Capacity on Southampton to Waterloo line

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't see what benefit you are suggesting a new double track chord would provide.

I was thinking about the possibility for trains coming from the East of Basingstoke, to avoid having to reverse if ever going up towards Reading

 

[MarkyT]

I was thinking about the possibility for trains coming from the East of Basingstoke, to avoid having to reverse if ever going up towards Reading

I remember, when working for BR in Reading during the 1980s, there was some serious talk of the South Western retaining the Reading - Basingstoke shuttle in conjunction with DC electrification of the line. The idea was to run Basingstoke terminating stoppers from Waterloo through to Reading. They still wanted to call and reverse at Basingstoke however! In the end the shuttle became part of the Thames and Chilterns service group under sectorisation and eventually Thames Trains and their successors. I really can't imagine any passenger service that could benefit by running via a Basingstoke avoiding curve at the London end under normal operations.

 

[edwin_m]

I was thinking about the possibility for trains coming from the East of Basingstoke, to avoid having to reverse if ever going up towards Reading

Not sure why a train would ever need to do that, as a train from the south-east to Reading would be more likely to run via Staines.

 

[The Ham]

I remember, when working for BR in Reading during the 1980s, there was some serious talk of the South Western retaining the Reading - Basingstoke shuttle in conjunction with DC electrification of the line. The idea was to run Basingstoke terminating stoppers from Waterloo through to Reading. They still wanted to call and reverse at Basingstoke however! In the end the shuttle became part of the Thames and Chilterns service group under sectorisation and eventually Thames Trains and their successors. I really can't imagine any passenger service that could benefit by running via a Basingstoke avoiding curve at the London end under normal operations.

The only people it would benefit from not calling at Basingstoke are those who live at stations between Basingstoke and Farnborough who are going to Reading or people going to/from the Reading line. Most others would either use other services (i.e. trains between Waterloo & Reading or Guildford & Reading) or aren't too impacted by having to change trains. As such the numbers involved would be fairly small and not really worth the expense.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was thinking about the possibility for trains coming from the East of Basingstoke, to avoid having to reverse if ever going up towards Reading

What the heck for, I really cannot see a need for that at all, and you'd need a much greater radius than can fit where you suggested, the Reading and Waterloo routes are not that far apart for quite a distance.

The local topography is such that you'd have to end up with the railway under the local roads, that lump of land you are considering is much higher than both railway routes.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What the heck for, I really cannot see a need for that at all, and you'd need a much greater radius than can fit where you suggested, the Reading and Waterloo routes are not that far apart for quite a distance.

The local topography is such that you'd have to end up with the railway under the local roads, that lump of land you are considering is much higher than both railway routes.

It's a mute point anyway as the Wessex ROC is in the way and the foundations for the Wessex ROC would get in the way if an attempt was made to do it by tunnelling

 

[The Ham]

What the heck for, I really cannot see a need for that at all, and you'd need a much greater radius than can fit where you suggested, the Reading and Waterloo routes are not that far apart for quite a distance.

The local topography is such that you'd have to end up with the railway under the local roads, that lump of land you are considering is much higher than both railway routes.

Also, operationally, it wouldn't be that difficult to reverse the trains at Basingstoke as the Basingstoke stopper (towards London) leaves just before the next one arrives (from London).

As such driver "A" drives train from Reading to Basingstoke, driver "B" is waiting at the London end and drives the train to London, leaving driver "A" to walk the length of the train to then drive the train from London back to Reading whilst the driver of that train then becomes driver "B" for the next time the trains come in.

Of course there would be other problems to overcome, such as lots of on the flat movements and how to get a 12 coach train into the bay platforms at Reading (unless you split the train at Basingstoke). All in all, it's not going to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's a mute point anyway as the Wessex ROC is in the way and the foundations for the Wessex ROC would get in the way if an attempt was made to do it by tunnelling

BTW, the correct expression is 'moot point'.

As I said earlier, the radius is impossible at that location, you've got room for about a 100m radius curve, that's about half as much as that really tight curve at Northam on the approach to Southampton. It just doesn't work at that location.

 

[Hammy1966]

So to summarise all of the conversation to this point
1. Line capacity will be improved closer to London Waterloo with new signalling, crossrail2, new trains in Windsor commute line allowing more10 or 12 carriage options Southampton to Waterloo.
2. New trains with new ATO. ERTMS could allow trains to run closer together.
3. All of the above part of a £50bn investment that will feed in to service over a 5-10 year period.
Are there any plans that cover any thinking about moving freight services to different lines or routes where there is capacity. Or even something else tactical to help capacity in the near term couple of years? Or do we grin and bear it?

 

[Bigfoot]

I remember, when working for BR in Reading during the 1980s, there was some serious talk of the South Western retaining the Reading - Basingstoke shuttle in conjunction with DC electrification of the line. The idea was to run Basingstoke terminating stoppers from Waterloo through to Reading. They still wanted to call and reverse at Basingstoke however! In the end the shuttle became part of the Thames and Chilterns service group under sectorisation and eventually Thames Trains and their successors. I really can't imagine any passenger service that could benefit by running via a Basingstoke avoiding curve at the London end under normal operations.

Abit off topic but swt drivers were route learning and being assessed on Basingstoke to reading recently...

 

[The Ham]

Abit off topic but swt drivers were route learning and being assessed on Basingstoke to reading recently...

Is that in preparation for new, yet unannounced services, or so that GWR can "hire in staff" to allow their own staff time off to learn the new trains that they are going to have to drive?

My assumption would be the latter, but could be beneficial to the SW franchise if bidders are looking at new services (maybe a Reading - Southampton via Salisbury service) as part of the new franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So to summarise all of the conversation to this point
1. Line capacity will be improved closer to London Waterloo with new signalling, crossrail2, new trains in Windsor commute line allowing more10 or 12 carriage options Southampton to Waterloo.
2. New trains with new ATO. ERTMS could allow trains to run closer together.
3. All of the above part of a £50bn investment that will feed in to service over a 5-10 year period.
Are there any plans that cover any thinking about moving freight services to different lines or routes where there is capacity. Or even something else tactical to help capacity in the near term couple of years? Or do we grin and bear it?

There will also be improvements to the junctions at Woking and Basingstoke to improve capacity.

Other than the already known plans to allow freight to travel from Southampton to Basingstoke via Salisbury there are probably limited alternative routes without building new junctions and/or lines.

However, a new (grade separated) junction to allow freight to travel from Farnborough onto the Camberley line could ease some congestion at Woking, however there would likely need to be a lot of works to the lines involved to take freight. Although if done before the junction at Woking could also allow passenger services to avoid Woking whilst the works at Woking are being undertaken.

 

[swt_passenger]

My assumption would be the latter, but could be beneficial to the SW franchise if bidders are looking at new services (maybe a Reading - Southampton via Salisbury service) as part of the new franchise.

Alternatively, I think it more likely that Reading (for connections to Paddington) could be a good place to terminate West of England services during a future Waterloo blockade (such as next August) which might require mainline services to be thinned out. There's potential for this because there is now far more flexibility at Reading to turn round long trains in various through platforms, rather than just using P1 to P3.

I've never heard of driver training taking place so far in advance of a possible future franchisee's changes to service patterns - they invariably don't start changing service patterns until a few timetable periods after the franchise begins.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any plans that cover any thinking about moving freight services to different lines or routes where there is capacity. Or even something else tactical to help capacity in the near term couple of years? Or do we grin and bear it?

As well as via Andover To Basingstoke, there are tentative plans to allow freight from Southampton to go via Salisbury, Westbury and Melksham to approach Didcot from the west. Requires significant amounts of gauge clearance for W10 traffic though.

 

[The Ham]

Alternatively, I think it more likely that Reading (for connections to Paddington) could be a good place to terminate West of England services during a future Waterloo blockade (such as next August) which might require mainline services to be thinned out. There's potential for this because there is now far more flexibility at Reading to turn round long trains in various through platforms, rather than just using P1 to P3.

Sounds a reasonable.

I've never heard of driver training taking place so far in advance of a possible future franchisee's changes to service patterns - they invariably don't start changing service patterns until a few timetable periods after the franchise begins.

I wasn't suggesting that the franchise would be initiating the training for new routes, rather that because of the training that the franchise could consider starting new routes faster as much of the training would have already happened.

 

[A Challenge]

Alternatively, I think it more likely that Reading (for connections to Paddington) could be a good place to terminate West of England services during a future Waterloo blockade (such as next August) which might require mainline services to be thinned out. There's potential for this because there is now far more flexibility at Reading to turn round long trains in various through platforms, rather than just using P1 to P3.

I've never heard of driver training taking place so far in advance of a possible future franchisee's changes to service patterns - they invariably don't start changing service patterns until a few timetable periods after the franchise begins.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As well as via Andover To Basingstoke, there are tentative plans to allow freight from Southampton to go via Salisbury, Westbury and Melksham to approach Didcot from the west. Requires significant amounts of gauge clearance for W10 traffic though.

I think that taking freight traffic that way would help significantly, and that stopping all the trains at Woking not Farnborough as there are no fast line platforms at Farnborough. Why do they stop the XX:39 ex Waterloo to Poole and the returns (XX:59 at Farnborough) at Farnborough anyway (timetable 19 as FNB isn't in 28!)? Is it as they need to get the trains out the way of Woking?

 

[swt_passenger]

..Why do they stop the XX:39 ex Waterloo to Poole and the returns (XX:59 at Farnborough) at Farnborough anyway (timetable 19 as FNB isn't in 28!)? Is it as they need to get the trains out the way of Woking?

To provide a decent service between Farnborough and much of the the west of the SWML route, and from Southampton and Winchester, without a change, and to provide a semi-fast service between Farnborough and Waterloo.

The Portsmouth to Waterloo via Eastleigh also stops at Farnborough in the opposite half hour most hours, presumably to similarly provide direct connections.

Timetabling isn't all about services to/from London...

 

[DerekC]

I think that taking freight traffic that way would help significantly, and that stopping all the trains at Woking not Farnborough as there are no fast line platforms at Farnborough. Why do they stop the XX:39 ex Waterloo to Poole and the returns (XX:59 at Farnborough) at Farnborough anyway (timetable 19 as FNB isn't in 28!)? Is it as they need to get the trains out the way of Woking?

There is little freight east of Basingstoke so I doubt that a new chord at Farnborough could justify its cost.

Stops at Woking are a capacity killer, especially on the up fast in the peak where there are no other stops before Waterloo. Grade separation at Woking Junction and remodelling of Woking station is a must. The best plan I have seen turns platform 6 into another through road, used for down Portsmouth line trains. The up Portsmouth flyover will give access to Platforms 1, 2 or 4. The question then is what to do with the slow services which currently terminate at Platform 3, crossing the fast lines on their way in and out. Hopefully the new grade separated junction will include a turnback for them somewhere on the way to Worplesdon*, allowing them to use platforms 1 and 6. What to do with Platform 3? How about a fast Woking to Waterloo shuttle?

The other point at Woking is that to go with ATO and ERTMS the dwell times will have to smarten up a lot. Currently they are relaxed, even in the peak!

* - in fact how about a new terminating platform at Worplesdon? It could become a park-and ride!

 

[Matt Taylor]

Abit off topic but swt drivers were route learning and being assessed on Basingstoke to reading recently...

I wouldn't read too much into it, it's most likely for MPV work which is done by SWT drivers.

 

[The Ham]

I think that taking freight traffic that way would help significantly, and that stopping all the trains at Woking not Farnborough as there are no fast line platforms at Farnborough. Why do they stop the XX:39 ex Waterloo to Poole and the returns (XX:59 at Farnborough) at Farnborough anyway (timetable 19 as FNB isn't in 28!)? Is it as they need to get the trains out the way of Woking?

It may have something to do with the number of passengers that use Farnborough, as there is something like 1/2 that if Basingstoke but with about 1/3 of the number of services and without the number of connection.

 

[TEW]

There is little freight east of Basingstoke so I doubt that a new chord at Farnborough could justify its cost.

Stops at Woking are a capacity killer, especially on the up fast in the peak where there are no other stops before Waterloo. Grade separation at Woking Junction and remodelling of Woking station is a must. The best plan I have seen turns platform 6 into another through road, used for down Portsmouth line trains. The up Portsmouth flyover will give access to Platforms 1, 2 or 4. The question then is what to do with the slow services which currently terminate at Platform 3, crossing the fast lines on their way in and out. Hopefully the new grade separated junction will include a turnback for them somewhere on the way to Worplesdon*, allowing them to use platforms 1 and 6. What to do with Platform 3? How about a fast Woking to Waterloo shuttle?

The other point at Woking is that to go with ATO and ERTMS the dwell times will have to smarten up a lot. Currently they are relaxed, even in the peak!

* - in fact how about a new terminating platform at Worplesdon? It could become a park-and ride!

Logically if a flyover was built, you'd send the stoppers to Guildford, as that's where the passenger flows are. Watch the mass of people running to make the very tight 5 minute connection from a stopper arriving on Platform 3 to the Guildford train on Platform 5.

 

[The Ham]

Logically if a flyover was built, you'd send the stoppers to Guildford, as that's where the passenger flows are. Watch the mass of people running to make the very tight 5 minute connection from a stopper arriving on Platform 3 to the Guildford train on Platform 5.

Quite, However, also there are quite a few people who change at Woking (from the Guildford direction) to head on trains heading west.

With a flyover which allows movements to/from platform 1/2 or 5/6 and to/from the west, then there could potentially be scope for direct services which run to Woking before reversing to head back out.

 

[jayiscupid]

Grade separation at Woking Junction and remodelling of Woking station is a must. The best plan I have seen turns platform 6 into another through road, used for down Portsmouth line trains. The up Portsmouth flyover will give access to Platforms 1, 2 or 4. The question then is what to do with the slow services which currently terminate at Platform 3, crossing the fast lines on their way in and out. Hopefully the new grade separated junction will include a turnback for them somewhere on the way to Worplesdon*, allowing them to use platforms 1 and 6. What to do with Platform 3? How about a fast Woking to Waterloo shuttle?

Do you have any plans to share on this? Would be interested to see the proposed layouts.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you have any plans to share on this? Would be interested to see the proposed layouts.

Pages 80/81 of the Wessex route study (link below) describes this, and provides a sketch of the possible layout, including the possible turnback location towards Guildford. The odd thing is that they don't have the turnback between the up and down lines, which would be the ideal if starting with a clean slate...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Public...ssex-route-study/Wessex-Route-Study-Final.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

From what I can see on the aerial mapping there's already a siding in approximately that position so they may be thinking of "re-purposing" that as a turnback to stay within railway land. I agree a centre turnback is best, and if that isn't possible a right-handed one is better than the left-handed shown, but either was wanted it might involve land acquisition to locate it about a mile or so further south beyond the built-up area. Even then it would impinge on some woodland.

 

[The Ham]

From what I can see on the aerial mapping there's already a siding in approximately that position so they may be thinking of "re-purposing" that as a turnback to stay within railway land. I agree a centre turnback is best, and if that isn't possible a right-handed one is better than the left-handed shown, but either was wanted it might involve land acquisition to locate it about a mile or so further south beyond the built-up area. Even then it would impinge on some woodland.

Personally I would move the down lines over and have the turn back in the middle, it would also give space for the flyover to then go from the middle further up.

Yes, you would need to change the signals, but given that they would probably need doing anyway that's no big thing.

You could even have the turn back so that it could be used from either direction if needed. As I doubt that it would have a lot of use anyway.

 

[MarkyT]

Pages 80/81 of the Wessex route study (link below) describes this, and provides a sketch of the possible layout, including the possible turnback location towards Guildford. The odd thing is that they don't have the turnback between the up and down lines, which would be the ideal if starting with a clean slate...

There is a note on the sketch suggesting a centre siding configuration would be considered. The siding as shown is an existing facility which could be refettled and provided with a crew walkway, lighting etc in the cess. Fitting all that in between two fairly fast running lines and a providing a safe access route would not be so easy.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a note on the sketch suggesting a centre siding configuration would be considered. The siding as shown is an existing facility which could be refettled and provided with a crew walkway, lighting etc in the cess. Fitting all that in between two fairly fast running lines and a providing a safe access route would not be so easy.

If you're doing all that the extra work needed for a centre siding wouldn't be huge. Given the curvature nearby and the fact almost everything on the Portsmouth route will stop at Woking, the speed for passing trains doesn't need to be very high.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is a note on the sketch suggesting a centre siding configuration would be considered.

Ah right, I couldn't make that out on screen earlier. So it's all a bit work in progress, as you'd expect at this stage...

 

[edwin_m]

Ah right, I couldn't make that out on screen earlier. So it's all a bit work in progress, as you'd expect at this stage...

For a proposal in a route strategy it's a paragon of detail. Most of the suggestions put forward in those documents are vague to the point of uselessness.

 

[jayiscupid]

Pages 80/81 of the Wessex route study (link below) describes this, and provides a sketch of the possible layout, including the possible turnback location towards Guildford. The odd thing is that they don't have the turnback between the up and down lines, which would be the ideal if starting with a clean slate...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Public...ssex-route-study/Wessex-Route-Study-Final.pdf

Thanks for this. It's interesting reading.