GWR Diversions into Marylebone/Waterloo

[Steve14]

I was looking onto RTT and what is proposed seems a bit farfetched so please justify if I mention something wrong:

- Marylebone Diversion: forms a regular Swansea service which goes all the way to Banbury which then reverse down to Oxford. If the line between Bicester and Oxford via Oxford Parkway is clear and open, wouldn't it make sense to bypass Banbury and go straight to Oxford rather than going to Banbury and coming back down?

- Waterloo Diversion: wouldn't the services be better off running directly to Reading rather than going to Basingstoke first and then going back up to Reading and then towards Penzance via Bristol? This could help SWT reduce a service by allocating a path to GWR between Waterloo and Reading?

 

[telstarbox]

The Oxford-Oxford Parkway section doesn't reopen until March.

 

[steamybrian]

Marylebone diversions- The line between Oxford Parkway and Oxford is still continuously closed for engineering works and not expected to open until Spring 2016.
Waterloo diversions- It is doubtful if all the stock used by GWR is permitted between Waterloo and Reading via Ascot ?. Secondly doubtful if GWR train crews have route knowledge via Ascot.?

 

[louis97]

I was looking onto RTT and what is proposed seems a bit farfetched

Firstly, what is on RTT won't be what is proposed. It is in more cases than not what is booked to happen.

- Waterloo Diversion: wouldn't the services be better off running directly to Reading rather than going to Basingstoke first and then going back up to Reading and then towards Penzance via Bristol? This could help SWT reduce a service by allocating a path to GWR between Waterloo and Reading?

Line capacity on the route via Staines into London is somewhat limited, and during this type of disruption you want to keep the available capacity between London and Reading as high as possible. SWT are running extra services between Reading and London. If they gave up two of their paths for FGW services this would mean two less services an hour between Reading and London. FGW still need to serve stations on the Berks and Hants, so having 1 train an hour into Waterloo via Bristol would not fulfil this. The route via Basingstoke is quicker than going via Staines too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo diversions- It is doubtful if all the stock used by GWR is permitted between Waterloo and Reading via Ascot ?. Secondly doubtful if GWR train crews have route knowledge via Ascot.?

Only the HSTs divert to Waterloo which are allowed via both Basingstoke and Ascot, providing the right MK3s with the correct bogies are used. Route Knowledge isn't an issue if they are being conducted into Waterloo anyway - I have a feeling Reading Senior Conductors might know into Waterloo from Basingstoke mind.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was a period when the engineering access statement DID show HSTs diverting via Ascot to Waterloo, but eventually it came up as via Basingstoke. The problem with the Ascot route is that there are a number of platform edges that require very serious speed restrictions for all Mk3 stock, in the order of 15 mph through a number of stations and completely banned from the UP side through Ascot for example.

Class 43 power cars have even more onerous restrictions:
10mph Twickenham Down platform
10mph Whitton Down platform
20mph Feltham Down platform
20mph Virginia Water Down platform
20mph Egham Down platform
15mph Sunningdale Down platform
20mph Ascot Down platform
Prohibited Ascot Up line
5mph Bracknell Up and Down platforms

Source: Sept 2015 public online sectional appendix

All that would probably be enough to wreck the proposed timetable. It is presumably far better for overall passenger capacity to run via Basingstoke and double up the existing SWT Reading service (as has been discussed in another recent thread).

In a change to earlier blockades of Reading itself, there are now 2 GW services into Waterloo per hour, this has resulted in one of the West of England SWT services being cut back to Basingstoke to provide the second path.

This could help SWT reduce a service by allocating a path to GWR between Waterloo and Reading?

Your proposal, as I understand it, would therefore achieve 2 tph to Reading from Waterloo, one 458 and one HST? Whereas what they end up with is 6 tph...

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

This may have already been thought of, but could the GWR stuff go into the former international terminal at Waterloo? As far as I know, the track and points are operational

 

[swt_passenger]

This may have already been thought of, but could the GWR stuff go into the former international terminal at Waterloo? As far as I know, the track and points are operational

No point really. Approaching on the up main they are on the wrong side of the layout to reach the international platforms, line 5 of 8, so they slot them in to the middle of the station in amongst the mainline services, platforms 11 and 12 (on the Monday). These diversions are running on a day when only the Saturday service is running, and they only have to add one extra train, because as said earlier one HST replaces a Salisbury service.

Even when they did run via the Windsor side, during the first Reading blockade, they still used normal platforms as there was enough capacity anyway.

 

[306024]

I was looking onto RTT and what is proposed seems a bit farfetched so please justify if I mention something wrong:

- Marylebone Diversion: forms a regular Swansea service which goes all the way to Banbury which then reverse down to Oxford. If the line between Bicester and Oxford via Oxford Parkway is clear and open, wouldn't it make sense to bypass Banbury and go straight to Oxford rather than going to Banbury and coming back down?

- Waterloo Diversion: wouldn't the services be better off running directly to Reading rather than going to Basingstoke first and then going back up to Reading and then towards Penzance via Bristol? This could help SWT reduce a service by allocating a path to GWR between Waterloo and Reading?

I would like to think the professional planners will have evaluated all the options and decided on the best plan after taking account of everything. Usually there is a good reason why something isn't done, even if it may not appear obvious to the untrained eye.

Don't worry though, your first suggestion of planning trains through a possession is a schoolboy error that many professional planners have done in the past as well.

 

[The Planner]

Surely a rite of passage, unfortunately our lot have no excuse anymore as the possessions are on the graph!

 

[HeelBurton]

This may have already been thought of, but could the GWR stuff go into the former international terminal at Waterloo? As far as I know, the track and points are operational

Diesel trains not permitted into WITT because of the roof.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

But they have been there before

 

[NSEFAN]

The Penzance/Plymouth services from Waterloo would have gone via Twickenham, however they aren't because of the rugby, I believe.

Anyone who likes semaphore signals, I recommend that you get pictures at Banbury of HSTs passing the south signal box. The boxes there will be closing fairly soon.

 

[HeelBurton]

But they have been there before

This could be the case but when we was briefed on WITT we was told diesels were not permitted in there because of the roof. One of the reasons Salisbury never learnt the WITT as that's all they drive (for the moment....)

 

[Mag_seven]

I was looking onto RTT and what is proposed seems a bit farfetched so please justify if I mention something wrong:

- Marylebone Diversion: forms a regular Swansea service which goes all the way to Banbury which then reverse down to Oxford. If the line between Bicester and Oxford via Oxford Parkway is clear and open, wouldn't it make sense to bypass Banbury and go straight to Oxford rather than going to Banbury and coming back down?

- Waterloo Diversion: wouldn't the services be better off running directly to Reading rather than going to Basingstoke first and then going back up to Reading and then towards Penzance via Bristol? This could help SWT reduce a service by allocating a path to GWR between Waterloo and Reading?

Just be grateful they are diverting, rather than dumping everyone from Reading and west thereof on to a rail replacement bus at Slough.

 

[221129]

I was looking onto RTT and what is proposed seems a bit farfetched so please justify if I mention something wrong:

- Marylebone Diversion: forms a regular Swansea service which goes all the way to Banbury which then reverse down to Oxford. If the line between Bicester and Oxford via Oxford Parkway is clear and open, wouldn't it make sense to bypass Banbury and go straight to Oxford rather than going to Banbury and coming back down?

I believe they have to go via Banbury even if the Oxford Link was open due to taking a Chiltern path as they are calling there this time.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Penzance/Plymouth services from Waterloo would have gone via Twickenham, however they aren't because of the rugby, I believe.

Why would they have bothered going via Twickenham? Only the first diversions up the main line went off at Byfleet, via Chertsey, and only because they were not cleared through the direct route via Wimbledon at that time; subsequent diversions have stayed on the main line.

 

[tcm1106]

Diversions via Banbury are all being route conducted by FLHH drivers. So much so that almost all FLHH resources are being consumed by this. As such, engineering trains for Crossrail/Western works are being supplied by other hauliers.

 

[NSEFAN]

Why would they have bothered going via Twickenham? Only the first diversions up the main line went off at Byfleet, via Chertsey, and only because they were not cleared through the direct route via Wimbledon at that time; subsequent diversions stayed on the main line.

It'd saved reversing at Basingstoke and Reading, going via Twickenham and Wokingham. Of course, thanks to the higher linespeeds via the SWML it may not actually be that much quicker to go via Twickenham and Woking if the timetabling was such that HSTs just end up stuck behind the SWT local services.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

The timings between Basing & Waterloo are desperately slack, if they go charging up the mainline like they did last time, all they ever did was get stopped at Woking Jn, because Woking box work (with the odd exception) like a bunch of automatons.

IIRC all they needed to achieve between Basing & Brookwood was something like 75-80 mph, to get a clean run through Woking, working it out is NOT rocket science for crying out loud! :roll:

And AFAIA, HSTs have never been in WIT (20-24), the highest numbered platforms they were cleared for was 19 and that was for the ill fated Eurostar link services, the 5H17 mats are down in platforms 10-12 at Waterloo in readiness.

 

[swt_passenger]

It'd saved reversing at Basingstoke and Reading, going via Twickenham and Wokingham. Of course, thanks to the higher linespeeds via the SWML it may not actually be that much quicker to go via Twickenham and Woking if the timetabling was such that HSTs just end up stuck behind the SWT local services.

Going via Twickenham and Wokingham also brings in all the restrictions I listed in post #5, including having to cross over to the down line through Ascot in the up direction. It cannot really be any easier to go via Wokingham, surely?

 

[PeterY]

I had a nice ride around today. starting at Watford Jnt, Marylebone for the 9.32 to Oxford. Oxford to Reading and then Reading to Waterloo via Basingstoke.

The trains weren't quite as busy as I'd imagined them to be.

 

[Kite159]

I had a nice ride around today. starting at Watford Jnt, Marylebone for the 9.32 to Oxford. Oxford to Reading and then Reading to Waterloo via Basingstoke.

The trains weren't quite as busy as I'd imagined them to be.

I saw the 16:32 from Marylebone to Swansea depart and moderate loadings on departure (quite a few seat reservation labels out, but they might have been for later on in the trip).

Some fast turnarounds at Waterloo due to the cancellations/delays.

 

[fgwrich]

The timings between Basing & Waterloo are desperately slack, if they go charging up the mainline like they did last time, all they ever did was get stopped at Woking Jn, because Woking box work (with the odd exception) like a bunch of automatons.

IIRC all they needed to achieve between Basing & Brookwood was something like 75-80 mph, to get a clean run through Woking, working it out is NOT rocket science for crying out loud! :roll:

And AFAIA, HSTs have never been in WIT (20-24), the highest numbered platforms they were cleared for was 19 and that was for the ill fated Eurostar link services, the 5H17 mats are down in platforms 10-12 at Waterloo in readiness.

Indeed the journey's I made today on the HSTs between Waterloo and Basingstoke (I made two!) all arrived into Basingstoke on time, both held outside Bas for a platform to clear. Both stormed up & down the fasts. Smoothest rolling stock I've been on along that route for a good few years!

 

[NSEFAN]

Went out on these yesterday evening, having attempted to photograph them in the miserable light around London. Will be heading out again today given that we're due to have some sunshine.

The departures from Waterloo seemed to lose a minute between Waterloo and Clapham like clockwork, whilst those coming from Basingstoke would typically gain a couple of minutes around Pirbright Junction. Given how many diversions have been using the mainline to Waterloo, it does seem a bit odd for these sorts of quirks to be in the schedules. I'm sure the large dwell times at Reading and Basingstoke helped keep things on time, though!

A nice way of doing a round trip is with a London Terminals - Oxford CDS, which is valid on the direct services from Marylebone and also the Waterloo - Reading via Basingstoke services.

 

[Phil.]

But they have been there before

If you're thinking of the short-lived service during 1994/5 they used platform 19.