Crewkerne station to close from 28th July (Re-opening 11th August)

[The Ham]

Two thoughts.

The first would be quite controversial, as there's effectively 2tph into Waterloo, it should be possible to run 1 train in 3 to Exeter rather than the normal timetable of 1 in 2.

You could mitigate some of that loss in frequency by running longer trains and/or running a Honiton/Exeter shuttle.

The other thought is, could the fix be to include some retaining features. The thing being that if the embankments are flatter then:
Any rain during summer is more likely to be absorbed rather than run off the steep banks
There would be more soil towards the edges of the embankments, this would mean more water to dry out before impacting the structural area of the embankment
This would also mean that if redoubling was to be done in the future the earthworks were already more stable
Linked to this, the banks would be more stable during the winter and less prone to slippage.

As the retaining wouldn't be structural (i.e. sat beyond the 45 degree angle of repose) they could be fairly basic. For some of the lower embankments this could be little more than a paving slab laid near vertical to add 400mm at the edge of the embankment (this would allow an embankment which is 1.6m high with 1 in 3 side slopes to have 1 in 4 side slopes - and I suspect that most embankments aren't even as flat as 1 in 3).

Whilst flattening side slopes doesn't sound a significant improvement, even small improvements can be quite helpful in their ability to improve the stability of them.

 

[trebor79]

It would be strange if this line is the only one affected by dried out embankments.

It's not. Local to me parts of the Brekcland Line suffer from similar, as so the lines across the fens from Ely to Peterborough and Kings Lynn. A couple of years ago I was on a train that reduced to walking pace for half a mile or so, with the train tilting from side to side like some kind of fairground ride.

 

[yorksrob]

I honestly think they'd be better running a 2 hourly service west of Yeovil with plenty of padding, the problem with the West of England line (well, one of the many problems) is that there really isn't any margin for error with the passing loops, an example, in the past twelve months I don't think I've departed from Pinhoe on the up without being delayed by a down train, admittedly it's mostly 1-4 minutes, but its just an example of how tightly timed everything is along there.

Skipping Crewkerne isn't going to go down well, we're talking of a relatively busy station with a fair catchment area that could potentially be train-less for months if the weather stays dry.

Two hourly isn't really going to cut it unfortunately. Most of the services already justify six carriage services.

As a temporary fix, would an extra loop somewhere enable enough slack to lengthen the journey time ?.

 

[Magdalia]

It's not. Local to me parts of the Brekcland Line suffer from similar, as so the lines across the fens from Ely to Peterborough and Kings Lynn. A couple of years ago I was on a train that reduced to walking pace for half a mile or so, with the train tilting from side to side like some kind of fairground ride.

This happened in the Fens in 2022, with a long 40mph speed restriction on the single track section between Littleport and Downham Market. A Cambridge-Kings Lynn shuttle ran to a special timetable with passengers to/from London having to change trains at Cambridge.

 

[embers25]

Two hourly isn't really going to cut it unfortunately. Most of the services already justify six carriage services.

As a temporary fix, would an extra loop somewhere enable enough slack to lengthen the journey time ?.

There's no easy way to do this without a recast. If every train ran perfectly on time, the extra 3 mins could be accommodated and maintain an hourly service as there is 4 mins leeway at Axminster East and 3 mins leeway at Tisbury, but that wouldn't be robust and wouldn't work during PM peak when the trains are slow to Salisbury and so leave Salisbury later westbound.

Adding a passing point close to Cranbrook would possibly work, but again not robustly as the passing at Tisbury would still be very tight and obviously would be very expensive.

One other option could be to move the passing point from Tisbury to Gillingham. Westbound trains would run 4 mins earlier Tisbury to Yeovil and then lose that 4 mins on the speed restriction. Eastbound trains wouldn't leave Gillingham until xx18 and then slot into the xx47 slow path to London.

Obviously this adds half an hour eastbound, means the Pompey and Bristol connections are missed, and screws with units and rostering so is unlikely to be workable. I suspect we'll end up with some sort of 2 hourly Exeter - Yeovil shuttle which will be the usual mess with awful connections.

Also, with any further line movement elsewhere, as they mention, the situation gets much worse and even less workable.

 

[Starmill]

The proposed doubling on the WofE route in NR studies is to provide an all-day half-hourly service west of Axminster / Honiton, and east of Yeovil, plus resilience for GWR diversions, which is where improvements between Yeovil and Axminster are required. That’s not the same service, though there would, of course, be performance benefits.

There would be very little performance benefit given the margins would be just as tight as today on a 2tph service to Axminster, unless the double tracking were throughout which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

Either way, the scheme is all but dead now during this Parliament.

 

[RPI]

Two hourly isn't really going to cut it unfortunately. Most of the services already justify six carriage services.

As a temporary fix, would an extra loop somewhere enable enough slack to lengthen the journey time ?.

They all justify 6 cars, but the performance will still fall apart with skipping Crewkerne, so now there will be late trains and no trains for Crewkerne, there's also no college kids for 6 weeks.

 

[The Ham]

Two hourly isn't really going to cut it unfortunately. Most of the services already justify six carriage services.

As a temporary fix, would an extra loop somewhere enable enough slack to lengthen the journey time ?.

A train every 2 hours isn't going to cut it, but one every 90 minutes would be better, it's just a question of would that be good enough to impact the whole line.

As I said by cutting from 1tph with 6 coaches to 1 train every 90 minutes you might be able to run the trains as 9 coaches long.

(Train of 6 coaches with a 4.5 hour round trip between Exeter and Salisbury at an hourly frequency requires 9 sets, change that to 90 minutes and you could run all the services as 9 coaches - assuming that the 2tph frequency is retained Waterloo to Salisbury).

You could potentially see if there's scope for extra services at the Exeter end, although that would either require some of the through trains to be shorter and/or to use trains which otherwise would be sat idle during the off peak and/or GWR to run (say extend some of the Okehampton services).

If you could get a 60 minute frequency at the western end, then you could look to run some extra buses between Honiton and Yeovil to improve local connections (anyone heading to London would likely wait for the next service or make sure they're on the earlier service).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Created a speculative thread to continue the discussion of how we think it should be resolved short and long term:

How should the Crewkerne issue be resolved both short and long term?

Network Rail Wessex route have announced that Crewkerne station will close from Monday 28th July until further notice to improve punctuality as a result of a four mile long 40mph TSR in place west of Salisbury due to dry track beds...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[The Planner]

Two hourly isn't really going to cut it unfortunately. Most of the services already justify six carriage services.

As a temporary fix, would an extra loop somewhere enable enough slack to lengthen the journey time ?.

No such thing as temporary, especially when it comes to the like of extra signalling. It would be a year minimum before you saw anything on the ground.

 

[Hellfire]

The line is still open but the stop accounts for 3 to 4 minutes in running time allowing for braking and accelerating from the station.

Thank you. I hadn't seen the SWR website, just the e mail they sent out which was not as detailed

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

As the station is on the edge of town, a stop nearer town would to some extent offset the inconvenience of the change. It might mean them needing to register it as a local bus service, though?

Anyone driving to the station will probably just drive to a different one during the period of closure.

Yes. We will drive to Yeovil Junction although that's 30 mins by car as opposed to 9 by train

 

[Annetts key]

It would take a lot of rain showers spread out over a long time to raise moisture levels in the ground. Some ground has been left to dry out and also baked in hot sunshine so the next time it rains the water just runs off without as much absorption as usual.

Given the size of the cracks in the clay soil where I am (in part of Somerset), where in places you can get multiple fingers in the crack, there is not much chance of the rain running off without absorbing the moisture... And that's after about 3mm worth of rain in the last 24 hours.

Of course, the same may not be true on an embankment.

 

[Snow1964]

Can anyone explain why the TSR causes problems that needs station skipped from 28th, but doesn't need it skipped currently this week.

Sort of feels like someone has used some pseudo science that clay will move on the evening of 27th slowing the trains.

 

[Three-Nine]

Regards buses stopping nearer the town in Crewkerne, I understand theres road works in the area during at least the first three weeks or so which may have influenced the decision As to where the buses stop.

 

[embers25]

A train every 2 hours isn't going to cut it, but one every 90 minutes would be better, it's just a question of would that be good enough to impact the whole line.

As I said by cutting from 1tph with 6 coaches to 1 train every 90 minutes you might be able to run the trains as 9 coaches long.

(Train of 6 coaches with a 4.5 hour round trip between Exeter and Salisbury at an hourly frequency requires 9 sets, change that to 90 minutes and you could run all the services as 9 coaches - assuming that the 2tph frequency is retained Waterloo to Salisbury).

You could potentially see if there's scope for extra services at the Exeter end, although that would either require some of the through trains to be shorter and/or to use trains which otherwise would be sat idle during the off peak and/or GWR to run (say extend some of the Okehampton services).

If you could get a 60 minute frequency at the western end, then you could look to run some extra buses between Honiton and Yeovil to improve local connections (anyone heading to London would likely wait for the next service or make sure they're on the earlier service).

9 coach trains wouldn't be hugely useful as Tisbury, Feniton, Whimple and Pinhoe (eastbound) are all front 3 only and very few stations could accommodate all 9 coaches (even Honiton can't) and so you'd just get extended stops whilst people walk through, causing more delay (as often happens at Whimple or Feniton). Also, could 9 coach trains pass each other at Tisbury or Gillingham?

Any splitting of services at Salisbury in the past has always lead to huge waits at Salisbury westbound when the train from Waterloo is a few minutes late and the connection isn't held.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

Can anyone explain why the TSR causes problems that needs station skipped from 28th, but doesn't need it skipped currently this week.

Sort of feels like someone has used some pseudo science that clay will move on the evening of 27th slowing the trains.

I wondered that too and why it only affects a couple of trains currently, and most of those have had their stops reinserted!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any splitting of services at Salisbury in the past has always lead to huge waits at Salisbury westbound when the train from Waterloo is a few minutes late and the connection isn't held.

It's not ideal, but better to share a little pain than one town lose its service entirely.

 

[embers25]

It's not ideal, but better to share a little pain than one town lose its service entirely.

Hardly as the pain is a 2 hour wait in Salisbury affecting everyone all stations west of Salisbury vs Crewkerne passengers being delayed 30 mins. The two hardly compare?

 

[Xavi]

There would be very little performance benefit given the margins would be just as tight as today on a 2tph service to Axminster, unless the double tracking were throughout which is incredibly unlikely to happen.

Either way, the scheme is all but dead now during this Parliament.

There would be considerable performance benefit as well as a doubling of the service west of Honiton from the proposed Whimple / Feniton dynamic loop.

The loop would allow late running down London services to depart Honiton up to 20 minutes late with no performance impact on the up service. Currently, late running down services are often held at Honiton resulting in a 40-minute late departure and terminating of the service at Exeter Central.

The most recent proposals would see the extended Barnstaple / Okehampton Devon Metro service terminate at Honiton (not Axminster except peak hours) and performance of the Metro would be unaffected by the scenario above.

Similarly, an up Metro service departing Pinhoe up to 10 minutes late will have no performance impact on a down London train, and there would be recovery time in the down Metro service in the Pinhoe / Exeter Central section to mitigate any delay from passing the delayed up Metro.

The loop would also be relatively inexpensive (the Newquay line enhancements including Goss Moor loop cost a total of £57m), and whilst I agree that there’s little chance of the loop being delivered in the next few years, I believe it will come back on the agenda soon. It doesn’t cost a minister anything to make a promise.

 

[Starmill]

There would be considerable performance benefit as well as a doubling of the service west of Honiton from the proposed Whimple / Feniton dynamic loop.

The loop would allow late running down London services to depart Honiton up to 20 minutes late with no performance impact on the up service. Currently, late running down services are often held at Honiton resulting in a 40-minute late departure and terminating of the service at Exeter Central.

The most recent proposals would see the extended Barnstaple / Okehampton Devon Metro service terminate at Honiton (not Axminster except peak hours) and performance of the Metro would be unaffected by the scenario above.

Similarly, an up Metro service departing Pinhoe up to 10 minutes late will have no performance impact on a down London train, and there would be recovery time in the down Metro service in the Pinhoe / Exeter Central section to mitigate any delay from passing the delayed up Metro.

The loop would also be relatively inexpensive (the Newquay line enhancements including Goss Moor loop cost a total of £57m), and whilst I agree that there’s little chance of the loop being delivered in the next few years, I believe it will come back on the agenda soon. It doesn’t cost a minister anything to make a promise.

A double tracking project of that scope is very unlikely, especially when concerning two new platforms with footbridge. The stations only would be likely to cost more than £57m.

 

[Xavi]

A double tracking project of that scope is very unlikely, especially when concerning two new platforms with footbridge. The stations only would be likely to cost more than £57m.

There are no new platforms or footbridges in the lowest-cost option. The dynamic loop would be between Whimple and Feniton stations but not include the stations themselves, and is the most likely to be funded. When that will be we don’t know, of course.

An alternative enhanced scope would extend the loop to Whimple and Cranbrook stations.

 

[embers25]

A double tracking project of that scope is very unlikely, especially when concerning two new platforms with footbridge. The stations only would be likely to cost more than £57m.

No new platforms are needed for that loop at all. Also if/ when Cranbrook is moved further east or a new station Cranbrok 2 is built, as is being planned, this loop would have to happen. So its not pie in the sky.

 

[Starmill]

No new platforms are needed for that loop at all. Also if/ when Cranbrook is moved further east or a new station Cranbrok 2 is built, as is being planned, this loop would have to happen. So its not pie in the sky.

Unfortunately, it is about as realistic as the passing loops on the Lakes or South Fylde lines, destined to be complained about forever and not actually able to make a good case. However, that's not really the main subject of this thread.

 

[yorksrob]

The Army have Engineers who can build bridges and railways who can build railways and bridges etc as and when needed. Perhaps we ought to bring them in !

 

[Xavi]

Unfortunately, it is about as realistic as the passing loops on the Lakes or South Fylde lines, destined to be complained about forever and not actually able to make a good case.

The business case is good, though I agree it will continue to get kicked down the road. Sadly, England is very much a neo-liberalist country where Treasury forecasts (austerity) often take priority over public investment even where there is a strong case.

 

[Starmill]

The business case is good, though I agree it will continue to get kicked down the road. Sadly, England is very much a neo-liberalist country where Treasury forecasts (austerity) often take priority over public investment even where there is a strong case.

The business case would be better if the price difference weren't so large between the two routes between Exeter and London. But if it were the same price as GWR it wouldn't attract so many people. Ultimately Salisbury and Basingstoke only have so much demand for journeys via Exeter, And Honiton and Axminster not much for journeys to London. You could easily split the service up and remove most of the price advantage of this route and that would make just as much capacity available further west for short Devon journeys. Unpopular on the forum, but at the end of the day you can't do a good job of running a commuter service for Exeter and a regional express service to London using the same trains and a this limited infrastructure. The only reason that's actually what happens is because of the accident of history that the Network Railcard made it this far. To put it another way, the fact that many of the trains are full is a disadvantage rather than an advantage if your aim is to convince the Treasury that the capital is worthwhile. The alternative has been muddling through on the status quo since the end of NSE, and now that's going to be muddling through and hoping the embankments don't deteriorate too much.

 

[Xavi]

The business case would be better if the price difference weren't so large between the two routes between Exeter and London. But if it were the same price as GWR it wouldn't attract so many people. Ultimately Salisbury and Basingstoke only have so much demand for journeys via Exeter, And Honiton and Axminster not much for journeys to London. You could easily split the service up and remove most of the price advantage of this route and that would make just as much capacity available further west for short Devon journeys. Unpopular on the forum, but at the end of the day you can't do a good job of running a commuter service for Exeter and a regional express service to London using the same trains and a this limited infrastructure. The only reason that's actually what happens is because of the accident of history that the Network Railcard made it this far. To put it another way, the fact that many of the trains are full is a disadvantage rather than an advantage if your aim is to convince the Treasury that the capital is worthwhile. The alternative has been muddling through on the status quo since the end of NSE, and now that's going to be muddling through and hoping the embankments don't deteriorate too much.

There has been growth in passenger numbers across the whole route west of Salisbury since the Axminster loop was built in 2009 (not quite muddling through since the end of NSE) and the service frequency was increased to hourly throughout.

Axminster station passenger numbers have more than doubled over the past 20 years, and the route now requires 6-carriage trains throughout daytime hours (some do occasionally run with short formations due to availability) with many through journeys from Devon to the southern counties and south London. Croydon, for example, is quicker than the Paddington route from Exeter Central and east thereof.

Passengers use the WofE route for these journeys irrespective of price and, similarly, passengers from Cranbrook or further east heading for central London do not head to Exeter St Davids and a change of trains for Paddington as there’s no journey time saving.

Terminating London trains in Somerset would only allow 40-minute interval local service west of Yeovil at best (the most you can squeeze in between Pinhoe and Honiton without a new loop), and any such move would also result in less efficient use of rolling stock and rostering of crews.

Most passengers do not use the Network Railcard for East Devon to Exeter as there’s been a better value Devon & Cornwall railcard offering the same discount for as long as I can remember. Neither does the Network Railcard influence numbers travelling towards London as passengers looking for value book advances which do not qualify for any Network Railcard discount.

None of the above solves the embankment stability. Only investment (preferably with a new loop) will do so.

 

[The Ham]

There is another thread for how to fix the issues, however I will say that with limited scope for extra capacity on the GWR route, the potential for faster trains (due to fewer single track sections, especially if you could run a stopping service and an express west of Salisbury) could get you significant growth in passenger numbers, especially given the time savings could put the express in a journey time which have the GWR more of a run for it's money (and as others have said decently faster depending on where in London you're heading to/from).

 

[Starmill]

There has been growth in passenger numbers across the whole route west of Salisbury since the Axminster loop was built in 2009 (not quite muddling through since the end of NSE) and the service frequency was increased to hourly throughout.

Axminster station passenger numbers have more than doubled over the past 20 years, and the route now requires 6-carriage trains throughout daytime hours (some do occasionally run with short formations due to availability) with many through journeys from Devon to the southern counties and south London. Croydon, for example, is quicker than the Paddington route from Exeter Central and east thereof.

Passengers use the WofE route for these journeys irrespective of price and, similarly, passengers from Cranbrook or further east heading for central London do not head to Exeter St Davids and a change of trains for Paddington as there’s no journey time saving.

Terminating London trains in Somerset would only allow 40-minute interval local service west of Yeovil at best (the most you can squeeze in between Pinhoe and Honiton without a new loop), and any such move would also result in less efficient use of rolling stock and rostering of crews.

Most passengers do not use the Network Railcard for East Devon to Exeter as there’s been a better value Devon & Cornwall railcard offering the same discount for as long as I can remember. Neither does the Network Railcard influence numbers travelling towards London as passengers looking for value book advances which do not qualify for any Network Railcard discount.

None of the above solves the embankment stability. Only investment (preferably with a new loop) will do so.

It'd be very nice to believe all of that, and if I were a local I'd probably want to as well. However, realistically the point is unchanged that if you wanted to make the route better for Exeter commuters you could easily do that without spending tens of millions of pounds by making it less appealing for long haul traffic, which it currently is in lots of ways.

 

[DarloRich]

The Army have Engineers who can build bridges and railways who can build railways and bridges etc as and when needed. Perhaps we ought to bring them in !

can they design signalling and power connections in the same timeframe?

 

[Randomer]

The Army have Engineers who can build bridges and railways who can build railways and bridges etc as and when needed. Perhaps we ought to bring them in !

The Army's railway expertise is only in one fairly small reserve unit (507 STRE from memory) the majority of whom already work in railway infrastructure. Realistically they exist to leverage existing industry expertise when it is needed on operations overseas not as a UK response to infrastructure issues.

The issue with the embankments or double tracking isn't something that is lacking a technical solution. It is something that is lacking funding and political willpower to completely rebuild the route from scratch including the embankments. Being realistic the cost of doing so just isn't worth it compared to other infrastructure.