Future rolling stock and upgrades for the WoE line.

[MarkyT]

The bit you quoted was coming down the bank - that might have something to do with runaway protection.

Yes definitely, and I think it goes back to old practices in absolute block days when I expect Exeter West had to double block ahead to Middle in order to accept from Central. That was even more restrictive in those days when down Western trains used platform #1 so had to cross the path of anything arriving from Central on departure. There's a runaway trap point on the down Waterloo with auto normalisation that could potentially divert something rolling uncontrollably down the hill. Wouldn't like to say for sure that the sand drag would definitely arrest such a runaway before it reached the GW though under all scenarios, although the risk of runaway with modern stock is very much reduced.

 

[Irascible]

Yes definitely, and I think it goes back to old practices in absolute block days when I expect Exeter West had to double block ahead to Middle in order to accept from Central. That was even more restrictive in those days when down Western trains used platform #1 so had to cross the path of anything arriving from Central on departure. There's a runaway trap point on the down Waterloo with auto normalisation that could potentially divert something rolling uncontrollably down the hill. Wouldn't like to say for sure that the sand drag would definitely arrest such a runaway before it reached the GW though under all scenarios, although the risk of runaway with modern stock is very much reduced.

I would not like routine protection for passenger services to be trap points(!) - in fact that does sound like something there's a rule about. Rail adhesion has it's limits ( leaves, ice etc ) no matter what stock, unless you start going to extremes like magnetic rail brakes. Sand drag on the old through line?

Still rather curious why the LSWR used 4+5 at St D - both companies were on the wrong side going south then & it's not like there were four tracks to Cowley Bridge... presumably if they do reconnect across the throat to 4/5 most terminating trains from Central will still end up in 1 or 2.

( I thought this was OT but then noticed "upgrades for the WoE line in the title, so we're safe ).

 

[30907]

Still rather curious why the LSWR used 4+5 at St D - both companies were on the wrong side going south then & it's not like there were four tracks to Cowley Bridge... presumably if they do reconnect across the throat to 4/5 most terminating trains from Central will still end up in 1 or 2.

They used the middle island, 3 and 4, because the GW not unnaturally wanted its passengers to have the platform nearest the exit!
(The resignalling prioritised operational over passenger convenience - rightly with more trains and especially more terminating trains.)

 

[swt_passenger]

The topic for WoE rolling stock has been brought up on the Okehampton Service thread and seeing as it’s a bit off topic, I thought that it was worth of its own thread within the speculative ideas thread.

About what rolling stock will replace the 159’s and the future services.

We also did this last October:

Waterloo to Exeter replacement trains.

As the class 159 DMU trains are well on the way to becoming life expired what will the likely outcome be for a replacement and possible infrastructure improvements. My thought is Bimode type train with extending the 3rd rail to Salisbury. Also as a fill in extend the 3rd rail to Southampton and...

www.railforums.co.uk

as the first reply in this discussion mentioned it comes round every few months, nothing ever gets decided...

For anyone who hasn't seeing it and is interested, here is the official 2020 CMPS from Network Rail: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...udy-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

The CMPS came out last summer, and we also had a discussion about it at th3 time:

Network Rail West of England Line Study 2020

Network Rail have published a study about the WoE line, particularly the Salisbury - Exeter section, which can be seen here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/West-of-England-Study-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf Whilst it's a long document, the first 9 pages...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Irascible]

We also did this last October: as the first reply in this discussion mentioned it comes round every few months, nothing ever gets decided...

Mostly because there's no need. This one does manage to be about route upgrades too though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Mostly because there's no need. This one does manage to be about route upgrades too though.

We’ve done that numerous times as well. Ever since the Axminster redoubling and the hourly service introduction, each time the route studies or strategies came out, every new SW or GW franchise consultation or ITT.

 

[Irascible]

We’ve done that numerous times as well. Ever since the Axminster redoubling and the hourly service introduction, each time the route studies or strategies came out, every new SW or GW franchise consultation or ITT.

That is also true ( I only registered after being stuck at home ) - I did learn something new about Exeter though!

 

[Charlie Smythe]

There's an issue in both directions. Coming down the hill for safety you need a clear route set from St Davids down home into either platform #3 or #1 before the the down platform starting signal at Central will clear. Going up the hill is a performance issue, based on what loco hauled trains could achieve ; class 50s and 33s that were still about on passenger & freight in the early/mid 1980s when the current signalling was designed. I doubt any of the modern DMUs would have a problem with a standing start on the gradient today. As I say in both directions it's hard wired into the signalling so a signaller can't make a judgement call based on the traction, although there is a cheat going up hill using the shunt class position lights that are available, strictly speaking only for movements subsequently setting back into the station again.

While I also do not doubt the restarting capability of modern stock, I think that it would best if the rule remained as is, especially in poor rail head conditions. At certain times it may become an issue and the last thing you want is units slipping on the bank, especially if that means they have to set back into EXD to try again.

The 50's and 33's were more than capable or restarting a train of load 9 (more so the 50's and 33's) on the bank I don't doubt that a modern loco could restart a similiar train. I would like to see a 2+8 HST restart there. While it would probably do it, the high weight and low TE would make for a slow get away. The IET's and Voyagers would do it easy (assuming that all engines were operating).

The units would do it, although a 3 car 165 with 2 trailer car could be interesting.

 

[MarkyT]

While I also do not doubt the restarting capability of modern stock, I think that it would best if the rule remained as is, especially in poor rail head conditions. At certain times it may become an issue and the last thing you want is units slipping on the bank, especially if that means they have to set back into EXD to try again.

The 50's and 33's were more than capable or restarting a train of load 9 (more so the 50's and 33's) on the bank I don't doubt that a modern loco could restart a similiar train. I would like to see a 2+8 HST restart there. While it would probably do it, the high weight and low TE would make for a slow get away. The IET's and Voyagers would do it easy (assuming that all engines were operating).

The units would do it, although a 3 car 165 with 2 trailer car could be interesting.

In which case, retain it as a box instruction in the up direction rather than a hardwired control in the signalling, so it's the signaller's call based on weather conditions, known issues with a particular unit (e.g. an engine out) etc. Once they know the departing train in front at Central is moving, it's pretty certain the signal on the bank will clear before the next train reaches it so perhaps the signalling control could be modified to clear at St Davids when Central's up platform starter route is set and the first track circuit beyond the signal goes occupied.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I would not like routine protection for passenger services to be trap points(!) - in fact that does sound like something there's a rule about. Rail adhesion has it's limits ( leaves, ice etc ) no matter what stock, unless you start going to extremes like magnetic rail brakes. Sand drag on the old through line?

Still rather curious why the LSWR used 4+5 at St D - both companies were on the wrong side going south then & it's not like there were four tracks to Cowley Bridge... presumably if they do reconnect across the throat to 4/5 most terminating trains from Central will still end up in 1 or 2.

( I thought this was OT but then noticed "upgrades for the WoE line in the title, so we're safe ).

LSWR used 3 and 4, not 4 and 5. Platform 1 was the down platform for the GWR and access to the bank was not possible from here (this was the line to the LSWR carriage sidings). The middle road was down main and had a straight run through the station with little to no geometry change. Platform 3 was the up line for the LSWR and platform 4 was the down line and it remained that way until the 80's. Platform 4 is the one being considered for reconnection to the bank. Platform 5 was the upmain for GWR and 6 was the up relief.

As for Cowley Bridge, it may be worth having the long side on the east side of the down line as a sort of relief line to keep Barnstaple and Okehampton trains off of the mainline and then they can run into platform 1 and 3. Would allow simultaneous arrivals and departures instead of one train waiting for the next while the line to Cowley Bridge clears. This line would be bi-directional.

If 4 was reconnected across the southern throad then I would imagine that 1 and 3 would remain the primary platforms for the ex-LSWR route, but 4 would act as a relief line for when it gets busy. You don't have to be at EXD long to see that 1 and 3 are far busier than 4 and 5. Connecting to 5 as well would require an awkward double slip which is possible but expensive.

 

[Irascible]

For some unknown reason I was thinking there were two bay platforms at the north end & adding a platform. It's not like I lived in Exeter as a kid or anything...

 

[MarkyT]

LSWR used 3 and 4, not 4 and 5. Platform 1 was the down platform for the GWR and access to the bank was not possible from here (this was the line to the LSWR carriage sidings). The middle road was down main and had a straight run through the station with little to no geometry change. Platform 3 was the up line for the LSWR and platform 4 was the down line and it remained that way until the 80's. Platform 4 is the one being considered for reconnection to the bank. Platform 5 was the upmain for GWR and 6 was the up relief.

As for Cowley Bridge, it may be worth having the long side on the east side of the down line as a sort of relief line to keep Barnstaple and Okehampton trains off of the mainline and then they can run into platform 1 and 3. Would allow simultaneous arrivals and departures instead of one train waiting for the next while the line to Cowley Bridge clears. This line would be bi-directional.

If 4 was reconnected across the southern throad then I would imagine that 1 and 3 would remain the primary platforms for the ex-LSWR route, but 4 would act as a relief line for when it gets busy. You don't have to be at EXD long to see that 1 and 3 are far busier than 4 and 5. Connecting to 5 as well would require an awkward double slip which is possible but expensive.

Even a connection to #4 would be very difficult:



While I can appreciate platfroms #1 and #3 are a challenge, the best way to manage this in my view is to minimise the SWR reversing movements carried out in them as far as possible, by either running trains through them to Okehampton or into New Yard to turn back. Then the only reversers would be the Paignton - Exmouths and vice versa. In addition, for trains approaching from Newton Abbot and Cowley Bridge, additional lines might be added to allow these to be held outside awaiting platform and junction clearance without delaying other following services, for example:

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Even a connection to #4 would be very difficult:

View attachment 89730

While I can appreciate platfroms #1 and #3 are a challenge, the best way to manage this in my view is to minimise the SWR reversing movements carried out in them as far as possible, by either running trains through them to Okehampton or into New Yard to turn back. Then the only reversers would be the Paignton - Exmouths and vice versa. In addition, for trains approaching from Newton Abbot and Cowley Bridge, additional lines might be added to allow these to be held outside awaiting platform and junction clearance without delaying other following services, for example:

View attachment 89748

I don't doubt that reconnecting platform 4 would be difficult, but if they did it in the early 1900's there no reason why they can't do it in the early 2020's. I believe that the trap point that is visibile would become the point to connect to platform 4 so in actual fact it would be much wider swing than the yellow line shows.

As for SWR's reversing movements, there aren't many. Most SWR services arrive into Exeter St David's from Central and then run into new yard to layover and vice versa on their departure. They don't (or rarely) reverse in the station. The "right turn lane" idea would work, but it would need to be south of both the Exe and Exe overflow bridges as there is space there alongside the playing fields.

The layout for the Northern End looks good, but it would be good if trains from the extra running line could access platform 4, especially if that was connected to the bank. There are also a few repeated points there, so they might not be added should a re design ever take place, although both of them would increase flexibility quite a bit.

Would there ever be a case for a centre turnback/stabling/passing/layover siding in the form of the middle road at Exeter to allow trains (like SWR 159's) to shunt in an out of the station without crossing redcow crossing as that can hold up traffic badly at peak times, especially if it's 6 car as the speed limit is low.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2021 ==

For some unknown reason I was thinking there were two bay platforms at the north end & adding a platform. It's not like I lived in Exeter as a kid or anything...

Should there ever be a need for it, a second bay platform could easily be added by building a platform face for Hyde Park siding. This would be even more beneficial if both lines were extended, which they probably will be.

 

[Irascible]

Even a connection to #4 would be very difficult:

That's pretty much the line of the original route into 4, right? ( from the current trap points, which must be the original outer line ). Might be a bit easier with some jiggering of the footway - how much is that used these days? if you could cut across it it does look like you could shift the GW merge a bit towards the bridge & split off to 4 much later.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That's pretty much the line of the original route into 4, right? ( from the current trap points, which must be the original outer line ). Might be a bit easier with some jiggering of the footway - how much is that used these days? if you could cut across it it does look like you could shift the GW merge a bit towards the bridge & split off to 4 much later.

It's surprising how complicated NR can make points if they have to. They could easily over come this issue with the small diamonds and the pushing back of one of the points.

 

[MarkyT]

It's surprising how complicated NR can make points if they have to. They could easily over come this issue with the small diamonds and the pushing back of one of the points.

The question is whether it's worth the extra complexity, associated reliability risk, the likely negative impact on junction speed, and the non-standard parts, etc. I think it probably doesn't stack up here at Exeter when there may be other solutions. If the number of terminating SWR trains can be reduced by extending them all through to either Okehampton or New Yard to reverse, then platform occupancy is significantly reduced. This leaves 2tph in each of #1 and #3 every hour reversing on the Paignton - Exmouth axis. The capacity problem is most acute when GWR mainline diversions are running via Yeovil, in which case the best option is to split the local service with the Exmouths terminating at Central in the bay, and the Paigntons at St Davids in #4, #5, #6 which, with the diversions running via #1, #3, will be considerably quieter.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

If the number of terminating SWR trains can be reduced by extending them all through to either Okehampton or New Yard to reverse, then platform occupancy is significantly reduced.

As I said earlier, 99% of the time SWR train do reverse in New Yard anyway so there is little to no capacity to be saved here.

 

[MarkyT]

As I said earlier, 99% of the time SWR train do reverse in New Yard anyway so there is little to no capacity to be saved here.

So the major problem is during GWR mainline diversions, which can be mitigated by splitting the Paignton - Exmouths as I described.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

So the major problem is during GWR mainline diversions, which can be mitigated by splitting the Paignton - Exmouths as I described.

You say that, but even without GWR diversions it get very busy in P1 and P2. Having a relief platform would prevent trains being held up by X number of minutes because X has/hasn't happened which then means that this train causes an issue futher down the line.

 

[bussikuski179]

My suggestion is either wait for 159s to become life expired in the 2030s, or get some 185s if they’re available since they’re Desiros and SWR have plenty of those.

 

[43096]

My suggestion is either wait for 159s to become life expired in the 2030s, or get some 185s if they’re available since they’re Desiros and SWR have plenty of those.

Not the 185s to SWR thing again. It’s been done to death on here, and is now beyond tedious.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

My suggestion is either wait for 159s to become life expired in the 2030s, or get some 185s if they’re available since they’re Desiros and SWR have plenty of those.

The fuel consumption is enormous on the 185’s which probably isn’t what SWR want.

 

[Irascible]

The fuel consumption is enormous on the 185’s which probably isn’t what SWR want.

As well as, no hybrid, not enough seats, no gangways, etc etc etc see previous threads...

One can live in hope the DfT will want to divert passengers for down here away from Paddington & package big line upgrades and new stock at the end of the decade. Might be a rather different world by then. Let's make the most of what we have first.

Are there any 158s going to be spare at some point soon? maybe we can just get some more units on the line if nothing else.

 

[swt_passenger]

As well as, no hybrid, not enough seats, no gangways, etc etc etc see previous threads...
.

...and of course nothing like enough actual 185s available while TPE are still using the vast majority, as also stated in previous threads.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Are there any 158s going to be spare at some point soon? maybe we can just get some more units on the line if nothing else

I don’t think so, and if there are I doubt SWR would get much of a look in.

However, if SWR did get a look in then it would help to stop short forming trains to Exeter. 3 cars is unacceptable as their overcrowded.

 

[Domh245]

I don’t think so, and if there are I doubt SWR would get much of a look in.

EMR and TFW's 158s should be freed relatively (2023?) soon, although I suspect politically they'd rather send these to Northern to get rid of some of the more dire 150s

 

[Charlie Smythe]

EMR and TFW's 158s should be freed relatively (2023?) soon, although I suspect politically they'd rather send these to Northern to get rid of some of the more dire 150s

Or to GWR to get rid of their dire 150’s.

Either way, SWR are unlikely to get any more 158’s which means short forming to Exeter will continue for the time being. SWR have a stock shortage as there’s no way running to Exeter with only 3 coaches in concierges acceptable.

 

[Energy]

I doubt we will see much change, if SWR have a stock shortage for Exeter then they can take on a few of the 158s freed up elsewhere. The current trains still have 10 years of life in them, in terms of rolling stock SWR should probably be more concerned about the 442s...

 

[Irascible]

I doubt we will see much change, if SWR have a stock shortage for Exeter then they can take on a few of the 158s freed up elsewhere. The current trains still have 10 years of life in them, in terms of rolling stock SWR should probably be more concerned about the 442s...

They could top & tail them with 73s & augment the WoE route! ( or maybe spare HST powercars )

( yes, yes, I'm getting my coat )

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I doubt we will see much change, if SWR have a stock shortage for Exeter then they can take on a few of the 158s freed up elsewhere. The current trains still have 10 years of life in them, in terms of rolling stock SWR should probably be more concerned about the 442s...

It’s unfortunate. And yes, the 159’s might have 10 years of usable life yet, but that doesn’t mean that they will be at SWR for all those years.

It is expected that a new order will be placed in 2023, giving the 159’s 2-3 more years with SWR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2021 ==

They could top & tail them with 73s & augment the WoE route! ( or maybe spare HST powercars )

( yes, yes, I'm getting my coat )

I like the idea. Anything that is comfortable for passengers.