Would we need a GWML high speed line?

[class26]

If the general speed on that line was raised to 90, with reductions where necessary, that seems like a good balance between speed, maintainance costs and pathing. There would need to be a few 70s on the tightest curves. The 80x won't need electrification as the dissels are pretty good up to 100mph.

Out of interest if what you suggest was done what would the tiem saving be?
Then add in electrification on top and the tiem saving would be ?

 

[Brubulus]

Around 6-7 minutes without electrification, maybe an extra 2 minutes with electrification. Electrification isn't worth it but line speed increases are.

 

[class26]

Around 6-7 minutes without electrification, maybe an extra 2 minutes with electrification. Electrification isn't worth it but line speed increases are.

again , out of interests what is stopping the linesspeeds being raised?
Obvious answer is money but I mean the WCML is having its corning rules looked at so tilt will not be necessary. Couldn`t the same criteria be applied here on the section between Plymouth and N Abbott and other on curvy sections to get say from 60 to 75 mph ? Are there any parts where there are some "easy wins" to gain a minute of two ?

 

[irish_rail]

again , out of interests what is stopping the linesspeeds being raised?
Obvious answer is money but I mean the WCML is having its corning rules looked at so tilt will not be necessary. Couldn`t the same criteria be applied here on the section between Plymouth and N Abbott and other on curvy sections to get say from 60 to 75 mph ? Are there any parts where there are some "easy wins" to gain a minute of two ?

Quite simply, the south west is not seen as worthy of the spend. The north will always attract investment , after all those metro mayors shout pretty loud! The south west is content to be a backwater, the deep south if you like. The WCML is a political tool in a way the south west mainline sadly will never be.
Id also argue electrification would save more than 2 minutes , as it really is surprising how sluggish 80x are up Hemerdon on the Up and Rattery on the down.

 

[zwk500]

Quite simply, the south west is not seen as worthy of the spend. The north will always attract investment , after all those metro mayors shout pretty loud! The south west is content to be a backwater, the deep south if you like. The WCML is a political tool in a way the south west mainline sadly will never be.

However, it may have something to do with the Mersey-Humber belt containing something like 4 or the country's 10 biggest metropolitan areas (Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield), not to mention plenty of large towns besides and the South West beyond Bristol containing only the 30th and 67th, and 69th of any note.

Id also argue electrification would save more than 2 minutes , as it really is surprising how sluggish 80x are up Hemerdon on the Up and Rattery on the down.

Agree. I've not experienced an 80x on diesel but on electric they are rapid.

 

[Bald Rick]

Couldn`t the same criteria be applied here on the section between Plymouth and N Abbott and other on curvy sections to get say from 60 to 75 mph ? Are there any parts where there are some "easy wins" to gain a minute of two ?

It already is, on the Berks and Hants.

 

[class26]

It already is, on the Berks and Hants.

and between Exeter and Plymouth which is the slowest part of the route ? There are presently stretches of 55 mph between Plymouth and N Abbott

 

[irish_rail]

However, it may have something to do with the Mersey-Humber belt containing something like 4 or the country's 10 biggest metropolitan areas (Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds-Bradford and Sheffield), not to mention plenty of large towns besides and the South West beyond Bristol containing only the 30th and 67th, and 69th of any note.

Agree. I've not experienced an 80x on diesel but on electric they are rapid.

True but as there is only one railway line into the south west you need to look at the total population of that railways catchment area. So Cornwall, Devon and Somerset total population is about 2 million. Its a decent number of people, and 55 / 60 mph really could be improved on in my view. Electrification would also be helpful and greener too.

 

[The Ham]

True but as there is only one railway line into the south west you need to look at the total population of that railways catchment area. So Cornwall, Devon and Somerset total population is about 2 million. Its a decent number of people, and 55 / 60 mph really could be improved on in my view. Electrification would also be helpful and greener too.

Should there be rail investment in the Mersey-Humber belt, definitely, for all the reasons that @zwk500 gave.

Should this be at the expense of the Southwest or is the Southwest more deserving?

I'll come back to that in a moment, however what is true is that the Southwest is also deserting of investment for all the reasons that @Irish Rail gave.

Now back to that question, it's the wrong question. Government spending on infrastructure isn't based on what can be afforded out of current taxes, but rather what can be afforded due to economic growth.

If there was a significant capacity uplift to either region then there would follow further investment and economic growth, as long as that growth is high enough then how much is spent is kind of academic.

Too often infrastructure spending is looked at like a person buying a car and how that fits within the household budget. It's closer to how a business assesses if it should expand, that may well cost them a lot in terms of annual budget, however if it results in a larger income then that initial cost is irrelevant if the larger income is large enough.

To give a crazy example, an independent shop has an income of £100,000 per year and they have chance to buy (say) Morrisons for £20 million (where they generate £3 million in profits per year) even though their income would never cover that much their future earnings would more than cover the cost of the purchase.

 

[zwk500]

Debate about region A vs region B is misleading and unhelpful.

If there was a significant capacity uplift to either region then there would follow further investment and economic growth, as long as that growth is high enough then how much is spent is kind of academic.

I don't think you can say it's academic - the investment is affordable only as long as the future growth covers the cost of the borrowing. Therefore the economic capacity of a region is a limiting factor on Investment. It's why investing in the Severn Estuary makes sense - the Gloucester-Bristol-Newport-Cardiff-Swansea axis has a high economic potential and is currently lagging well behind where it should be, given it's heavy industry facilities, large population, education and innovation sector, and administrative roles.

However Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth is a much lower economic potential because of the distances involved, the fact the Navy is now a much smaller operator, the lack of any serious industrial might (be that heavy industry or tech) and that its main sector is leisure travel.

Too often infrastructure spending is looked at like a person buying a car and how that fits within the household budget. It's closer to how a business assesses if it should expand, that may well cost them a lot in terms of annual budget, however if it results in a larger income then that initial cost is irrelevant if the larger income is large enough.

This is very true.

To give a crazy example, an independent shop has an income of £100,000 per year and they have chance to buy (say) Morrisons for £20 million (where they generate £3 million in profits per year) even though their income would never cover that much their future earnings would more than cover the cost of the purchase.

This may be stretching it a little. Trying to complete a leveraged buyout of that scale would be near impossible.

A better example may be a shop is looking to open some more branches. It doesn't have the cash on hand to purchase a lease and hire the staff on it's own, so it goes to the bank and asks for a loan to do so, promising to pay it back with the profit the new branch(es) will make. As long as the shop makes sufficient money to pay the monthly instalments, it's a winner.
What levelling up is trying to do is say, 'well, we don't think the Exeter branch will make any money in the first 3 years as we'll need to operate close to the margin to get people in the door, however our London and Reading branches are making a comfortable margin so we'll use some of their profit to help repay the loan for the Exeter branch until it starts making money on its own'. However this strategy requires simultaneously the investment in the London and Reading stores to make sure they continue to make the big enough profits to cover the other loan.

 

[The Ham]

Debate about region A vs region B is misleading and unhelpful.

I don't think you can say it's academic - the investment is affordable only as long as the future growth covers the cost of the borrowing. Therefore the economic capacity of a region is a limiting factor on Investment. It's why investing in the Severn Estuary makes sense - the Gloucester-Bristol-Newport-Cardiff-Swansea axis has a high economic potential and is currently lagging well behind where it should be, given it's heavy industry facilities, large population, education and innovation sector, and administrative roles.

However Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth is a much lower economic potential because of the distances involved, the fact the Navy is now a much smaller operator, the lack of any serious industrial might (be that heavy industry or tech) and that its main sector is leisure travel.

I agree, it's why the bit before I said it was academic I said "as long as that growth is high enough", i.e. it doesn't matter if we spend £1 or £100bn if the rate of return is 1:2.

This is very true.

This may be stretching it a little. Trying to complete a leveraged buyout of that scale would be near impossible.

A better example may be a shop is looking to open some more branches. It doesn't have the cash on hand to purchase a lease and hire the staff on it's own, so it goes to the bank and asks for a loan to do so, promising to pay it back with the profit the new branch(es) will make. As long as the shop makes sufficient money to pay the monthly instalments, it's a winner.
What levelling up is trying to do is say, 'well, we don't think the Exeter branch will make any money in the first 3 years as we'll need to operate close to the margin to get people in the door, however our London and Reading branches are making a comfortable margin so we'll use some of their profit to help repay the loan for the Exeter branch until it starts making money on its own'. However this strategy requires simultaneously the investment in the London and Reading stores to make sure they continue to make the big enough profits to cover the other loan.

I did say that it was a crazy example, in that it would never happen for many practice reasons, but rather to show just how far the theory could be stretched beyond what the income would say gave value would allow.

 

[stuu]

However Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth is a much lower economic potential because of the distances involved, the fact the Navy is now a much smaller operator, the lack of any serious industrial might (be that heavy industry or tech) and that its main sector is leisure travel.

The south west has the highest employment rate, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest inactivity rate in the country. Despite popular beliefs, only around 13% of the total workforce is employed in tourism, rising as you head west. Both Exeter and Bristol are growing well ahead of national rates, with Exeter having a significant tech sector employing thousands, the Met Office helped with that.

Whether any of that justifies investment in the railways is a different matter, but its definitely not all about tourism. The single most pressing need is for extra capacity on the XC route, which actively turns people away from rail travel.

 

[zwk500]

The south west has the highest employment rate, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest inactivity rate in the country. Despite popular beliefs, only around 13% of the total workforce is employed in tourism, rising as you head west. Both Exeter and Bristol are growing well ahead of national rates, with Exeter having a significant tech sector employing thousands, the Met Office helped with that.

Interesting. I knew Cornwall had a bit of a tech sector because of transatlantic cables but didn't realise Exeter was so tech friendly.

Whether any of that justifies investment in the railways is a different matter, but its definitely not all about tourism. The single most pressing need is for extra capacity on the XC route, which actively turns people away from rail travel.

I think the case for rail investment to Exeter and Plymouth is fairly strong, it's what type of investment to choose that is not clear. Making the current trains longer would certainly help (XC!), and modest linespeed upgrades between Newbury and Exeter would also probably be good value. I personally think electrification as far as Exeter is justified, but that the technical challenges on the Sea Wall and between Newton Abbot and Plymouth make electrifying the full width of Devon less sensible. The GWR battery-IET experiment may help with the speed over the South Devon Banks.

 

[stuu]

... and modest linespeed upgrades between Newbury and Exeter would also probably be good value. I personally think electrification as far as Exeter is justified, but that the technical challenges on the Sea Wall and between Newton Abbot and Plymouth make electrifying the full width of Devon less sensible. The GWR battery-IET experiment may help with the speed over the South Devon Banks.

The fastest London-Exeter train currently does it in 2h 3mins, but they are generally 2h 10ish. It may be that taking those below 2hrs would have some greater marketing/psychological impact than the change in time alone would have... but you would need some pretty major realignments to get much quicker.

Journey times west of Exeter are far worse, and electrification is the simplest way to solve that. Perhaps Newton Abbot to Plymouth could be done first, as the GWR planned pre-war, and ignore the awkward tunnels for now

 

[Bald Rick]

and between Exeter and Plymouth which is the slowest part of the route ? There are presently stretches of 55 mph between Plymouth and N Abbott

I don’t know, but I’d be surprised. Alignment will be one reason for the restrictions, but it is so curvy that signal sighting will also be apart. I also suspect (my educated guess) that west of Newton Abbot the track is ’Cat 3’ maintenance, and raising the linespeed by, say, 10mph would tip it into ‘Cat 2’ which doubles the patrolling and inspection frequencies.

In any case, allowing higher cant deficiency at that speed may only give you 5mph, and maybe not even that. I’m now going to get a bit technical, and my memory is rusty, but…

IIRC the cant deficiency on the WCML Pre upgrade is the maximum ‘normal’ level allowed in the track design standard of 110mm (Essentially this means that at linespeed, the track would need super-elevation of an additional 110mm on the outside of the curve for a passenger to not feel any lateral force). Pendolinos can run at up to 300mm cant deficiency at the rail, but this is offset by the tilt, meaning passengers only ‘feel’ the 110mm. But the 190mm of extra cant deficiency at the rail is what won the speed uplift from 100/110 mph to 125mph; ie increasing the cant deficiency by 170% enabled speed to be increased by a maximum of 25%, and less in many circumstances.

‘Exceptional‘ curving rules lift the cant deficiency to 150mm, ie an increase of 40mm, or 36%. I suspect this enables speed to be increased by around 5-10%. That’s an increase of 5-10mph when the linespeed is around 90/100 as on the B&H or MML, but when the linespeed is 60mph you may only get 5mph, if anything.


Perhaps an actual track engineer can comment on the effect on linespeed of exceptional curving rules at 60moh and correct my amateurish explanation.

 

[irish_rail]

Journey times west of Exeter are far worse, and electrification is the simplest way to solve that. Perhaps Newton Abbot to Plymouth could be done first, as the GWR planned pre-war, and ignore the awkward tunnels for nono

Absolutely agree. Newton to Plymouth would make a big difference if electrified as the hills really do slow the 80x down. Ideally the whole way from Newbury should be wired but I'd start with Newton to Plymouth for maximum effect. I'm not sure there is a huge amount for scope of improving times on the b and h anyway as it is reasonably fast, more or less all 100 except for a few slower bits where curvature won't allow anything faster. Regarding wiring it, its easy to forget just how much mileage we are talking , Reading to Exeter is roughly the same distance as London to Stafford! Its alot of knitting required!

 

[zwk500]

Absolutely agree. Newton to Plymouth would make a big difference if electrified as the hills really do slow the 80x down. Ideally the whole way from Newbury should be wired but I'd start with Newton to Plymouth for maximum effect.

It'd make a lot of difference but it's also going to cost a lot more, and the return on the investment per pound would be lower as less people benefit. It's a problem with peninsulas that as you get further down the road traffic drops off.

I'm not sure there is a huge amount for scope of improving times on the b and h anyway as it is reasonably fast, more or less all 100 except for a few slower bits where curvature won't allow anything faster.

Indeed. Anything serious would need land purchase.

Regarding wiring it, its easy to forget just how much mileage we are talking , Reading to Exeter is roughly the same distance as London to Stafford! Its alot of knitting required!

Although handily Reading-Newbury has already been done! So that's the first 20 miles or so chalked off. But yes it is a lot of knitting. However the UK only has 40% or so of it's route mileage electrified one way or another and so any project now is going to be quite a lot of fizzy knitting.

 

[class26]

I don’t know, but I’d be surprised. Alignment will be one reason for the restrictions, but it is so curvy that signal sighting will also be apart. I also suspect (my educated guess) that west of Newton Abbot the track is ’Cat 3’ maintenance, and raising the linespeed by, say, 10mph would tip it into ‘Cat 2’ which doubles the patrolling and inspection frequencies.

In any case, allowing higher cant deficiency at that speed may only give you 5mph, and maybe not even that. I’m now going to get a bit technical, and my memory is rusty, but…

IIRC the cant deficiency on the WCML Pre upgrade is the maximum ‘normal’ level allowed in the track design standard of 110mm (Essentially this means that at linespeed, the track would need super-elevation of an additional 110mm on the outside of the curve for a passenger to not feel any lateral force). Pendolinos can run at up to 300mm cant deficiency at the rail, but this is offset by the tilt, meaning passengers only ‘feel’ the 110mm. But the 190mm of extra cant deficiency at the rail is what won the speed uplift from 100/110 mph to 125mph; ie increasing the cant deficiency by 170% enabled speed to be increased by a maximum of 25%, and less in many circumstances.

‘Exceptional‘ curving rules lift the cant deficiency to 150mm, ie an increase of 40mm, or 36%. I suspect this enables speed to be increased by around 5-10%. That’s an increase of 5-10mph when the linespeed is around 90/100 as on the B&H or MML, but when the linespeed is 60mph you may only get 5mph, if anything.


Perhaps an actual track engineer can comment on the effect on linespeed of exceptional curving rules at 60moh and correct my amateurish explanation.

Thanks for your detailed reply. To us non experts it is often perplexing as why something on the railways is as it is so it`s good to know the reasons rather than just being told it isn`t possible or it`s too expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2023 ==

Absolutely agree. Newton to Plymouth would make a big difference if electrified as the hills really do slow the 80x down. Ideally the whole way from Newbury should be wired but I'd start with Newton to Plymouth for maximum effect. I'm not sure there is a huge amount for scope of improving times on the b and h anyway as it is reasonably fast, more or less all 100 except for a few slower bits where curvature won't allow anything faster. Regarding wiring it, its easy to forget just how much mileage we are talking , Reading to Exeter is roughly the same distance as London to Stafford! Its alot of knitting required!

The B & H has soem stretches of 110 mph which (I think ) are fairly straight. Is there scope to get these parts up to 125 mph ?

 

[irish_rail]

I don’t know, but I’d be surprised. Alignment will be one reason for the restrictions, but it is so curvy that signal sighting will also be apart. I also suspect (my educated guess) that west of Newton Abbot the track is ’Cat 3’ maintenance, and raising the linespeed by, say, 10mph would tip it into ‘Cat 2’ which doubles the patrolling and inspection frequencies.

In any case, allowing higher cant deficiency at that speed may only give you 5mph, and maybe not even that. I’m now going to get a bit technical, and my memory is rusty, but…

IIRC the cant deficiency on the WCML Pre upgrade is the maximum ‘normal’ level allowed in the track design standard of 110mm (Essentially this means that at linespeed, the track would need super-elevation of an additional 110mm on the outside of the curve for a passenger to not feel any lateral force). Pendolinos can run at up to 300mm cant deficiency at the rail, but this is offset by the tilt, meaning passengers only ‘feel’ the 110mm. But the 190mm of extra cant deficiency at the rail is what won the speed uplift from 100/110 mph to 125mph; ie increasing the cant deficiency by 170% enabled speed to be increased by a maximum of 25%, and less in many circumstances.

‘Exceptional‘ curving rules lift the cant deficiency to 150mm, ie an increase of 40mm, or 36%. I suspect this enables speed to be increased by around 5-10%. That’s an increase of 5-10mph when the linespeed is around 90/100 as on the B&H or MML, but when the linespeed is 60mph you may only get 5mph, if anything.


Perhaps an actual track engineer can comment on the effect on linespeed of exceptional curving rules at 60moh and correct my amateurish explanation.

Signal sighting is less of an issue there aren't a huge number of signals between Newton and Plymouth, in fact there are some quite longish sections (eg Totnes foot of Rattery bank up to near Marley tunnel). It was a track engineer I had in the cab with me a few years ago who suggested the track could easily be 75mph most of the way, however how accurate his opinion is I cannot comment.

 

[The Ham]

It'd make a lot of difference but it's also going to cost a lot more, and the return on the investment per pound would be lower as less people benefit. It's a problem with peninsulas that as you get further down the road traffic drops off.

Indeed. Anything serious would need land purchase.

Although handily Reading-Newbury has already been done! So that's the first 20 miles or so chalked off. But yes it is a lot of knitting. However the UK only has 40% or so of it's route mileage electrified one way or another and so any project now is going to be quite a lot of fizzy knitting.

B&H could make sense (assuming that XC gets bimodals) to start at Exeter and work North, so you get the Taunton to Exeter section done early.

 

[zwk500]

B&H could make sense (assuming that XC gets bimodals) to start at Exeter and work North, so you get the Taunton to Exeter section done early.

When is XC due to replace it's stock? Judging from the fact it hasn't joined in the IET orders I'm not hopeful of that happening any time soon.

Also, surely it's better to have continuous OLE as far as is practical? Then you have redundancy and load-sharing options, rather than an island that could go pop at any time.

 

[Irascible]

The south west has the highest employment rate, lowest unemployment rate, and lowest inactivity rate in the country. Despite popular beliefs, only around 13% of the total workforce is employed in tourism, rising as you head west. Both Exeter and Bristol are growing well ahead of national rates, with Exeter having a significant tech sector employing thousands, the Met Office helped with that.

Some of the lowest wages too. No point investing in rail transport none of us yokels can afford :P

Also, surely it's better to have continuous OLE as far as is practical? Then you have redundancy and load-sharing options, rather than an island that could go pop at any time.

Given the stock can cope with discontinuous OLE though, is it not better to have *some* OLE on some of the steepest bits of the network, rather than none? there's a 400kV line ( and a 132kV line) all the way round the bottom of Dartmoor, so feeding it shouldn't be a gigantic problem, at least. I think last time I went off the timetable average speeds were something around 40mph Plymouth-Exeter, it doesn't take an awful lot to improve that

 

[Brubulus]

Quite simply, the south west is not seen as worthy of the spend. The north will always attract investment , after all those metro mayors shout pretty loud! The south west is content to be a backwater, the deep south if you like. The WCML is a political tool in a way the south west mainline sadly will never be.
Id also argue electrification would save more than 2 minutes , as it really is surprising how sluggish 80x are up Hemerdon on the Up and Rattery on the down.

The Voyagers only do the entire run 1 minute quicker... so 2 mins seems reasonable for electrification. Line speed increases definetly better value.

 

[Bald Rick]

Line speed increases definetly better value.

You need to know how much they’d cost before determining whether they are better value.

Almost certainly the best value option is to run some of the trains non stop from Plymouth to Exeter, although that would obviously be deeply unpopular with the good folk of Totnes and Newtown Abbott.

 

[class26]

Some of the lowest wages too. No point investing in rail transport none of us yokels can afford :P



Given the stock can cope with discontinuous OLE though, is it not better to have *some* OLE on some of the steepest bits of the network, rather than none? there's a 400kV line ( and a 132kV line) all the way round the bottom of Dartmoor, so feeding it shouldn't be a gigantic problem, at least. I think last time I went off the timetable average speeds were something around 40mph Plymouth-Exeter, it doesn't take an awful lot to improve that

But it could be that the slowness of the rail links to the rest on the UK is the reason why wages are low. Few companies will locate in Cornwall when it takes over 4 hours to get to London or Birmingham.

 

[MattRat]

Around 6-7 minutes without electrification, maybe an extra 2 minutes with electrification. Electrification isn't worth it but line speed increases are.

I think the passengers would feel like electrification is worth it. Plus, if it gets all the way to Cardiff, it might help Westminster look like they actually care about the union, or at least the union between England and Wales.

 

[Bald Rick]

But it could be that the slowness of the rail links to the rest on the UK is the reason why wages are low. Few companies will locate in Cornwall when it takes over 4 hours to get to London or Birmingham.

But 5 minutes improvement won’t make any difference.

 

[irish_rail]

You need to know how much they’d cost before determining whether they are better value.

Almost certainly the best value option is to run some of the trains non stop from Plymouth to Exeter, although that would obviously be deeply unpopular with the good folk of Totnes and Newtown Abbott.

For once Bald Rick i completely agree with you. When on a rare occurrence I've driven / travelled Exeter to Plymouth none stop it just feels so much quicker. I guess getting a good run up at Rattery helps too. I reckon you could shave not far off 10 minutes off. Add in electrification and itd be over 10 mins saved, maybe towards 15 minutes? Would make Plymouth to London comfortably under 3 hours. Would help to encourage growth and business to Plymouth / Cornwall and the far West. However, it is fair to say Totnes and Newton are fairly well used, although Newton noticeably less so in the past few years (anecdotally speaking).

 

[class26]

But 5 minutes improvement won’t make any difference.

agreed but the east coast philosophy was always incremental, a minute here, two minutes there etc. You have to start somewhere and that would be a statement of intent.

 

[The Ham]

For once Bald Rick i completely agree with you. When on a rare occurrence I've driven / travelled Exeter to Plymouth none stop it just feels so much quicker. I guess getting a good run up at Rattery helps too. I reckon you could shave not far off 10 minutes off. Add in electrification and itd be over 10 mins saved, maybe towards 15 minutes? Would make Plymouth to London comfortably under 3 hours. Would help to encourage growth and business to Plymouth / Cornwall and the far West. However, it is fair to say Totnes and Newton are fairly well used, although Newton noticeably less so in the past few years (anecdotally speaking).

And this kind of highlights why only upgrades of the existing system aren't likely to be enough.

In that a direct Exeter - Plymouth service would only really be viable with other good options for travel to the intermediate stations. Unfortunately for that to be viable realistically that requires more services and generally that means more services from somewhere.

Whilst it's possible to argue more services from (say) Cardiff, the reality is that those extra services would have to run from the same places as the fast services. Now unless we want 5+5 services to allow the splitting of a service, the bottom line means investment in new lines out of London.

As I argued, when discussing Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) vs via Tavistock, there was little point in the DAL without extra capacity out of London to enable now services to use it. Now whilst Waterloo to Plymouth via Tavistock isn't going to be fast, depending on the departure time is faster than getting the next fast train from Paddington and it's faster for other areas with of Reading. Whilst not large numbers enough to free up some capacity through Reading.

With that boosted use from London (especially given the potential for extra services in a post Crossrail 2 world and those services skipping station stops with redoubling of the WofE line speeding up some services in that route) and the Southeast, it then starts to build a better case for more capacity improvements, speed enhancements and ultimately even a GWML high speed line (or at least something which serves the same areas).

Sometimes it's a case of doing something which doesn't get you the desired thing first, but rather crates the demand to justify it down the line.