Wychwood93
Member
I was unaware of this. Here it is: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MTAwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
Thanks to Google Maps!
-
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!
Basingstoke-Reading upgrade possibilities
- Thread starter brad465
- Start date
Thanks to Google Maps!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Likewise was unaware, of this, hence my previous comment, it's easy to overlook the entrance symbol on the National Rail layout. Every day is a school day.
As such adding 500m to a journey for those using platform 1 will have some impact. Given I got it wrong before, whilst it looks like platform 2 is not accessible from the southern end, is this the case @coppercapped ?
If it is then the impact for passengers from that platform would be more limited and would then be similar to I previously understood.
Which does lead to an interesting option, move P2 to the north and use the space for P2 for a 3rd track.
The walk from the Tilehurst Rd entrance to the up platform goes via street level at Oxford Road today after the old footbridge was removed for electrification. The ramp between Oxford Rd and the down platform was reopened after many decades of closure to create the replacement access. While the south downside path is shown on the 1911 OS map below, I can find no trace of a similar direct path from Tilehurst Rd to the up platform.
coppercapped
Established Member
This southern entrance serves the housing along and around the Tilehurst Road, of which there is a lot. It is well used, especially during the peaks.
There is no direct access to Platform 2 from the Tilehurst Road, passengers have to walk to the Oxford Road entrance using Platform 1, cross under the tracks and return to Platform 2. All that this means is that passengers travelling towards Reading have to walk further in one direction but much less when getting off the train to walk home.
Reading West used to have a footbridge between the platforms halfway along them which avoided this detour. However because it was too low for the overhead wires when the line was electrified the bridge was removed with the intention to replace it with a higher one. However sufficient numbers of people living nearby objected to the higher bridge due to overlooking into the neighbouring houses - the bridge not being in quite the same position because of earthworks issues - and the plan was dropped for reconsideration. Unfortunately like many of the 'paused' things belonging to the GW electrification cost overrun this has not been taken up again.
This whole discussion is based on a false premise - that the stretch between Basingstoke and Reading Oxford Road Junction is the limiting factor in track capacity for traffic between the south coast and off the Newbury route on the one hand and London, the Midlands and the North on the other. This has not been proven - no specific bottlenecks have been identified and no attempt to compare how much additional income could be generated by the proposed changes and what the cost for some of these proposals might be. At a time when the Government is paying 6% interest on 30 year borrowings these become very important considerations. Without some grounding in reality such a discussion is not speculation, it is day dreaming.
The aqua line goes very close to, if not through people's gardens. The cutting is deep at points and the trees attenuate the noise from the railway, but there is housing that's extremely close to the boundary - along Western Elms Avenue, Josephine Court and Kenilworth Avenue (which is actually a private road).
The most space is at the point where the old branch line splits off - the alignment for that is still fairly intact and could be built over (there's one house in the way, by the underbridge on Southcote Lane).
I don't think you could build the flyover on the side suggested and the level of earth moving required would be extremely disruptive & destabilising.
In any case, it would require demolishing Reading West, the station that's just been rebuilt, and replacing the bridge over Oxford Road.
Last edited:
Close up. its clear of the back gardens, just. In this area, the Westbury lines might first be slewed over to the east a bit to create more space for the north ramp of the flyover.
I've shown the alignment missing this home. It would be heavily affected by construction, and would end up closely sandwiched between the diverging routes. I'd budget for acquisition
The alternative might be to reconstruct the Westbury approach as a flyover. That strikes me as possibly more disruptive and expensive.
The new facilities are at street level and tucked under the bridge, I guess in a deliberate attempt to keep options open. A new multitrack replacement bridge or additional independent spans either side of the existing one could also pass right over the entrance building, with a new stair and lift access built to the island platform. Note the station is not considerered fully wheelchair accessible today, with the down platfrom having steps in its newly reopened street access ramp (no worse than the steps of the former footbridge). The up platfrom access ramp is steep, too much so for new build regs, but again the modernisation made it 'no worse' than before.
A valid question to ask, so what rail use in the area.
For just passengers it's:
2tph Newbury
2tph Basingstoke
1tph Plymouth/Cornwall
1tph XC Bournemouth
1tph Exeter semi fast/ former XC Southampton
That's 7tph in each direction before you consider freight and the junctions.
As such it's not too unreasonable to assume that here is a significant constraint.
At Basingstoke, as has been pointed out, the flat junction is more constrained by the Stoppers from Waterloo occupying platform 1 for a significant portion of the hour and them crossing than probably most other movements.
Actually the Stoppers to Waterloo at Basingstoke are fairly easy to deal with (turn them back at a new station at Oakley or at Andover - the latter would create a good overlap between stations either side of Basingstoke and could allow the speeding up of the Yeovil services).
Certainly it wouldn't be the only place where more capacity was needed to improve freight capacity (and there's a need for that from Southampton, even National Highways suggest that rail capacity is better than getting to do anything with the M3 beyond junction 9 rebuild currently underway).
Up to Basingstoke freight could be routed via Andover to give a few extra paths.
If there's more needed at Basingstoke, add a freight loop West of the station to allow P4 to be bi direction and add a grade separated flyover to the down (southern side tracks) as the first phase.
If there's more capacity needed then create the extra lines behind (North) of P5.
Passenger enhancements would ideally be 6tph for local services and 2tph for long distance services made up of:
2.5tph Newbury locals
2.5tph Basingstoke
1tph Newbury/Southampton to Paddington (either 1tph which splits joins or 0.5tph to each)
1tph Exeter semi fast (may need to only run to Reading 0.5tph due to path constraints)
1tph Plymouth/Cornwall
The Basingstoke services are very busy at peak times and can be well loaded even fairly late into the evening, so extra frequency on that corridor would be useful.
This is connecting 2 significant urban areas where there's significant road congestion and when the rail strikes were happening road congestion got significant worse.
As such better connectivity and frequencies would likely generate significant economic benefits.
If you look at the images of Bath Road Bridge previously linked up thread, the central portal is like 70 brick courses to the start of the arch when full electrification clearance needs 64 brick courses, that doesn't sound much until you remember that there's at least 10 courses for the arch which is fairly flat. As such, even if we needed to start the ramp prior to the bridge that's not necessarily an issue.
I do, however, wonder if we do something a little more controversial.
Keep a flat junction for freight movements but send the (hopefully) EMU's (Basingstoke/Reading service) up and over the top.
This does three things:
- removes 3tph (Basingstoke services and XC services) from the existing junction, with these being able to be without needing any extra capacity at the junction
- puts the quieter services nearer to the houses, but given that we get rid of diesel passenger services the overall noise impact may still be lower for the residents
- could have freight time limitations, so may not have any freight using the higher level paths outside a set room (say nothing 21:00 - 07:00) as during that time flows are light enough that the flat junction can cope just by removing the passenger services from it
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 887
Anything that involves major expenditure is a no, at least for now, so the only improvements have to come from juggling what's already operating, replacing the 165's for 800's and changing the service amending other paths is the only option, don't touch any of the other services, and introduce a Paddington, to Salisbury Service in the place of one of the stoppers, only calling at Reading, Reading West, Basingstoke, Andover and Salisbury, If theres scope, the service could be extended to exeter at a later date, if its ever decided to transfer the route away from SWR, which would then allow GW to run some outward via Salisbury, and returning via Bristol,
I think Reading West is better added full time to the Newbury as a call. And Reading Green Park gets the regular Paddington. Tons of development around there, and a lot of big companies within a 15 min walk (access could be a little better if it was more formally organized like a business campus)
But yes I agree this would be a good service to offer. And real competition (if such things survive GBR)
Really? Whilst there's a lot of end to end users, I'm not sure cutting the frequency for the smaller stations is a great idea.
Especially given that there's been other options discussed to create such a service, yes "only' at 0.5tph, however for a new service that's not a terrible starting frequency.
The other thing you have to consider is the path into Paddington. Having Newbury go to 0.5tph off peak with a direct service to Paddington isn't terrible (obviously if that was balanced a little by it being 1 of 3 rather than 1 of 2 trains per hour would be an easier sell), and so Basingstoke and Salisbury or Southampton using the other half of that path works.
Yes, I've talked about it going to Southampton, but Salisbury is another option.
The obvious easy train to run to Basingstoke (to keep the 2tph but have a direct Paddington service) would be the Elizabeth Line trains, however, that would require electrification and platform lengthening and more trainsfrom the through Reading platforms to the Basingstoke line.
All of which (plus a load of other stuff) means it's put firmly in the too difficult pile.
Your comment also only considers passengers, what about freight, which is also a key user.
However, whilst, yes, any improvements would be costly. The likely economic boost, given how economical powerful this area of the country is, could well make this worth doing. It's not like we're looking to spend the same money on something which is linking a city of 100,000 to a town of 10,000 with an hourly frequency.
We're taking about Reading (185,000), Basingstoke (110,000) and Newbury (45,000) all having an improved service whilst also improving direct service to Reading from Southampton (260,000) or Salisbury (43,000) either of which would also have other places like Winchester (49,000) or Andover (52,000).
In such a way that they also gain a direct connection to HS2 at Old Oak Common, giving them all a single change to fast services to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
On top of that creating more rail freight capacity from the Port of Southampton.
Probably more capacity than the £290 million being spent to rebuild Junction 9 of the M3, as that's only really about delays at that junction, as it's not uncommon for their to be delays south of there on the M3.
Yes, it's likely to cost more, but then there's the passenger benefits as well.