Next priority project - re-doubling of SW mainline.

[yorksrob]

Ideally any upgrading should also include O/H electrification from reading to Basingstoke, and Basingstoke to Exeter, and further electrification to link Exeter with Bristol so both maIn routes to Exeter can be operated by 800's and duel voltage EMU's possibly using an adaption of the 800 class that can run on 3rd rail as well as overhead, to operate Waterloo to Exeter, some GW services could run via Basingstoke and terminate at Bristol TM, or continue on to Paddington, some SWR services could extend to Bristol, before returning

Ideally, but not being electrified hasn't stopped the redoubled Chiltern line going from strenth to strength.

I think you need to check your history. The "West of England" Line was built by the L&SWR to compete with the GWRs services to Exeter & Plymouth. The L&SWR eventually had a double track main line from Waterloo through to Devonport (Plymouth) Kings Rd station principally for the maritime traffic. The line also served several single track branches through to small resorts on the South Devon Coast and the Atlantic coast. This included several once a day portion operated (some only seasonal) through services.
After World War Two the maritme traffic from Plymouth Vanished because of the introduction of commercial aviation and a huge reduction in the naval traffic.
This didnt leave enough traffic to justify 2 railways beyond Exeter and the main line was closed completely beyond Lyford along with most of the Atlantic Coast and South Devon branches. leaving what was essential a branch line service beyond Wilton. In the 1950s and 60s stations like Templecombe typically only had 3 or 4 down trains a day plus milk and newspaper trains.

I'm well aware of my history.

The South Eastern and the Chatham main lines were built to provide a railway for the continental traffic to Dover.

That's only a small part of why they have been main lines for the past 150 years.

The "not leaving enough traffic to justify two routes West of Exeter" is part of the ideological viewpoint of Beeching/Marples/Fraser etc. It shouldn't be regarded as an objective absolute.

 

[The exile]

Crewe to Shrewsbury was being prepared for it too in about 2000. Long Welded Rail was laid on the up and down lines on alternate stretches, it was believed that they were going to slew the ends to give a single line of relatively newly-laid rail.

The G&SW line (via Kilmarnock) also suffered and has had a lot of the double track reinstated.

 

[devon_belle]

Sadly reading the Network Rail reports on the line it is treated as important:
- firstly as a GWR diversion
- secondly as a potential part of Devon Metro

There is little emphasis on the through service, except an overarching desire to improve reliability. You will shave time off the schedule by getting new units that can tackle the hills better (50 mph topping Honiton bank is a win in some 159s), or potentially skipping some stops when the west end is metrofied.

I think political pressure will see some loops added/extending to provide an hourly timetable during summer speed restrictions. In my view double track is almost certainly off the cards for many decades, regrettably.

It occurs to me the line from Yeovil to Exeter was built single track and progressively doubled into the 1870s. Does anyone know if the earthworks were built for double track, or does the line suffer the same issues as the SWML quadrupling where the join between old and new earth is unstable? Obviously the main problem is the material.

 

[Krokodil]

I think you need to check your history. The "West of England" Line was built by the L&SWR to compete with the GWRs services to Exeter & Plymouth. The L&SWR eventually had a double track main line from Waterloo through to Devonport (Plymouth) Kings Rd station principally for the maritime traffic. The line also served several single track branches through to small resorts on the South Devon Coast and the Atlantic coast. This included several once a day portion operated (some only seasonal) through services.
After World War Two the maritme traffic from Plymouth Vanished because of the introduction of commercial aviation and a huge reduction in the naval traffic.
This didnt leave enough traffic to justify 2 railways beyond Exeter and the main line was closed completely beyond Lyford along with most of the Atlantic Coast and South Devon branches. leaving what was essential a branch line service beyond Wilton. In the 1950s and 60s stations like Templecombe typically only had 3 or 4 down trains a day plus milk and newspaper trains.

The history is irrelevant. It matters not how many milk trains there were at Templecombe 60 years ago, travel has changed dramatically since.

That the line is now operated hourly by trains of 5/6 carriages is obviously a tremendous improvement on the two hourly 3 car 159 that was once the norm. It shows a healthy level of demand west of Salisbury.

Full redoubling appears to be off of the table at the moment. Instead, to improve reliability Network Rail should look at extending the remaining passing loops - Tisbury in particular - so that they can act as dynamic loop, just like the work which has taken place at Yeovil and Axminster.

 

[The exile]

The intervention most likely to do some good is probably extending Tisbury loop to the west so that minor delays to an up train will be less likely to affect a down train. Otherwise the question is what service does the line need? Running times in the public timetable suggest that there's already sufficient loops to run half hourly Salisbury to Yeovil, and beyond there it'd need a loop somewhere around Feniton to run half hourly all the way to Exeter.

Feniton conveniently being the one station that could have the line through it doubled without needing footbridge, lift etc, as it's adjacent to a level crossing. That is unless reinstating double track through a level crossing is considered such an increased risk that it would require the building of a road bridge...

 

[devon_belle]

Crewkerne's Up platform has been built out to give more clearance under the road bridge. Presumably this would complicate redoubling, probably requiring a new bridge and moving the current platform edge back. Feniton always looked narrow to my eye but I have no knowledge of its platform being widened or track slewed.

In many places between stations the track has been slewed to give a preferable alignment, which will mean reduced line speeds if redoubled. Although back in the day there were only restrictions between Wilton (South) and Exeter Central were a section of 75 on the Down between Sidmouth Jnc and Whimple, and a section of 60 on the Up between Honiton Tunnel and Seaton Junction. The rest was blanket 85, probably achieved quite comfortably down the banks in latter days.

Maybe a target should be for 8-9 car trains if 1tp2h at 40 mph becomes common each year. Or increasing services on the GWR main line (which could be helpful anyway, these get packed).

 

[yorksrob]

Crewkerne's Up platform has been built out to give more clearance under the road bridge. Presumably this would complicate redoubling, probably requiring a new bridge and moving the current platform edge back. Feniton always looked narrow to my eye but I have no knowledge of its platform being widened or track slewed.

In many places between stations the track has been slewed to give a preferable alignment, which will mean reduced line speeds if redoubled. Although back in the day there were only restrictions between Wilton (South) and Exeter Central were a section of 75 on the Down between Sidmouth Jnc and Whimple, and a section of 60 on the Up between Honiton Tunnel and Seaton Junction. The rest was blanket 85, probably achieved quite comfortably down the banks in latter days.

Maybe a target should be for 8-9 car trains if 1tp2h at 40 mph becomes common each year. Or increasing services on the GWR main line (which could be helpful anyway, these get packed).

Well, obviously longer trains should be the norm if we can't sort out the annual clay contraction.

But we shouldn't be accepting regular periods of one train every two hours.

This is a substantial degradation of the standard service, and if it's happenning every year for months on end, physical improvements need to be made.

 

[devon_belle]

This is a substantial degradation of the standard service, and if it's happenning every year for months on end, physical improvements need to be made.

I agree. The line is special to me (see my username), but my outlook is not optimistic.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree. The line is special to me (see my username), but my outlook is not optimistic.

We need to make it impossible for the Beeching acolytes to get a foothold. Carry on with the local politicians that something needs to be done, local TV, Get the King's ear next time he's around...

 

[ox_chap]

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

 

[William3000]

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?

The single track section is only between Moreton and Dorchester South. Dorchester South to Upwey is entirely double track where the South West Mainline is effectively shared with the Heart of Wessex line between Bristol and Weymouth.

 

[The Planner]

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

You are building new abutments for that. I can't see how you do it in less than a week similar to the way the HS2 bridge on the A46 was done.

 

[devon_belle]

We need to make it impossible for the Beeching acolytes to get a foothold. Carry on with the local politicians that something needs to be done, local TV, Get the King's ear next time he's around...

And Devon will annex Lyme Regis as compensation.

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

How would the Europeans do it*? Could you install it in sections with only a couple of lanes closed at a time. The bridge must be 50 years old by now, I guess it would have been built to last several more decades?

Either way, a short section of single track ought not to be a huge constraint, no?

*Well, I suspect they wouldn't have built a single line bridge.

 

[AndrewE]

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

A couple of years of traffic disruption and millions of pounds... In this case I would settle for a short length of singled or gauntletted track.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

And Devon will annex Lyme Regis as compensation.

How would the Europeans do it*? Could you install it in sections with only a couple of lanes closed at a time. The bridge must be 50 years old by now, I guess it would have been built to last several more decades?

Either way, a short section of single track ought not to be a huge constraint, no?

*Well, I suspect they wouldn't have built a single line bridge.

Yes, it only a simple 'culvert' type bridge in a low embankment - you could do one carriageway at a time with a contra-flow on the other. Contra-flow was done in this section recently to install new central reservation barriers.

As you say a short section of single section track isn't too much of a handicap - I wouldn't want it to prejudice any redoubling to Honiton / Axminster for the Devon Metro. Exeter is booming, it has a centrally located station, Cranbrook is expanding - I think this section should be the first to be tackled.

 

[yorksrob]

And Devon will annex Lyme Regis as compensation.

How would the Europeans do it*? Could you install it in sections with only a couple of lanes closed at a time. The bridge must be 50 years old by now, I guess it would have been built to last several more decades?

Either way, a short section of single track ought not to be a huge constraint, no?

*Well, I suspect they wouldn't have built a single line bridge.

Indeed. The main line to Hastings has four of them and they manage to run a fairly intensive commuter service, so one wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Zomboid]

Indeed. The main line to Hastings has four of them and they manage to run a fairly intensive commuter service, so one wouldn't be a problem.

That's about half hourly isn't it? It's not likely that Exeter to Axminster will need to be more frequent than that - though there are a few under bridges where the second deck is no longer present, too. Don't know how well located they are for the loops needed to run half hourly.

 

[stevieinselby]

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

If the line was rebuilt to double track apart from a short distance where it passes under the M5 then that one bit of single track shouldn't be an impediment to providing a far more frequent service than is ever likely to be required.

 

[devon_belle]

I seem to recall a dynamic loop around Whimple and an extension of Honiton loop (westwards) would be sufficient for 2 tph Devon Metro to Honiton and 1 tph express from London. No doubling Pinhoe to Cranbrook required. Whether Cranbrook would actually be skipped by the London train, I don't know.

I've also seen suggestions Cranbrook should get a bay platform for extensions of the Exeter St James' Park services. In any case I'd like to see a turn back crossover put in west of Pinhoe so that it is not abandoned during disruption.

 

[yorksrob]

That's about half hourly isn't it? It's not likely that Exeter to Axminster will need to be more frequent than that - though there are a few under bridges where the second deck is no longer present, too. Don't know how well located they are for the loops needed to run half hourly.

I think it's more than that at peak times.

Replacing a bridge deck would be less disruptive than rebuilding the M5 bridge though.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

Is this not just something to support a long term hope for restoration of through running from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton? A sort of Trojan horse for your personal ‘re-open everything everywhere’ philosophy?

 

[Zomboid]

In any case I'd like to see a turn back crossover put in west of Pinhoe so that it is not abandoned during disruption

Can that not be done using the single line?

 

[Krokodil]

Can that not be done using the single line?

You'd have to set the signalling up for it if you don't want to occupy the entire single line section.

 

[The Planner]

If the line was rebuilt to double track apart from a short distance where it passes under the M5 then that one bit of single track shouldn't be an impediment to providing a far more frequent service than is ever likely to be required.

It still depends. Whats the line speed and what sort of signalling there is as part of the solution. If its only 2tph each way, then yes, easy.

 

[AndrewE]

I've also seen suggestions Cranbrook should get a bay platform for extensions of the Exeter St James' Park services. In any case I'd like to see a turn back crossover put in west of Pinhoe so that it is not abandoned during disruption.

Do you mean East of Pinhoe so that trains from Exeter can still run to there?

Can that not be done using the single line?

You'd have to set the signalling up for it if you don't want to occupy the entire single line section.

Or (rather than a turn back crossover ) if you are on a single line, put in a turnback siding instead - just 1 set of points. Arrange the signalling so that a train can be locked in there to allow main-line trains through and bring the stopper back out when its turn comes.

 

[martin butler]

Is this not just something to support a long term hope for restoration of through running from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton? A sort of Trojan horse for your personal ‘re-open everything everywhere’ philosophy?

My own view is that the landscape has changed since the 1970's when many of the local services were axed, RE-doubling, and upgrading the WEML, would add more flexibility to the line operationally, and would, again IMHO, enable better level of service if the line speed can also be raised.

For the record, Whilst this was not directed towards me, i think that full reopening of the closed route, as both a community, devon metro, and as an alternative for communities along the closed route, to enable the choice if people want to use the train, rather than the car, should be applauded.

If the line speed throughout, was compatible to the exsisting line speeds between Plymouth and London, then surely having an alternative route, for when sometthing closes , or disrupts the exsisting line makes operational sence.

 

[yorksrob]

Is this not just something to support a long term hope for restoration of through running from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton? A sort of Trojan horse for your personal ‘re-open everything everywhere’ philosophy?

Hmm, I don't recall calling for the Sandgate or Hawkhurst lines to be reopened ?

This proposal is primarily to alleviate the ongoing problem of embankment shrinkage.

 

[brad465]

The single track M5 bridge is always mentioned as a constraint on doubling. But in reality, how difficult would it be to replace such a motorway bridge to allow two tracks to run underneath it? A new bridge built alongside the motorway, and M5 closure over a weekend to slide it underneath?

For the cost of doing this and the disruption from doing this, you could probably redouble several miles of single line further east. One pinch point there is relatively insignificant, especially if most of the line to Axminster were redoubled. To put into context, Summerhill tunnel just south of Tonbridge is single line, but copes with 4tph in each direction, along with a few peak extras.

 

[Zomboid]

You'd have to set the signalling up for it if you don't want to occupy the entire single line section.

But if this is disruption meaning trains have to terminate at Pinhoe, why would that matter?

 

[geoffk]

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.

Surely the local trains would run through to/from Barnstaple or Okehampton?