he'd been a bit less over-zealous in his cost cutting, and left a railway line with a bit more ability & capacity to recover from delays.

 

[Taunton]

I don't think Fiennes was particularly into the singling either, but it was presented as a fait-accompli from above at 222 Marylebone Road. Because of the simplistic way in which 1960s costs were reported, all civil engineering costs were put into a central bucket and then just reallocated on the basis of track-miles. So if you lost track, your allocated costs were reduced, regardless of reality.

Notably he never did it on the East Anglian routes he saved with his Basic railway approach from the previous management's reduction techniques, such as Ely to Norwich.

It was the same with rolling stock. The purge on less-used carriages of the era was because they looked expensive and not worthwhile because all carriage maintenance costs were pooled and then reallocated by the vehicle. A pre-nationalisation design one which rarely saw a fitter or a repaint was charged at exactly the same per vehicle as a new Mk2 one. Likewise for revenue, this was allocated per vehicle - actually it was allocated to the service group, and then divided equally by the vehicles on it, which completely concealed first class accommodation on lesser lines which was never sat in from one year end to the next (except of course by any visiting railway management on free passes).

 

[70014IronDuke]

Ever time I'm delayed by out of course running on the Salisbury to Exeter line -most recently two weeks ago; 15' late from Salisbury, leading to a 50' late arrival in Exeter- I think of Fiennes. Should I be pleased he "saved" the route; or curse him for all the delays his singling of the track causes?

Perhaps a bit of both, but I do wish he'd been a bit less over-zealous in his cost cutting, and left a railway line with a bit more ability & capacity to recover from delays.

As Taunton has pointed out, it was probably all decided by the time Fiennes arrived at PAddington. (I'm not sure when that was). In any case, he would probably have been there when - I suppose - the SR pleaded to reinstate the Yeovil - Jcn to .... is it Templecombe? - double track section. And presumably he was open minded enough to agree.

Question: let's say you were awarded, I don't know how much, £20m to install one section of one-mile long double track loop on the line. Where would you put it for maximum operating improvement (since you obviously travel the line)?

 

[davetheguard]

As Taunton has pointed out, it was probably all decided by the time Fiennes arrived at PAddington. (I'm not sure when that was). In any case, he would probably have been there when - I suppose - the SR pleaded to reinstate the Yeovil - Jcn to .... is it Templecombe? - double track section. And presumably he was open minded enough to agree.

Question: let's say you were awarded, I don't know how much, £20m to install one section of one-mile long double track loop on the line. Where would you put it for maximum operating improvement (since you obviously travel the line)?

I don't use it a lot, probably about ten times a year. On the delayed journey two weeks ago, we lost further time en route in the loop at Tisbury waiting for an on time up train; another ten minutes or more at Yeovil Junction waiting for another up train off the single line section. Despite missing out several stops in Devon (causing passengers for those stations to wait for the following train and arrive an hour late), we still slightly delayed two up trains I think: at Axminster & Pinhoe.

So, that is where we had delays on that particular journey. I believe the rail users' group for the line (called SERUG) are calling for, amongst others, a long dynamic loop near Whimple (probably essential if Devon County Council's plans for a "Devon Metro" half hourly service from Exeter to Honiton or Axminster are to be achieved); and a further long loop east of Crewkerne to break up the long Yeovil Junction to Chard Junction section. My £20 million -thanks 70014IronDuke- would probably go on the latter (Crewkerne), but both would be of considerable benefit. I guess it's down to what you're trying to achieve: a more reliable service at the existing frequency; a doubling of frequency within Devon; or a more useful diversionary route when the line between Castle Cary & Exeter via Taunton is blocked. If I can have £40 million, I'd do both and achieve all three aims!

 

[nw1]

I would guess that had electrification took place in say the late 80s, we'd have got a service similar to what we have now; I can't imagine they would have considered it worthwhile to electrify to Salisbury to provide just one hourly service so I'm thinking they would have used it as a good opportunity to introduce a half hourly service.

Like others have said, I can see a REP/TC based hourly 'fast' to Salisbury (e.g.Clapham-Woking -Basingstoke-Andover-Salisbury only) with TCs then going (in alternate hours) principal stations to Exeter only, and all stations to Exeter - assuming the single line didn't get in the way. If it did, alternate services could perhaps run as far as Yeovil only. (At that time there was only a 2-hourly service west of Salisbury so even that would be an improvement on what was there previously). That would be combined with an hourly service with calls at CJ, Woking, Basingstoke and all stations run by CIGs (perhaps TCs with 73s too if there were insufficient CIGs).

They could, assuming stock was available, operate 3 trains an hour to Salisbury in the peak - the Exeter/Yeovil remaining Andover-only in the peak as in off peak and two all stations Basingstoke to Salisbury, perhaps detached off Portsmouth via Eastleigh to save paths nearer London.

The difficulty comes with what would have happened when the time came to replace stock. Assuming in the alternate world privatisation never happened, the plan I believe was to replace the slam-door stock with a mainline variant of the Networker (471 was it?) But what would have happened to the Exeters? Would a diesel Networker of some sort (not necessarily a 165/6, maybe something else) coupled to an electric Networker east of Salisbury worked?

If electrification to Salisbury had happened it's easy to see how the line could get 3 peak trains an hour even now as an obvious path-saving service pattern would be to split Salisbury terminators and Portsmouth via Eastleigh at Basingstoke.

As for singling west of Salisbury, that really was plain crazy. Just as monumentally short-sighted as singling the Cotswold line. They could have kept at least some of the smaller stations open and then had alternate-hour semi-fast and all-stations services to Exeter.

 

[30907]

As for singling west of Salisbury, that really was plain crazy. Just as monumentally short-sighted as singling the Cotswold line. They could have kept at least some of the smaller stations open and then had alternate-hour semi-fast and all-stations services to Exeter.

Given the service levels on both routes at the time, I don't think singling either route was unreasonable, though it was over-drastic: the growth of long distance commuting from rural areas a generation later wasn't predictable.
I agree with you about service frequencies, but none of the closed intermediate stations was at all well used back then.

 

[hexagon789]

Given the service levels on both routes at the time, I don't think singling either route was unreasonable, though it was over-drastic: the growth of long distance commuting from rural areas a generation later wasn't predictable.
I agree with you about service frequencies, but none of the closed intermediate stations was at all well used back then.

Well in double track BR Southern days there were 5 through Waterloo-Exeter services at roughly 2 hour intervals, so I don't think it was a bad idea at the time; of course it seems like sheer lunacy now!

 

[randyrippley]

Well in double track BR Southern days there were 5 through Waterloo-Exeter services at roughly 2 hour intervals, so I don't think it was a bad idea at the time; of course it seems like sheer lunacy now!

There were also Yeovil Town - Exeter services as well, though I don't know how many - anyone know?