Could we see an increase in services between Basingstoke & Reading?

[cle]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/reading-green-park-station.184100/

The latest GW service requirements have just been published by DfT

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1013738/great-western-train-service-requirement-2020.pdf

So services need to call at Reading Green Park, (doesn’t appear to be a forward introduction date, so seems trains have to stop already)

page 43 includes details of minimum service frequency (half hourly during the day) with Reading-Basingstoke taking a maximum of 27 minutes, max 26 minutes Basingstoke-Reading.

Any sense of an increase in frequency, in future? We'll have to see how Green Park does, and if it instigates net new journeys, or just replaces Reading/West ones.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Any sense of an increase in frequency, in future? We'll have to see how Green Park does, and if it instigates net new journeys, or just replaces Reading/West ones.

As has been said before, it may partially replace journeys to Reading General, but Reading West is pretty much inaccessible by car/public transport, journeys from Whitley on the bus into town take an age and there is a huge amount of housing development in the area around Green Park and the A33, perhaps 10k houses in the last 15 to 20 years.
I don't think there are paths beyond Southcote Junction to Reading General because of the relatively frequent freights from Theale up the Berks and Hants, if loops were to be provided just before Southcote Junction at a considerable cost, then maybe it would be possible. Best thing to do would be to electrify Reading (well,actually Southcote Jcn) to Basingstoke and run 8 car Class 387s with Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) systems to be used at the shorter Bramley and Mortimer stations, the latter could be extended with ease; more difficult at the former. Also allows for further growth if the planned station at Chineham just north of Basingstoke opens.

 

[JonathanH]

Any sense of an increase in frequency, in future? We'll have to see how Green Park does, and if it instigates net new journeys, or just replaces Reading/West ones.

Under the original 769 plans, there were four units allocated to Reading to Basingstoke in the peak time, which enabled an increase in frequency. (This was done by reallocating the 769 hypothecated to the Windsor line.) Whether that survives the Covid-inspired reduction in services and delay to introduction of 769s is another matter. I note that the service from Reading is currently xx07 / xx32 then after 1607 runs at 1633, 1715, 1738, 1757, 1832, 1906 so it looks like there could potentially be a unit missing from the schedule.

Only hourly on Saturdays and Sundays at the moment.

 

[cle]

As has been said before, it may partially replace journeys to Reading General, but Reading West is pretty much inaccessible by car/public transport, journeys from Whitley on the bus into town take an age and there is a huge amount of housing development in the area around Green Park and the A33, perhaps 10k houses in the last 15 to 20 years.
I don't think there are paths beyond Southcote Junction to Reading General because of the relatively frequent freights from Theale up the Berks and Hants, if loops were to be provided just before Southcote Junction at a considerable cost, then maybe it would be possible. Best thing to do would be to electrify Reading (well,actually Southcote Jcn) to Basingstoke and run 8 car Class 387s with Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) systems to be used at the shorter Bramley and Mortimer stations, the latter could be extended with ease; more difficult at the former. Also allows for further growth if the planned station at Chineham just north of Basingstoke opens.

With the 387 suggestion, do you mean to have originated from Paddington? Or simply to add more capacity but remain as a shuttle?

 

[LUYMun]

Best thing to do would be to electrify Reading (well,actually Southcote Jcn) to Basingstoke and run 8 car Class 387s with Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) systems to be used at the shorter Bramley and Mortimer stations, the latter could be extended with ease; more difficult at the former. Also allows for further growth if the planned station at Chineham just north of Basingstoke opens.

I can't see an entire 8-coach train being utilised for the Reading-Basingstoke service had it had been electrified. 4 coaches would be ideal to increase capacity. If you are suggesting 8 coaches, as above also asked, would the Basingstoke service extend to London Paddington?

 

[Wychwood93]

I can't see an entire 8-coach train being utilised for the Reading-Basingstoke service had it had been electrified. 4 coaches would be ideal to increase capacity. If you are suggesting 8 coaches, as above also asked, would the Basingstoke service extend to London Paddington?

A 4-car 387 would be a touch tight at platform 5 in Basingstoke. If electrification came to Basingstoke it would initially be to platform 5. Another additional station at Chineham would add an additional 2 minutes (?) to the already extended schedule to allow for the Green Park stop, when it eventually opens. Electrification could recoup some of the time. I am sure that the calculations (sectional running times) have already been done.

 

[AlastairFraser]

With the 387 suggestion, do you mean to have originated from Paddington? Or simply to add more capacity but remain as a shuttle?

To add more capacity as a shuttle, I don't believe there's any capacity from Paddington.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I can't see an entire 8-coach train being utilised for the Reading-Basingstoke service had it had been electrified. 4 coaches would be ideal to increase capacity. If you are suggesting 8 coaches, as above also asked, would the Basingstoke service extend to London Paddington?

No, that's just if extra capacity was needed, it would be the ideal solution. I have since remembered (thanks to Wychwood93) that Basingstoke P5 is way too short for 8 car - he/she/they make a valid point that 25kv OHLE is unlikely to extend into Bstoke properly until third rail is gone and that'll be a long time.
A check of Google satellite view shows there is enough room for a short extension of P5 to accommodate 1 Class 387, however that won't be enough to accommodate future growth. The only feasible short-term alternative option I could think of would be to get Cross Country to double up 2 5 car Class 221s for every service when they get their extra 221s off Avanti or same with 2 5 car 222s off EMR, however I don't know how that would work with some of the station platforms outside the main stations, Reading and Bstoke should be fine.
Long term, they could reopen the Didcot to Southampton line following the A34, send the Cross Country to Southampton that way and free up those paths from Didcot to Southampton for a limited stop regional service operated by GWR using some sort of Class 769 type unit including RGP and maybe Chineham.
I can't see any other way personally.

 

[swt_passenger]

A 4-car 387 would be a touch tight at platform 5 in Basingstoke. If electrification came to Basingstoke it would initially be to platform 5. Another additional station at Chineham would add an additional 2 minutes (?) to the already extended schedule to allow for the Green Park stop, when it eventually opens. Electrification could recoup some of the time. I am sure that the calculations (sectional running times) have already been done.

117m long in the Wessex sectional appendix. There must be at least 100m usable, only 80m needed.

 

[Kite159]

Under the original 769 plans, there were four units allocated to Reading to Basingstoke in the peak time, which enabled an increase in frequency. (This was done by reallocating the 769 hypothecated to the Windsor line.) Whether that survives the Covid-inspired reduction in services and delay to introduction of 769s is another matter. I note that the service from Reading is currently xx07 / xx32 then after 1607 runs at 1633, 1715, 1738, 1757, 1832, 1906 so it looks like there could potentially be a unit missing from the schedule.

Only hourly on Saturdays and Sundays at the moment.

Really needs to be increased back to half hourly on Saturdays, as some of those trains do get busy. Especially on the hours that XC terminate at Reading.

 

[JonathanH]

Really needs to be increased back to half hourly on Saturdays, as some of those trains do get busy. Especially on the hours that XC terminate at Reading.

Yes, it is a shame it isn't a route where longer trains can be run as a first step in increasing capacity.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Really needs to be increased back to half hourly on Saturdays, as some of those trains do get busy. Especially on the hours that XC terminate at Reading.

Back to half-hourly on Saturdays from the December timetable change

 

[AlbertBeale]

As has been said before, it may partially replace journeys to Reading General, but Reading West is pretty much inaccessible by car/public transport, journeys from Whitley on the bus into town take an age and there is a huge amount of housing development in the area around Green Park and the A33, perhaps 10k houses in the last 15 to 20 years.
I don't think there are paths beyond Southcote Junction to Reading General because of the relatively frequent freights from Theale up the Berks and Hants, if loops were to be provided just before Southcote Junction at a considerable cost, then maybe it would be possible. Best thing to do would be to electrify Reading (well,actually Southcote Jcn) to Basingstoke and run 8 car Class 387s with Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) systems to be used at the shorter Bramley and Mortimer stations, the latter could be extended with ease; more difficult at the former. Also allows for further growth if the planned station at Chineham just north of Basingstoke opens.

Why would you electrify just Southcote Junction to Basingstoke, if Reading to that junction isn't electrified (on either system)? You mention 387s, as though you want their dual-voltage capacity - but any electrification between Reading and Basingstoke would presumably be by extending the wires down from Reading, not extending the 3rd rail up from Basingstoke? Were you thinking that more frequent Reading-B'stoke services would go further at the Basingstoke end? Or maybe I'm missing the point somewhere!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why would you electrify just Southcote Junction to Basingstoke, if Reading to that junction isn't electrified (on either system)? You mention 387s, as though you want their dual-voltage capacity - but any electrification between Reading and Basingstoke would presumably be by extending the wires down from Reading, not extending the 3rd rail up from Basingstoke? Were you thinking that more frequent Reading-B'stoke services would go further at the Basingstoke end? Or maybe I'm missing the point somewhere!

The Berks and Hants is already electrified from Reading to Newbury and splits from the Basy line at Southcote Jcn. So the section between Southcote Jcn and Reading is already electrified.
This means only roughly 13.75 miles of electrification is needed, as opposed to the 15.5 miles from Reading General to Basy and the most complex parts are already done, it's only a 75mph line throughout, so could be done with headspans and a platform extension.

 

[Snow1964]

117m long in the Wessex sectional appendix. There must be at least 100m usable, only 80m needed.

But it was shortened some years ago, it originally was a through line, now used for car parking and a drop off area, and a bin compound. The other end of the platform and trackbed (Chapel Hill Road end) is still there.

So Basingstoke platform could be restored to take 8 or 12 car class 387s if required (at loss of few parking spaces, and digging out passenger subway extension).

 

[Falcon1200]

Long term, they could reopen the Didcot to Southampton line following the A34, send the Cross Country to Southampton that way and free up those paths from Didcot to Southampton for a limited stop regional service operated by GWR using some sort of Class 769 type unit including RGP and maybe Chineham.

Resurrecting the DN&S would be a lot more than 'reopening'; A brand new line would be required, with grade separated junctions at Didcot (definitely, and a massive job) and Newbury (one, or two, possibly), and would then result in XC services avoiding the major traffic and connectional centre that is Reading (and also Basingstoke). The expense would be incredible.

Having occasionally used the Reading/Basingstoke stoppers, I would agree that a half-hourly service six days a week at least is essential, perhaps with 4 cars at busy times, but cannot envision 8 or 12 car local trains ever becoming necessary.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But it was shortened some years ago, it originally was a through line, now used for car parking and a drop off area, and a bin compound. The other end of the platform and trackbed (Chapel Hill Road end) is still there.

So Basingstoke platform could be restored to take 8 or 12 car class 387s if required (at loss of few parking spaces, and digging out passenger subway extension).

Being Basingstoke, a loss of a few parking spaces is unlikely to go down well and the buildings on the north side will cost a lot to relocate. The platforms could be renovated for 4 car and that will be sufficient for now.
As long as the main platforms are of sufficient length for 10 cars, then it should be fine when XC shortly gets the rest of the 221s off Avanti.
The Man Picc - Bournemouth route is one of their busiest anyway, it certainly wouldn't hurt them to double it up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Sep 2021 ==

Resurrecting the DN&S would be a lot more than 'reopening'; A brand new line would be required, with grade separated junctions at Didcot (definitely, and a massive job) and Newbury (one, or two, possibly), and would then result in XC services avoiding the major traffic and connectional centre that is Reading (and also Basingstoke). The expense would be incredible.

Having occasionally used the Reading/Basingstoke stoppers, I would agree that a half-hourly service six days a week at least is essential, perhaps with 4 cars at busy times, but cannot envision 8 or 12 car local trains ever becoming necessary.

Reading Green Park is getting 10k plus brand new houses in the vicinity, plus a potential 15k home planned new town equidistant to RGP/Mortimer stations at Grazeley/Swallowfield, with another proposed 2 station sites there and at Chineham (massive business park and housing development built right next to the railway about 10 years ago). 8 cars is possible in the distant future, but seems to be unfeasible using Basingstoke platform 5.

Extended XC trains would make sense in the interim, but the DNS would provide a more direct route to Southampton/Winchester and would be about the same time to Reading/Basingstoke with a change at Didcot/Winchester. It would connect Oxford and the western GWML much better, given currently Oxford users heading for Swindon/Wales/Bristol/the SW have to take the slow stopper to Didcot Parkway.

Yes, it would be expensive, but it would be worth it to free up paths for extra stoppers on the Reading to Basingstoke line, capacity between Reading and Didcot/Basingstoke and Winchester on the GWML/SWML and the potential for removing cars from the parallel A34. That's a long term project anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

The platforms could be renovated for 4 car and that will be sufficient for now.

Given the expectations of 769s working Reading to Basingstoke soon the platforms have already been made suitable for 4 car (80m) operation.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yes, it would be expensive, but it would be worth it to free up paths for extra stoppers on the Reading to Basingstoke line, capacity between Reading and Didcot/Basingstoke and Winchester on the GWML/SWML and the potential for removing cars from the parallel A34.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the value of a rebuilt DN&S, a fraction of the money that would require could be spent to far better effect on the existing route, eg electrifying Southcote Jc/Basingstoke at 25kV OLE, for example.

 

[coppercapped]

Being Basingstoke, a loss of a few parking spaces is unlikely to go down well and the buildings on the north side will cost a lot to relocate. The platforms could be renovated for 4 car and that will be sufficient for now.
As long as the main platforms are of sufficient length for 10 cars, then it should be fine when XC shortly gets the rest of the 221s off Avanti.
The Man Picc - Bournemouth route is one of their busiest anyway, it certainly wouldn't hurt them to double it up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Sep 2021 ==


Reading Green Park is getting 10k plus brand new houses in the vicinity, plus a potential 15k home planned new town equidistant to RGP/Mortimer stations at Grazeley/Swallowfield, with another proposed 2 station sites there and at Chineham (massive business park and housing development built right next to the railway about 10 years ago). 8 cars is possible in the distant future, but seems to be unfeasible using Basingstoke platform 5.

Extended XC trains would make sense in the interim, but the DNS would provide a more direct route to Southampton/Winchester and would be about the same time to Reading/Basingstoke with a change at Didcot/Winchester. It would connect Oxford and the western GWML much better, given currently Oxford users heading for Swindon/Wales/Bristol/the SW have to take the slow stopper to Didcot Parkway.

Yes, it would be expensive, but it would be worth it to free up paths for extra stoppers on the Reading to Basingstoke line, capacity between Reading and Didcot/Basingstoke and Winchester on the GWML/SWML and the potential for removing cars from the parallel A34. That's a long term project anyway.

The proponents of HS2 claim that, once HS2 is opened, passengers along the Thames Valley corridor out to and including Reading will chose to reach Birmingham and points north by changing at Old Oak Common. Southampton and other south coast passengers would travel via Waterloo and Euston rather than via Reading.

Although not currently in the action plan, it is entirely possible that trains on the re-opened Oxford - Bletchley - Cambridge line may be extended past Oxford and Didcot to Swindon and Bristol, possibly also South Wales if there is sufficient capacity in the Severn Tunnel.

If all this comes to pass what extra will a rebuilt DN&S offer and how will it compete? Don't forget that long stretches of the route are now under the M3 and A34.

 

[30907]

Extended XC trains would make sense in the interim, but the DNS would provide a more direct route to Southampton/Winchester and would be about the same time to Reading/Basingstoke with a change at Didcot/Winchester.

To add to coppercapped's points. From Oxford and north: Reading 10min extra assuming a dedicated nonstop connection. Basingstoke considerably longer unless you run said dedicated connection all the way. Newbury benefits of course, but there's nowhere en route.

It would connect Oxford and the western GWML much better, given currently Oxford users heading for Swindon/Wales/Bristol/the SW have to take the slow stopper to Didcot Parkway.

About 5min faster.

 

[Bob M]

It would be good if all the XC Reading terminators continued to Basingstoke, to connect with the SWR services there.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be good if all the XC Reading terminators continued to Basingstoke, to connect with the SWR services there.

Whilst that seems a neat idea, it isn't really going to work with crewing patterns or platform / siding capacity which seem easier at Reading.

 

[swt_passenger]

It would be good if all the XC Reading terminators continued to Basingstoke, to connect with the SWR services there.

In the full (pre covid) timetable 75% of the XC service already runs beyond Basingstoke. If the paths and stock were available I expect XC would definitely run all the Reading terminators to Southampton, it fits with previous route strategies etc.

 

[cle]

Did those peak buster Paddington-Reading services ever happen?

If not, I'd think the odd service could be trimmed (a Parkway fast?) to trial a direct Basingstoke - one day if wires are up.

For now, the more realistic options might be a) linespeed increase to 90-100mph, currently 75. Help end to end shuttles and of course XC more, and b) especially in conjunction with (a) - go to 3tph shuttles, the bays are there at Reading, so only Basingstoke would need a quick turn. With wires you could interwork with Newbury shuttles.

I can't see 8 cars being ever needed if it doesn't go to London. But every 20 mins, connecting to fast London and other services at each end? Very appealing.

 

[The Planner]

Did those peak buster Paddington-Reading services ever happen?

If not, I'd think the odd service could be trimmed (a Parkway fast?) to trial a direct Basingstoke - one day if wires are up.

For now, the more realistic options might be a) linespeed increase to 90-100mph, currently 75. Help end to end shuttles and of course XC more, and b) especially in conjunction with (a) - go to 3tph shuttles, the bays are there at Reading, so only Basingstoke would need a quick turn. With wires you could interwork with Newbury shuttles.

I can't see 8 cars being ever needed if it doesn't go to London. But every 20 mins, connecting to fast London and other services at each end? Very appealing.

Your problem down there is signaling unless you are not adding extra stoppers in.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The Berks and Hants is already electrified from Reading to Newbury and splits from the Basy line at Southcote Jcn. So the section between Southcote Jcn and Reading is already electrified.
This means only roughly 13.75 miles of electrification is needed, as opposed to the 15.5 miles from Reading General to Basy and the most complex parts are already done, it's only a 75mph line throughout, so could be done with headspans and a platform extension.

Ah - thanks. Is the Reading-Newbury electrification fairly new? I don't remember wires from when I was last around there some years back; and I've just seen a pic of Reading West with no wires in sight. Was it an add-on to the GWR electrification of recent years? And if so, why Reading-Newbury specifically when other branches off the main line haven't been?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ah - thanks. Is the Reading-Newbury electrification fairly new? I don't remember wires from when I was last around there some years back; and I've just seen a pic of Reading West with no wires in sight. Was it an add-on to the GWR electrification of recent years? And if so, why Reading-Newbury specifically when other branches off the main line haven't been?

A lot of the branch platforms I think are too short for 1 4 car Class 387, it was done at the same time as GWML electrification to enable longer and faster Reading to Newbury locals I think.

Plus you get the additional benefit of making the Paddington to Bedwyn semi-fasts electric till Newbury and the services further west towards Somerset, Devon and Cornwall can change over at Newbury.

 

[cle]

Ah - thanks. Is the Reading-Newbury electrification fairly new? I don't remember wires from when I was last around there some years back; and I've just seen a pic of Reading West with no wires in sight. Was it an add-on to the GWR electrification of recent years? And if so, why Reading-Newbury specifically when other branches off the main line haven't been?

Yes it's new, same initial wave as to Airport Jn - Didcot. Although Newbury was always the end point. There was never a plan to go beyond Newbury, unlike Oxford and Bristol/Wales. It absorbs the shuttle from Newbury too - which is why Basingstoke (same turbos and bays) might have also made sense.

I thought Basingstoke was in some of those initial chats, but I think in conjunction with other projects (Spine or WRATH) which have fizzled.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Given the expectations of 769s working Reading to Basingstoke soon the platforms have already been made suitable for 4 car (80m) operation.

Great, that's fine then.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the value of a rebuilt DN&S, a fraction of the money that would require could be spent to far better effect on the existing route, eg electrifying Southcote Jc/Basingstoke at 25kV OLE, for example.

That should be done anyway - it will be of marginal cost, especially if done with headspans, given the line speed is only 75mph.
I was talking long term - improving Reading to Basingstoke beyond electrification is going to cost a significant amount as well and wouldn't have anyway near the BCR of reopening the DNS.

The proponents of HS2 claim that, once HS2 is opened, passengers along the Thames Valley corridor out to and including Reading will chose to reach Birmingham and points north by changing at Old Oak Common. Southampton and other south coast passengers would travel via Waterloo and Euston rather than via Reading.

Although not currently in the action plan, it is entirely possible that trains on the re-opened Oxford - Bletchley - Cambridge line may be extended past Oxford and Didcot to Swindon and Bristol, possibly also South Wales if there is sufficient capacity in the Severn Tunnel.

If all this comes to pass what extra will a rebuilt DN&S offer and how will it compete? Don't forget that long stretches of the route are now under the M3 and A34.

They are insane then, I have checked the prospective journey times and it is 2hr22 from Southampton Central to Birmingham international direct on Cross Country, the HS2 way it is 1h26mins to Waterloo, plus 20 mins across on the Tube according to TfL's journey planner, plus 38 mins on HS2 to Bham Interchange (their new Bham International stop).

That adds up to 2h24 mins - even with a better tube connection, who in their right mind is going to take 2 changes and more expensive HS2 fares to arrive there within 10 mins of the direct service?
Bham Curzon St may be more worth it, but by only a matter of 20 mins.

As regards to your EWR point, that is certainly something I have heard of, but I understood that there were not sufficient paths on the GWML for that currently.
The rebuilt DNS offers connections at Newbury (a significant flow between Newbury/Didcot/Oxford on the A34) west on to the Berks and Hants, providing a much faster route to Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.
It also offers connections at Whitchurch on to the West of England line, providing Salisbury and the rest of the A303 corridor with a reasonable rail link to the business clusters along the A34 and M4 corridor, many not accessible by public transport. It could reconnect villages like Sutton Scotney and East Ilsley to the network as well and act as a railhead for small towns like Kingsclere - there has been a lot of housebuilding in the area and a lot of these areas will exponentially grow over the new few years.
Plus the freight that could be taken off the SWML/GWML/Reading to Basingstoke towards Bham/Cardiff/Bristol/Glasgow/Manchester is a big potential improvement, if a junction in 4 directions was built at Whitchurch to allow container traffic to head north/west via Salisbury, Westbury and Bristol over lesser used lines.

To add to coppercapped's points. From Oxford and north: Reading 10min extra assuming a dedicated nonstop connection. Basingstoke considerably longer unless you run said dedicated connection all the way. Newbury benefits of course, but there's nowhere en route.

About 5min faster.

Basingstoke would be accessible via an interchange at Whitchurch, it is currently 14 mins between the 2. Assuming an average of a mile a min between Didcot and Whitchurch, it's roughly 25 miles, plus the 14 mins to Bstoke would meet the current 55mins between Oxford and Basingstoke easily.

I agree it is something to look in the long term, maybe 20 to 30 years, but A34 congestion is only going to get worse, road improvements are not electorally palatable and the growth has to be accommodated somehow.