I believe that Dorchester to Moreton is not a tracks issue so much as substations, that there is only capacity for one train at a time on Dorchester to Moreton, so this is a way of ensuring it.
A 310 only had three bays of first class accommodation, against 8 on a VEP. Also the brake van was smaller on a 310, enabling seven seating bays against the six of a VEP (and 4 extra seats because there was no corridor between coaches 2 and 3 in a 310 - but I seem to recall this was installed at refurbishment in the mid 80s). Given the large proportion of first in REPs and TCs, I doubt that reducing the first class would have been an option for a Bournemouth Mk 2 VEP.
Or at least a “logical consequence” of it. If you can only have one train in the area, there’s no need to have double track. (Not saying I necessarily agree)
Don't forget during 1960s Andover was being expanded as a new town, I understand some of the estates were actually built by London Councils who moved people out from the slums and bomb damaged areas.
Andover was not a New Town it was London overspill. Farnborough and Basingstoke were also London overspill.
Thetford was also London overspill, and lost its direct London trains (apart from Sundays, at least initially). But Thetford and Haverhill etc are far from Bournemouth, the subject of this thread.
My point was to demonstrate that London overspill would not have been a factor in deciding how the Bournemouth electrification was done.
And you're quite right too!
I don't think anyone is suggesting the 310 layout would be replicated exactly on a hypothetical DC version. But the 310 does include things like an area with doors to each bay, thus demonstrating that these were possible within the overall Mk2 bodyshell.
Exactly! You could say the same about some later schemes like Cambridge - Kings Lynn (which, like the Weymouth extension, also involved singling some of the Ely - Kings Lynn line).
in 1974, there were two 'Bournemouth terminators', those that had plodded down all stations from Woking, which arrived at xx37 and departed xx12 (formed of VEP or CIG stock). They generally used the bay platform on the up side for their 35 minute layover. The other Bournemouth terminators (to which I think you are referring) were the semi-fasts from Waterloo, arriving at Bournemouth at xx53 and departing xx56. They formed each other, in other words there was a 63 minute layover, the majority of which was spent in one of the Middle Sidings.
Fortunately Beeching didn't propose to close any of the routes under discussion, so I am not sure what he has to do with anything, nor what the SR would have done differently at Bournemouth
Fortunately Beeching didn't propose to close any of the routes under discussion, so I am not sure what he has to do with anything, nor what the SR would have done differently at Bournemouth
The Kent Coast scheme provided overgenerously for the lesser routes, and in 1967 the Sheerness-Faversham-Dover stoppers and Maidstone-Tonbridge fasts disappeared, and economies were made to the "Chatham fasts."
Events, old boy (as I believe Macmillan said) overtook the plan - and the Southern economised and adapted accordingly as one would have expected.
The Beeching era ended with the Transport Act 1968, which recognised for the first time the social contribution of the railway and introduced Public Service Obligation grants.
These closed because the Public Service Obligation grants were withdrawn.
Apart from Ashford-Hastings which was cut (and New Romney, but that was barely secondary!)
though probably not on the basis of their local passenger traffic alone (Canterbury W maybe?).
The first, probably (along with Eastleigh/St Denys-Portcreek Jn?), the second if Weymouth had gone electric.
In the Beeching era Strood-Paddock Wood was important for freight particularly cement works needing to get coal in and cement out.
From the minutes of a meeting held in late '89, for the South Hants scheme, the said rail is referred to as 'Composite Conductor Rail', and there is brief mention of further staff consultation being needed in relation to the maintenance of same, so obviously not bog standard conductor rail at the time?
The was element of expansion then, couple of sections were quadrupled as part of it, to allow faster trains to overtake.
The Tovil branch at Maidstone was one of the ones wired for freight.
The two viaducts were built at the same time, to the same design, by the same constructor and using similar materials. They did open to traffic in different years though, as the northern leg of the triangle only came fully into use when the line over Holes Bay opened.
