• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Next priority project - re-doubling of SW mainline.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,230
Location
Yorks
Unfortunately it's clear that the local geology isn't going to change, at the same time the climate is getting worse.

Therefore it seems likely that the shrinking of embankments in the area is going to baked in, with resultant delays on a regular basis.

This is unmanageable with long single track sections, so perhaps the next major upgrade should be this redoubling.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
655
Location
NorthWest
You can't redouble unless you rebuild the failing embankments. I suspect that will be too high a cost
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
12,725
Location
Worcester
I assume you mean the West of England line from Basingstoke to Exeter via Salisbury, not the S W Main Line which is entirely quadruple or double tracked aside from a small section between Moreton and Upwey?
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
21,922
Location
Airedale
You can't redouble unless you rebuild the failing embankments. I suspect that will be too high a cost
So you look for sections (1) where the embankments will have to be reinforced to maintain a single track or (2) where the formation is OK already.

Can you then selectively re-double and allow a half-hourly service to Yeovil and a suburban service from Honiton (yes I know Devon talk about Axminster but I fear the case is more political than business)?

PS "next" priority project - really?
 

stevieinselby

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Messages
1,658
Location
Selby
Can you then selectively re-double and allow a half-hourly service to Yeovil and a suburban service from Honiton (yes I know Devon talk about Axminster but I fear the case is more political than business)?
Exeter St Davids to Honiton is about 28 minutes on current schedules, so you wouldn't be able to run an hourly service with a single unit. On the basis that it doesn't increase the number of diagrams, it's probably worthwhile running the extra 10 miles to Axminster and back rather than have the train sitting idle (and potentially blocking a platform) at Exeter for most of every hour.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,401
Location
Northampton
Unfortunately it's clear that the local geology isn't going to change, at the same time the climate is getting worse.

Therefore it seems likely that the shrinking of embankments in the area is going to baked in, with resultant delays on a regular basis.

This is unmanageable with long single track sections, so perhaps the next major upgrade should be this redoubling.
If you double without rebuilding the earthworks, you will just end up with a slightly less bad service, which won't justify the costs of the works. If you rebuild the earthworks when redoubling, you will push your costs up significantly.

The line is in a real bind, because it's used for about 3.5-4m journeys annually (working below), which means it would be extremely damaging to close it, but also that large-scale works will struggle to be justified. However the status quo can clearly not continue as an ever-degrading service will drive traffic off the railway but patching up repeatedly is only going to cost more in the long run.

I think significant re-doubling is off the cards for the moment, but we could see one or two extensions to loops to provide dynamic passing rather than needing to stop for trains.

Can you then selectively re-double and allow a half-hourly service to Yeovil and a suburban service from Honiton (yes I know Devon talk about Axminster but I fear the case is more political than business)?
Interesting usage data shows more entries & exits at Axminster than Honiton.

Station
Usage (m)
Local town pop (rough, m)
Trips/person of local town
Tisbury0.10.00250
Gillingham0.350.01229.17
Templecombe0.090.00190
Sherborne0.20.0120
Yeovil Junction0.220.037.33 (Expect Yeovil Pen Mill to have more allocation)
Crewkerne0.180.00725.71
Axminster0.4180.00583.60
Honiton0.3370.01228.08
Feniton0.0550.0022.75
Whimple0.050.00225
Cranbrook0.120.00717.14
Pinhoe0.2320.0123.20
Total2.3520.11819.93
[Table using wikipedia data of Usage and population]

To which can be added approximately 0.15m futher journeys to/from Exeter:
1783591739622.png
[Image showing table of Origin-Destination matrix for Exeter Central and Exeter St David's, one-way (ODM assumes even travel each way)]
 

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
2,151
Location
Wilmslow
The 'problem' embankments are between Gillingham and Axminster, are they not? They don't preclude redoubling Pinhoe to Axminster (excluding the M5 bridge), for the Devon Metro, or Gillingham to Wilton.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,377
Location
Taunton or Kent
Given the prolonged hot spell I'm guessing another spell of speed restrictions and timetable adjustments are nigh.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,230
Location
Yorks
I assume you mean the West of England line from Basingstoke to Exeter via Salisbury, not the S W Main Line which is entirely quadruple or double tracked aside from a small section between Moreton and Upwey?

I do - of course, Portsmouth, Weymouth and Exeter are all SW main lines.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,305
Location
Somerset
If you double without rebuilding the earthworks, you will just end up with a slightly less bad service, which won't justify the costs of the works. If you rebuild the earthworks when redoubling, you will push your costs up significantly.
Or you look at it the other way around. When you rebuild the earthworks you redouble.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,262
Rebuilding the earthworks to remove this limitation would probably require digging them all down to below the surrounding ground level and putting them back up again, disposing of all the problematic material and obtaining new stuff.

That's going to be a very expensive operation and require a very long railway closure which will do serious damage to its ongoing traffic levels.

I'd think you'd be better off building new alignments between the existing stations and scrapping the existing railway.
 

Zomboid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
2,206
Location
Oxford
nteresting usage data shows more entries & exits at Axminster than Honiton
I wouldn't have picked Axminster as the busiest station on the line. Presumably it's got the Seaton & Lyme Regis catchment traffic, whatever that amounts to.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,230
Location
Yorks
So you look for sections (1) where the embankments will have to be reinforced to maintain a single track or (2) where the formation is OK already.

Can you then selectively re-double and allow a half-hourly service to Yeovil and a suburban service from Honiton (yes I know Devon talk about Axminster but I fear the case is more political than business)?

PS "next" priority project - really?

Well, hopefully the problem section isn't too long.

I can't think of a main line that's likely to be so debilitated for such long periods of time going forward.

(I'm not at all influenced by this being my holiday route )


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Rebuilding the earthworks to remove this limitation would probably require digging them all down to below the surrounding ground level and putting them back up again, disposing of all the problematic material and obtaining new stuff.

That's going to be a very expensive operation and require a very long railway closure which will do serious damage to its ongoing traffic levels.

I'd think you'd be better off building new alignments between the existing stations and scrapping the existing railway.

A diversion around the affected section isn't without precedent, thinking of Selby etc. I wonder how long a section would need to be diverted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

If you double without rebuilding the earthworks, you will just end up with a slightly less bad service, which won't justify the costs of the works. If you rebuild the earthworks when redoubling, you will push your costs up significantly.

The line is in a real bind, because it's used for about 3.5-4m journeys annually (working below), which means it would be extremely damaging to close it, but also that large-scale works will struggle to be justified. However the status quo can clearly not continue as an ever-degrading service will drive traffic off the railway but patching up repeatedly is only going to cost more in the long run.

I think significant re-doubling is off the cards for the moment, but we could see one or two extensions to loops to provide dynamic passing rather than needing to stop for trains.


Interesting usage data shows more entries & exits at Axminster than Honiton.

Station
Usage (m)
Local town pop (rough, m)
Trips/person of local town
Tisbury0.10.00250
Gillingham0.350.01229.17
Templecombe0.090.00190
Sherborne0.20.0120
Yeovil Junction0.220.037.33 (Expect Yeovil Pen Mill to have more allocation)
Crewkerne0.180.00725.71
Axminster0.4180.00583.60
Honiton0.3370.01228.08
Feniton0.0550.0022.75
Whimple0.050.00225
Cranbrook0.120.00717.14
Pinhoe0.2320.0123.20
Total2.3520.11819.93
[Table using wikipedia data of Usage and population]

To which can be added approximately 0.15m futher journeys to/from Exeter:
View attachment 207426
[Image showing table of Origin-Destination matrix for Exeter Central and Exeter St David's, one-way (ODM assumes even travel each way)]

Isn't the problem less the speed restrictions (we have those everywhere), more that everything gets stuck in the single track sections at the wrong time !

That said, if a reasonable section of rebuilding is needed, maybe it should happen.
 
Last edited:

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
655
Location
NorthWest
Isn't the problem less the speed restrictions (we have those everywhere), more that everything gets stuck in the single track sections at the wrong time !
the problem is more fundamental: the problem embankments are mainly constructed of heaped compacted chalk spoil, either on Salisbury plain or else on the Dorset downs. 180 years of weathering will have caused multiple areas of impending failure. Beside that you have the difficulty that many of the cuttings go through similar ground with unstable sides, while others plus some of the tunnels go through soft greensand which acts more like muddy sand than rock - and collapses easily.
Fixing it is going to need complete reconstruction, probably with major use of poured concrete.
As for routing a new formation...the line already follows an optimum route along and across the numerous river valleys. Any new route is going to be even more of a switchback than it already is and is going to hit serious environmental problems, for instance how would it affect the various chalk streams e.g. Stour/Avon?
I guess there are areas which could be redoubled relatively easily - e.g. Yeovil-Crewkerne-Chard Junction maybe assuming the tunnel can be made permanently safe, but how much difference would that make?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,262
As for routing a new formation...the line already follows an optimum route along and across the numerous river valleys. Any new route is going to be even more of a switchback than it already is and is going to hit serious environmental problems, for instance how would it affect the various chalk streams e.g. Stour/Avon?
I guess there are areas which could be redoubled relatively easily - e.g. Yeovil-Crewkerne-Chard Junction maybe assuming the tunnel can be made permanently safe, but how much difference would that make?

Our gradient requirements are much less stringent than they were when the line was built though.
We have access to multiple units that can run at high speed up sustained 4% slopes. We can use routings that steam era surveyors could never dream of.

Chalk streams are obviously a challenge, but they would be a challenge whatever we do given the sort of earthworks required to make the existing embankments suitable for modern requirements.
 

Recessio

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
1,489
Location
London
I'm unfamiliar with the route, is there space to double the tracks (rebuilding the embankment notwithstanding) or would it need compulsory purchase orders/a different route? What about tunnels, if there are any?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,401
Location
Northampton
I'm unfamiliar with the route, is there space to double the tracks (rebuilding the embankment notwithstanding) or would it need compulsory purchase orders/a different route? What about tunnels, if there are any?
It was formerly double track when built. Whether there's room for modern construction within the railway boundary is another question entirely.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,377
Location
Taunton or Kent
I'm unfamiliar with the route, is there space to double the tracks (rebuilding the embankment notwithstanding) or would it need compulsory purchase orders/a different route? What about tunnels, if there are any?
It was built double track throughout, however to redouble will be complicated in places. The M5 bridge came after singling, so just east of Pinhoe will have to remain single (without a pointlessly expensive bridge widening), while there are land ownership issues at Tisbury, then for large parts the single track will have been slewed to provide the smoothest curvature, so redoubling would require relaying two tracks. There's also two stations with a platform built on a former track alignment: Cranbrook and Templecombe.

Rebuilding the earthworks to remove this limitation would probably require digging them all down to below the surrounding ground level and putting them back up again, disposing of all the problematic material and obtaining new stuff.

That's going to be a very expensive operation and require a very long railway closure which will do serious damage to its ongoing traffic levels.

I'd think you'd be better off building new alignments between the existing stations and scrapping the existing railway.
How deep was the Kirkby Thore-Appleby digging when the 30mph speed restriction was removed? That's probably the closest precedent to what would be involved here.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,401
Location
Northampton
I can't think of a main line that's likely to be so debilitated for such long periods of time going forward.
It's not a main line though, and hasn't been for many decades.
A diversion around the affected section isn't without precedent, thinking of Selby etc. I wonder how long a section would need to be diverted.
Selby was diverted to allow the coal mine, very different economic quantification. I can think of a diversion on the ECML in Scotland (I think) around a tunnel that collapsed during electrification upgrade work, but how many other diversions of the railway have there been purely because the original formation was no longer sustainable, especially any with public funding?
Our gradient requirements are much less stringent than they were when the line was built though.
We have access to multiple units that can run at high speed up sustained 4% slopes. We can use routings that steam era surveyors could never dream of.
Standard for new track is 1:100 max design gradient, or 1:80 if you're not going to run freight on the line. Derogations can, of course, be applied for.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,377
Location
Taunton or Kent
Is there room at Chard Junction to reinstate the station there? Seems an obvious missing link
It's been proposed but not heard any signs it will happen. If it did I think there would be a need to at least join this passing loop and the Axminster loop to create one long dynamic loop, as the extra stop is going to alter where trains pass, which currently is timetabled to happen at Axminster.
 

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
2,151
Location
Wilmslow
Selby was diverted to allow the coal mine, very different economic quantification. I can think of a diversion on the ECML in Scotland (I think) around a tunnel that collapsed during electrification upgrade work, but how many other diversions of the railway have there been purely because the original formation was no longer sustainable, especially any with public funding?
Well, if you go back a bit there was the Harecastle Deviation in Staffordshire (1967) and the new Woodhead Tunnel (1954). More recently there was a minor diversion on the Newcastle - Carlisle line due to unstable ground and the ECML has been realigned in several places in Co. Durham (e.g Ferryhill and Reilly Mill).
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,299
Selby was diverted to allow the coal mine, very different economic quantification. I can think of a diversion on the ECML in Scotland (I think) around a tunnel that collapsed during electrification upgrade work,
Penmanshiel.
but how many other diversions of the railway have there been purely because the original formation was no longer sustainable, especially any with public funding?
What about the slight diversion of the ECML to avoid coal-mining subsidence east of Musselburgh?
 

Backroom_boy

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2019
Messages
582
Location
London
there are land ownership issues at Tisbury
At Tisbury station itself? I've often wondered why the loop ends just before the station; just a very small extension and a restatement of the second platform would allow trains to pass there, knocking several minutes from delays there.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,401
Location
Northampton
Well, if you go back a bit there was the Harecastle Deviation in Staffordshire (1967) and the new Woodhead Tunnel (1954).
These I would place with Farnworth as 'upgrades' (all 3 were to permit electrification, IIRC), rather than to maintain Business As Usual.
More recently there was a minor diversion on the Newcastle - Carlisle line due to unstable ground and the ECML has been realigned in several places in Co. Durham (e.g Ferryhill and Reilly Mill).
Many thanks for these examples
Penmanshiel.
That's the one, thank you.
What about the slight diversion of the ECML to avoid coal-mining subsidence east of Musselburgh?
Again, thanks for the examples. The theme seems to be mining areas and the ECML (Newcastle-Carlisle being the exception)!
 

Grecian 1998

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2019
Messages
525
Location
Bristol
Given the prolonged hot spell I'm guessing another spell of speed restrictions and timetable adjustments are nigh.

Judging by the bottom of this page, I'd guess so:


The Salisbury Exeter Rail Users Group newsletter for June 2026 also considers it 'very likely'.

I wouldn't have picked Axminster as the busiest station on the line. Presumably it's got the Seaton & Lyme Regis catchment traffic, whatever that amounts to.

Axminster is a railhead for Bridport and Chard to a lesser extent as well as Seaton and Lyme. It's also the point at which journeys to Waterloo become quicker than going to Exeter for Paddington, so it has significant eastbound traffic as well as westbound. Honiton (3rd) is mainly focused on Exeter and Gillingham (2nd) on London.

Is there room at Chard Junction to reinstate the station there? Seems an obvious missing link

Chard Junction has been reviewed as a reopening and rejected in the past on the basis it will bring almost no new traffic to the line - people who currently drive to Axminster or Crewkerne would just drive there instead, whilst this would slow down the service even further. Chard is not within walking distance. Tatworth / South Chard is within walking distance but it isn't really large enough to generate new traffic, and there isn't anywhere obvious that people would migrate towards - Exeter and Salisbury are probably too far for commuting.

Given how common delays are under the current timetable, there really isn't any benefit in opening any new stations before any major infrastructure upgrades.

At Tisbury station itself? I've often wondered why the loop ends just before the station; just a very small extension and a restatement of the second platform would allow trains to pass there, knocking several minutes from delays there.

Under the 1967 singling scheme, there were 19 miles of single track from Gillingham to Wilton. It was then realised this was a tad problematic and a loop was needed. However, Tisbury down platform had been sold off in the meantime, so the only option was to build the loop outside the station, which happened in 1986.


In terms of building new embankments, most of the problem ones are out in open countryside so in theory there would be space to build a new alignment. I don't think any of them are near embankments or viaducts, although I could be wrong. However, whether the government would agree to use compulsory purchase orders in the event of farmers being reluctant to sell is another question.

The line itself has no chance of being fully redoubled in the current climate. Given the cost of reopening stations due to modern requirements, any new doubling is realistically going to be between stations. Redoubling between Cranbrook and Whimple and from Tisbury loop to Wilton, both away from the problem areas, would be massively helpful for timekeeping purposes. If a down train is 15 minutes late at Honiton currently, it will invariably sit there for 20 minutes waiting for the train it should have passed at Pinhoe, meaning it arrives at Exeter at the time it's due to leave to head back east.
 

Sir Felix Pole

Established Member
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
2,151
Location
Wilmslow
These I would place with Farnworth as 'upgrades' (all 3 were to permit electrification, IIRC), rather than to maintain Business As Usual.
Partly yes, but the Harecastle Tunnel was in bad shape due to mining subsidence - the canal tunnels even more so. The old Woodhead Tunnels had been hammered during WW2 with heavy traffic (the LNER had intended to electrify them) so a new tunnel was required.
 

Top