Fareham to Southampton Signalling

[387star]

Has it been proposed to upgrade from two aspect signalling to three or four ?

There are long sections on a busy line with some sections covering two stations ! Thus long waits if for instance held on the down before Burseldon for a stopper as the next stop signal is the end of Swanwick platform...

Speeds are slow too especially St Denys to Woolston. I guess a bridge at Woolston would be impossible.

70 is the highest speed but on the down on the climb to Swanwick you won't get near that till over the bank.

 

[theironroad]

Has it been proposed to upgrade from two aspect signalling to three or four ?

There are long sections on a busy line with some sections covering two stations ! Thus long waits if for instance held on the down before Burseldon for a stopper as the next stop signal is the end of Swanwick platform...

Speeds are slow too especially St Denys to Woolston. I guess a bridge at Woolston would be impossible.

70 is the highest speed but on the down on the climb to Swanwick you won't get near that till over the bank.

Some very valid points there, but really got to laugh at the bridge idea. There is a bridge....the one the railway currently runs over, afraid to say that no other one is going to be built.

I'm not sure if NR have plans for upgrading the signalling, but I'd agree with you it's long overdue, 4 aspect would make a massive difference.

I seem to recall a few years ago that there were proposals to close it for rail traffic and convert it into a guided bus way or similar,but that seems pretty ludicrous.

 

[387star]

Some very valid points there, but really got to laugh at the bridge idea. There is a bridge....the one the railway currently runs over, afraid to say that no other one is going to be built.

I'm not sure if NR have plans for upgrading the signalling, but I'd agree with you it's long overdue, 4 aspect would make a massive difference.

I seem to recall a few years ago that there were proposals to close it for rail traffic and convert it into a guided bus way or similar,but that seems pretty ludicrous.

I meant a bridge nearer Woolston straight across pretty much where the road bridge is as you see St Mary's Stadium just across the water quite a while before you pretty much pull along side it on the final approaches

Looking at the road bridge I guess clearances for ships would be the obvious issue!

 

[theironroad]

I meant a bridge nearer Woolston straight across pretty much where the road bridge is as you see St Mary's Stadium just across the water quite a while before you pretty much pull along side it on the final approaches

Looking at the road bridge I guess clearances for ships would be the obvious issue!

I knew exactly where you meant and in a utopian reality it would be a great idea, though a swing bridge etc would help with the ships. Not sure if you'd keep the current set up as well otherwise Bitterne (and at Denys) might be upset. It's definitely a slow crawl from woolston to Southampton, especially when it's a a 10 or 12 car....

However, can you imagine the cost?

 

[387star]

I knew exactly where you meant and in a utopian reality it would be a great idea, though a swing bridge etc would help with the ships. Not sure if you'd keep the current set up as well otherwise Bitterne (and at Denys) might be upset. It's definitely a slow crawl from woolston to Southampton, especially when it's a a 10 or 12 car....

However, can you imagine the cost?

Yeah you're right of course it will never happen
It's a long crawl around the bay as you say with the laughable AWS magnet for the 45 on the down given you're hardly going to get up to 70! But I realise it's there due to railway standards

 

[Bob M]

When the present Itchen road bridge was being planned, one possibility was a double decker bridge with a railway line, which would have shortened the rail distance from Woolston to Southampton considerably. However, the Admiralty insisted on enough clearance for big sailing ships...

 

[theironroad]

Yeah you're right of course it will never happen
It's a long crawl around the bay as you say with the laughable AWS magnet for the 45 on the down given you're hardly going to get up to 70! But I realise it's there due to railway standards

Haha, yeah that magnet is definitely an oddball. While it is a slow crawl, I actually like it especially trundling over bridge and looking at the boats , wildlife etc. Someone could cut some trees down to improve the view, that would be good.

When the present Itchen road bridge was being planned, one possibility was a double decker bridge with a railway line, which would have shortened the rail distance from Woolston to Southampton considerably. However, the Admiralty insisted on enough clearance for big sailing ships...

Very interesting. Wonder how they would have designed that as the road bridge is very high and without some sort of lifting/swing section, the railway would need some pretty steep gradients either side to get any boats with masts/funnels through.

Also, not really sure how it would connect to Southampton central as the bridge is a fair bit to south of Southampton tunnel. I suppose a chord near Central bridge road on the eastern docks line and another chord just north of at Mary's stadium at Northam junction would work and as a bonus a station could be built at the stadium.

 

[Gloster]

However, the Admiralty insisted on enough clearance for big sailing ships...

Work on the Itchen Bridge started in 1974. By then even M’Lords of the Admiralty had realised that the age of sail was over. Their predecessors in the 1830s objected to a bridge and the Woolston Floating Bridge chain ferry was provided instead.

 

[pompeyfan]

I believe there was something in the solent study that talked about upgrading the signalling. The whole of Eastleigh panel 3 is probably due attention but the Botley line carries significantly less traffic, one passenger train an hour and maybe a freight every other hour

 

[Phillipimo]

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Solent-Connectivity-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Bottom of page 46:

Signalling on the Netley line was also identified as a major issue to be tackled if additional capacity/frequency is to be provided. Splitting the existing very long signal sections on the Netley line by converting Distant signals to 3 aspects with new distant to the rear would achieve this. A similar scheme was undertaken at Falmer.

 

[Bob M]

Haha, yeah that magnet is definitely an oddball. While it is a slow crawl, I actually like it especially trundling over bridge and looking at the boats , wildlife etc. Someone could cut some trees down to improve the view, that would be good.


Very interesting. Wonder how they would have designed that as the road bridge is very high and without some sort of lifting/swing section, the railway would need some pretty steep gradients either side to get any boats with masts/funnels through.

Also, not really sure how it would connect to Southampton central as the bridge is a fair bit to south of Southampton tunnel. I suppose a chord near Central bridge road on the eastern docks line and another chord just north of at Mary's stadium at Northam junction would work and as a bonus a station could be built at the stadium.

Exactly. The height required made a railway impossible. At a lower level it could have been done. The line to the old Terminus station and into the old docks is very close to the Soton side of the bridge.

I think the Admiralty concerns were the occasional modern yacht to an upriver yard, not Francis Drake style stuff!

 

[paul1609]

Associated British Ports ABP are the statutory authority for Southampton Water. Its also a world heritage site. Its very unlikely that the Admiralty would object to anything on the River Test.

 

[BayPaul]

Associated British Ports ABP are the statutory authority for Southampton Water. Its also a world heritage site. Its very unlikely that the Admiralty would object to anything on the River Test.

The admiralty might not object, but the 3 large marinas and the operators of the commercial berths above the Itchen bridge certainly would. ABP Southampton is in expansion mode too, so more coastal trade may well be pushed further up the river. The high air draft is most certainly needed on this bit of river - the chances of getting permission to close all of those businesses in order to put in a railway bridge is probably nil, and a swing bridge is definitely a non-starter - trying to fit in a couple of openings per hour is going to more than undo any signalling improvement.

 

[zwk500]

The admiralty might not object, but the 3 large marinas and the operators of the commercial berths above the Itchen bridge certainly would. ABP Southampton is in expansion mode too, so more coastal trade may well be pushed further up the river. The high air draft is most certainly needed on this bit of river - the chances of getting permission to close all of those businesses in order to put in a railway bridge is probably nil, and a swing bridge is definitely a non-starter - trying to fit in a couple of openings per hour is going to more than undo any signalling improvement.

Any problems with a bridge over the Itchen are largely irrelevant compared to the problems with demolishing a fair number of houses and businesses on either side of the river to allow the railway to get to the bridge. Not to mention the railway then has to make a right-angle turn to get to the existing freight branch, which would need to be upgraded. Oh and either Southampton terminus re-opened or another curve put in to allow trains to access Southampton Central.
Back to the topic, improved signalling would probably be helpful, but as you're unlikely to get any extra services through Southampton tunnel the business case likely doesn't stack up until it's being renewed/recontrolled when life-expired. Not sure when that line is next due.

 

[theironroad]

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Solent-Connectivity-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Bottom of page 46:

Published in May 2020, that's a recent study, though obviously all pre covid research and findings.

Some pretty major wish list items in their report, including demolishing Southampton central station buildings to allow new through lines on both up and down.

I may have missed it, but while there was reference to a desire for direct trains from hedge end to Southampton, there didn't seem to be any mention of a chord at Eastleigh south junction to allow trains to traverse directly between the main line and botley to speed up those journeys meaning a reverse at Eastleigh adding time to journeys. I realise the chord has been raised before and believe it's technically challenging at that location, but would make a big difference and potentially allow fast trains from Fareham (& east thereof) direct access to airport and possibly faster connections to central.

Alas, even before covid a lot of the report's aspirations were unlikely to see fruition in the short to medium term, but some good stuff in there.

 

[zwk500]

I may have missed it, but while there was reference to a desire for direct trains from hedge end to Southampton, there didn't seem to be any mention of a chord at Eastleigh south junction to allow trains to traverse directly between the main line and botley to speed up those journeys meaning a reverse at Eastleigh adding time to journeys. I realise the chord has been raised before and believe it's technically challenging at that location, but would make a big difference and potentially allow fast trains from Fareham (& east thereof) direct access to airport and possibly faster connections to central.

Missing out Eastleigh would reduce journey opportunities. Given this would be a relatively slow and indirect service, the net passenger increase from speeding up the journey is likely to be less than the net passenger increase of greater journey opportunities (thinking of transfer between the Portsmouth/Brighton and Romsey/Salisbury lines in particular).
To fit the curve in between the airport runway and Eastleigh Depot requires taking out a car park (at the absolute minimum). It also involves 3 extremely tight curves to follow the existing depot access line back to the Botley Line. These are unlikely to be much more than 10/15mph, so with the check down to Approach control and crawl round the back of the depot it'd probably only be a saving of 1-2mins over a 4min reversal.

Alas, even before covid a lot of the report's aspirations were unlikely to see fruition in the short to medium term, but some good stuff in there.

This is an initial stage strategy document, it was never about short term solutions. There's still a lot of detailed work to be done but some of the solutions suggested could well come in the medium term.

 

[theironroad]

Missing out Eastleigh would reduce journey opportunities. Given this would be a relatively slow and indirect service, the net passenger increase from speeding up the journey is likely to be less than the net passenger increase of greater journey opportunities (thinking of transfer between the Portsmouth/Brighton and Romsey/Salisbury lines in particular).
To fit the curve in between the airport runway and Eastleigh Depot requires taking out a car park (at the absolute minimum). It also involves 3 extremely tight curves to follow the existing depot access line back to the Botley Line. These are unlikely to be much more than 10/15mph, so with the check down to Approach control and crawl round the back of the depot it'd probably only be a saving of 1-2mins over a 4min reversal.

This is an initial stage strategy document, it was never about short term solutions. There's still a lot of detailed work to be done but some of the solutions suggested could well come in the medium term.

I'd still like to see a chord as I think it could be useful for diversions etc but I'd agree with you that given it would need to be low speed and would bypass the Eastleigh station, a town that itself needs better links, it makes sense to reverse at Eastleigh which is what currently (not sure in covid) happens with the handful of southern and GWR services that use it for route knowledge retention purposes.

 

[Domeyhead]

Some very valid points there, but really got to laugh at the bridge idea. There is a bridge....the one the railway currently runs over, afraid to say that no other one is going to be built.

I'm not sure if NR have plans for upgrading the signalling, but I'd agree with you it's long overdue, 4 aspect would make a massive difference.

I seem to recall a few years ago that there were proposals to close it for rail traffic and convert it into a guided bus way or similar,but that seems pretty ludicrous.

I don't believe there has ever been a proposal for a guided busway on this line. However there was a proposal before the millenium to create a new Metro linking Fareham Gosport and Portsmouth using a lot of the old trackbed of the Fareham to Gosport Railway. This scheme was in a highly advanced planning stage when the then Transport Minister (Alistair Darling) vetoed it and the work came to nothing. The Fareham to Gosport trackbed was tarmacked and turned into a road for dedicated use by buses, so not really a guided busway. Part two of the scheme proposed that the line from Fareham to St Denys via Swanwick would be converted to Metro and that trams (or tram-trains) would run from Southampton to Fareham and integrate with part 1 of the scheme. Additional stations would have been created at Fareham West, Segensworth and at Lower Swanwick (serving NATS)

 

[DaveHarries]

Has it been proposed to upgrade from two aspect signalling to three or four ?

There are long sections on a busy line with some sections covering two stations ! Thus long waits if for instance held on the down before Burseldon for a stopper as the next stop signal is the end of Swanwick platform...

Speeds are slow too especially St Denys to Woolston. I guess a bridge at Woolston would be impossible.

70 is the highest speed but on the down on the climb to Swanwick you won't get near that till over the bank.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Solent-Connectivity-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Signalling on the Netley line was also identified as a major issue to be tackled if additional capacity/frequency is to be provided. Splitting the existing very long signal sections on the Netley line by converting Distant signals to 3 aspects with new distant to the rear would achieve this. A similar scheme was undertaken at Falmer.

I wasn't aware that it was all two-aspect. I don't know if an upgrade is afoot but there is a fair degree of work in the Solent area fairly soon in connection with the Southampton FTLS - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...southampton-freight-train-lengthening-scheme/ - in connection with which NR say that "to complete the project we then need to commission a new signalling system" which will, of course, mean alterations to Eastleigh panel.

Line closures in connection with the work as follows:
- 30th January: Southampton Airport Parkway to Brockenhurst as well as Romsey to Redbridge
- 31st January: Eastleigh to Brockenhurst, Romsey to Redbridge and St. Denys to Woolston
- 13th & 14th February: Eastleigh to Brockenhurst, Romsey to Redbridge and St. Denys to Woolston
- 15th to 19th February: Southampton Central to Romsey and Southampton Central to Brockenhurst

Network Rail's info in the above link for the Southampton FTLS say that this is to commission the new signalling system: no mention of any other work being done (although there may be other work) and I think that any non-LED signals currently in existence will perhaps be switched for LED ones with perhaps a banner repeater or two installed for good measure where felt necessary.

Dave

 

[theironroad]

I wasn't aware that it was all two-aspect. I don't know if an upgrade is afoot but there is a fair degree of work in the Solent area fairly soon in connection with the Southampton FTLS - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...southampton-freight-train-lengthening-scheme/ - in connection with which NR say that "to complete the project we then need to commission a new signalling system" which will, of course, mean alterations to Eastleigh panel.

Line closures in connection with the work as follows:
- 30th January: Southampton Airport Parkway to Brockenhurst as well as Romsey to Redbridge
- 31st January: Eastleigh to Brockenhurst, Romsey to Redbridge and St. Denys to Woolston
- 13th & 14th February: Eastleigh to Brockenhurst, Romsey to Redbridge and St. Denys to Woolston
- 15th to 19th February: Southampton Central to Romsey and Southampton Central to Brockenhurst

Network Rail's info in the above link for the Southampton FTLS say that this is to commission the new signalling system: no mention of any other work being done (although there may be other work) and I think that any non-LED signals currently in existence will perhaps be switched for LED ones with perhaps a banner repeater or two installed for good measure where felt necessary.

Dave

The closures over the next few months are just for the freight project, nothing to do with any netley line upgrading.

The signalling commission reference is to all the new signals being installed and some existing ones between Southampton central and Redbridge on the existing and new freight lines and crossings. A few mainline signals are also being altered and yes two banner repeaters being installed at Millbrook on the down mainlines.

 

[swt_passenger]

The closures over the next few months are just for the freight project, nothing to do with any netley line upgrading.

The signalling commission reference is to all the new signals being installed and some existing ones between Southampton central and Redbridge on the existing and new freight lines and crossings. A few mainline signals are also being altered and yes two banner repeaters being installed at Millbrook on the down mainlines.

I posted a drawing in a thread last October, which as you say has most of the work in the specific area of the western docks entry/exit: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/southampton-redbridge-area-signal-upgrades.209724/#post-4804626