Henley-on-Thames every 15 minutes

[cactustwirly]

If only the branch were electrified, then a pair of 387s could be dedicated to the Branch during the regatta, freeing up Turbos for other roles. Suppose the track is slewed at Twyford and the points are moved closer to Henley. In that case, extending the platform to fit a 5- or 6-car turbo might be possible, which would keep its reliability but with extra capacity if electrification doesn't happen.

That's one day in a whole year

 

[zwk500]

Which would be 70-90mph, because the North Downs Line runs to Gatwick Airport.

It most likely means taking the 50/55/60 sections to 70mph, which is the ruling linespeed on the North Downs Line. The services only reach 90mph on the Brighton Mainline. But as the report itself states, it could also be achieved by using a better performing unit without needing to change any linespeeds.

The line speed in the Shalford Junction area is 85mph and 75mph.

Not from the North Downs line it isn't. It's only 85mph south of Shalford Junction, it's 75mph up and 70mph down between Chalk Tunnel and Shalford Junction, and then a 25mph rising to 50mph restriction for the curve towards the NDL itself.
The highest speed for a Reading-Gatwick train through the Guildford area is 40mph and the Blackwater line is a mix of 60 and 70 with some lower PSRs.

Then why have Merseyrail gone for 777s with batteries if it is possible to extend the third rail on what is a grade-separated line?

Read the part about it not being cost-effective to meet the requirements. Merseyrail wanted batteries anyway, why make life harder for themselves? (FWIW, I think Headbolt lane should have had the 3rd rail extended but that's a different issue)

 

[HSTEd]

A minor issue is that 15Xs and 16Xs can't work with one another.

My understanding was that that was due to minor changes in the specification rather than a clean sheet redesign of the multiple working standard.

As such a unit would never have to work with other Sprinters again, it could be modified to be compatible.

 

[BerkshireRails]

It most likely means taking the 50/55/60 sections to 70mph, which is the ruling linespeed on the North Downs Line. The services only reach 90mph on the Brighton Mainline. But as the report itself states, it could also be achieved by using a better performing unit without needing to change any linespeeds.

Not from the North Downs line it isn't. It's only 85mph south of Shalford Junction, it's 75mph up and 70mph down between Chalk Tunnel and Shalford Junction, and then a 25mph rising to 50mph restriction for the curve towards the NDL itself.
The highest speed for a Reading-Gatwick train through the Guildford area is 40mph and the Blackwater line is a mix of 60 and 70 with some lower PSRs.

There is a 40mph PSR in the Wanborough area around a tight curve in the Middle of no where which could and should be realigned with a design speed of 90mph for future proofing. Although it is on the Brighton Mainline it is still part of the North Downs Line service so I would say it count's as the Ruling speed.

My understanding was that that was due to minor changes in the specification rather than a clean sheet redesign of the multiple working standard.

As such a unit would never have to work with other Sprinters again, it could be modified to be compatible.

Or you modify all of the GWR 16Xs to work with the 15X so you can provide better capacity.

 

[zwk500]

There is a 40mph PSR in the Wanborough area around a tight curve in the Middle of no where which could and should be realigned with a design speed of 90mph for future proofing. Although it is on the Brighton Mainline it is still part of the North Downs Line service so I would say it count's as the Ruling speed.

Saying that the ruling speed of the NDL is 90mph because the services run onto the Brighton Line is like trying to claim the Thameslink core is a 125mph route because the services use the ECML.

 

[The Planner]

The passing loop would be around 2 miles long, so it would have the capacity to be used as a dynamic passing loop, and with longer turnaround times, it would help mitigate delays from being unrecoverable.

Too short for a dynamic loop. You would be seeing adverse aspects and not be running at anywhere near linespeed unless it was low.

 

[JonathanH]

There is a 40mph PSR in the Wanborough area around a tight curve in the Middle of no where which could and should be realigned with a design speed of 90mph for future proofing.

That is the site of Ash Junction which was where branch via Tongham left the route to Reading. Reading was the diverging route. It hasn't been realigned in the 60 years since it ceased to be a junction, so I am not sure what would cause a realignment, and the purchase of additional land, now. There is a similar tight curve on the Alton line under the A331.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That's complete and utter fantasy, there is no need for 4tph. Henley is quite a small town

It's a small town, but there is also a lot of school traffic heading for Piggotts, and Twyford is rapidly growing too.
It would be quite a low cost conversion too

It would be better to put the loop in the Wargrave area and have it as a dynamic loop, as it would be halfway through the running time, making it easier to path. It would be really hard to get an attractive 4tph with two bays and Henley and Twyford, as they would have to follow one another on the single line. The units arrive at Henley at XX:27 & XX:57 and depart at XX:00 & XX:30, and arrive at Twyford at XX:12 & XX:42 and depart at XX:15 & XX:45.

Wargrave is a much more expensive location to place a loop in though.
The site of a second Henley line platform at Twyford is already mostly within the railway boundary, and the reinstatement of a second platform at Henley would require minimal encroachment on the adjacent car park.
Wargrave station is sandwiched closely between the Sheeplands Farm fruit polytunnels and expensive residential property, and the line is consistently close to businesses and residential property as far north as Lashbrook House north of the Thames crossing in Shiplake, and pretty much the entire way south into Twyford.

The cheapest option would probably be to get a Turbo or Sprinter retrofitted with a tube interior to add to the train on the Regatta weekend.

Find the least rusted out Class 150?

3 car Sprinter sandwiched between two two car Turbos so no need for traction knowledge

That would be very risky. If your Sprinter decides to fail on the branch, it would be a long wait to rescue it, and it would completely screw service until it could be recovered. Turbos generally have a better record.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Wargrave is a much more expensive location to place a loop in though.
The site of a second Henley line platform at Twyford is already mostly within the railway boundary, and the reinstatement of a second platform at Henley would require minimal encroachment on the adjacent car park.
Wargrave station is sandwiched closely between the Sheeplands Farm fruit polytunnels and expensive residential property, and the line is consistently close to businesses and residential property as far north as Lashbrook House north of the Thames crossing in Shiplake, and pretty much the entire way south into Twyford.

Unless they have sold off the former land of the second track and platform at Wargrave there should be space. In the Worst case a Penryn style layout could be used at Wargrave with both trains using the same platform. Land ownership map which suggests that Network Rail still owns the full formation at Wargrave.
Penryn station

Wargrave Station

 

[AlastairFraser]

Or you modify all of the GWR 16Xs to work with the 15X so you can provide better capacity.

The GWR 15x are based in the South West, so this would be a completely unnecessary expense to convert all of them and drag a few up to Twyford once or twice a year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2025 ==

Unless they have sold off the former land of the second track and platform at Wargrave there should be space. In the Worst case a Penryn style layout could be used at Wargrave with both trains using the same platform. Land ownership map which suggests that Network Rail still owns the full formation at Wargrave.

And what capacity benefits would the Penryn style solution really bring? Let's be honest, it's acceleration and platform capacity we need to focus on, if we want to improve service on the branch line.

 

[Zomboid]

What needs improving? Better acceleration would presumably allow trains to call at Shiplake in both directions, but otherwise how is 2tph all day not meeting the requirements of prospective passengers?

 

[AlastairFraser]

What needs improving? Better acceleration would presumably allow trains to call at Shiplake in both directions, but otherwise how is 2tph all day not meeting the requirements of prospective passengers?

3-4tph would better serve connections from Reading (crucial for schools traffic to Piggotts and the hundreds of students who study at Henley College from central/south/west/east Reading (Caversham students tend to take the bus, but the train is faster for everyone else if the connection is half decent).

 

[Falcon1200]

Having passed through Twyford last Friday I was astonished at the number of people waiting for the Henley service, however for just 3 days a year the investment required to add a loop simply cannot be justified. Non-diesel trains, eventually, of some sort, and strengthened for the Regatta, but nothing more.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The GWR 15x are based in the South West, so this would be a completely unnecessary expense to convert all of them and drag a few up to Twyford once or twice a year.

But there is some Turbos which are based in the South West. It would have a greater benefit for the South West as they would be able to provide greater capacity by running a 165 with a 158.

And what capacity benefits would the Penryn style solution really bring? Let's be honest, it's acceleration and platform capacity we need to focus on, if we want to improve service on the branch line.

It would allow a 3tph service pattern.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Having passed through Twyford last Friday I was astonished at the number of people waiting for the Henley service, however for just 3 days a year the investment required to add a loop simply cannot be justified. Non-diesel trains, eventually, of some sort, and strengthened for the Regatta, but nothing more.

Hence why I suggested platform reinstatement at Twyford and perhaps Henley to provide a lower cost capacity increase, rather than a loop.

But there is some Turbos which are based in the South West. It would have a greater benefit for the South West as they would be able to provide greater capacity by running a 165 with a 158.

The introduction of the 175s means that there is no real benefit in mixing the Turbos with Sprinters in service though. It's easier to keep the Turbos on the Bristol suburban network, which their interiors are designed for and the express Sprinters on the longer distance regional service, which suit their interiors and door layout.

 

[HSTEd]

That would be very risky. If your Sprinter decides to fail on the branch, it would be a long wait to rescue it, and it would completely screw service until it could be recovered. Turbos generally have a better record.

If the Sprinter fails, the Turbos it is coupled to would presumably drag it clear? (As noted the unit would be modified to operate with the Turbos and would only ever be used in the centre of trains)

Only very rarely does a failure of a unit render a train dead and unable to move.
Especially as a three car sprinter is functionally three single car units tied together.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Hence why I suggested platform reinstatement at Twyford and perhaps Henley to provide a lower cost capacity increase, rather than a loop.

You can not get 3tph with your idea due the fact that the Total time spent turning around on the Henley Branch is 12 minutes in an hour and takes 12 minutes to complete a single run on the Branch from Twyford to Henley, it takes another 12 minutes to get back to Twyford, so a total theoretical capacity of 2.5tph. You idea will not be any cheaper, because you still need to add in two sets points, three new signals (two at Henley and one at Twyford), two new platforms, the one at Henley will require a 10-15 metre platform extension to permit seven car turbos in both platforms, however Twyford would be the issue which could only fit four cars. You have to factor in Junction Margins, which will probably be 1 minute, which will eat 4 minutes into your turnaround time, which you can't use, so capacity will drop to 2.3tph.

 

[Falcon1200]

Hence why I suggested platform reinstatement at Twyford and perhaps Henley to provide a lower cost capacity increase, rather than a loop.

That might be a lower, but certainly not a low cost solution! And of course having two trains to operate the service would double Traincrew costs.

 

[BerkshireRails]

That might be a lower, but certainly not a low cost solution! And of course having two trains to operate the service would double Traincrew costs.

They would have the same staffing cost, however the loop provides a greater benefit for the cost as you gain a third train per hour as well as improved turnaround times at Twyford and Henley. Since you have 20 minutes from departure at e.g. Henley to get to Twyford and be ready to head back to Henley. Even if it took an extra 1-2 minutes to run from Henley-Twyford because of the Loop at Wargrave you still have a 6-7 minutes turnaround time at Twyford and Henley.

 

[Bald Rick]

It says 'journey time benefits could be realised with a new traction technology and/or through efficient infrastructure decisions to realise modest line-speed increases'.

Which explicitly states *they don't have a plan for a specific option*. Normally 'modest' increases are achieved through raising PSRs to the ruling line speed.

As @zwk500 says, there isn’t a plan. And what the words ‘efficient infrastructure decisions’ means is that as and when infrastructure falls due for renewal, the opportunity is taken to see what linespeed increases you can get for free. That almost always relates to speeds through junctions, and rarely does it involve stretches of line havign their overall permissible speed lifted.

There is a 40mph PSR in the Wanborough area around a tight curve in the Middle of no where which could and should be realigned with a design speed of 90mph for future proofing.

That is the site of Ash Junction which was where branch via Tongham left the route to Reading. Reading was the diverging route. It hasn't been realigned in the 60 years since it ceased to be a junction, so I am not sure what would cause a realignment, and the purchase of additional land, now. There is a similar tight curve on the Alton line under the A331.

Indeed so. I know that area very well, and have stood many times on the bridge on Pound Farm Lane. To realign for 90mph would need landtake and a new bridge. It would save, perhaps, a minute if the rest of the route was set for 90, and half a minute if the rest remains at 70. You won’t be getting change out of £30m.

For that money you could buy a small fleet of BEMUs for all the Gatwick servcies, they would have higher capacity, and potentially save 5 minutes through better acceleration. Which is the best option for the £30m?

Then why have Merseyrail gone for 777s with batteries if it is possible to extend the third rail on what is a grade-separated line?

Because it was easier.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Indeed so. I know that area very well, and have stood many times on the bridge on Pound Farm Lane. To realign for 90mph would need landtake and a new bridge. It would save, perhaps, a minute if the rest of the route was set for 90, and half a minute if the rest remains at 70. You won’t be getting change out of £30m.

For that money you could buy a small fleet of BEMUs for all the Gatwick servcies, they would have higher capacity, and potentially save 5 minutes through better acceleration. Which is the best option for the £30m?

£30 million at most will get you 3 units, it might get you 4 units with a lot of luck as it is around £2 million per coach, and you will be looking at around 80 metres long units at least with 4 cars. So spending the money on the curve and the new bridge by Wanborough would have other improvements, like more trains would benefit from the time saving. Although you might save 5 minutes from better acceleration on the Downs, you might not be able to give passengers the savings due to other services. You can pass on the 90-second saving to passengers with Wanborough. It would be designed with 90mph running to increase line speed to 90mph from 70mph in the Wanborough area when the Guildford Area Signalling Centre gets transferred to the Basingstoke Rail Operations Centre. Gatwick requires 7 units for the current service and will require at least 20 units in the future.

 

[Bald Rick]

£30 million at most will get you 3 units, it might get you 4 units with a lot of luck as it is around £2 million per coach, and you will be looking at around 80 metres long units at least with 4 cars. So spending the money on the curve and the new bridge by Wanborough would have other improvements, like more trains would benefit from the time saving. Although you might save 5 minutes from better acceleration on the Downs, you might not be able to give passengers the savings due to other services. You can pass on the 90-second saving to passengers with Wanborough. It would be designed with 90mph running to increase line speed to 90mph from 70mph in the Wanborough area when the Guildford Area Signalling Centre gets transferred to the Basingstoke Rail Operations Centre. Gatwick requires 7 units for the current service and will require at least 20 units in the future.

We are way off topic, but sorry this is all nonsense.

 

[BerkshireRails]

We are way off topic, but sorry this is all nonsense.

It isn't nonsense that it costs around £2 million per car. Class 345 costs £2.45 million per car, so even just for the 7-car Henley regatta service would cost 17.15 million to replace at minimum with a new unit if not even more.

 

[Falcon1200]

They would have the same staffing cost,

How? A one-train service requires one crew at any given time. A two-train service, with train 2 departing say Twyford as soon as train 1 has arrived requires two crews!

 

[BerkshireRails]

How? A one-train service requires one crew at any given time. A two-train service, with train 2 departing say Twyford as soon as train 1 has arrived requires two crews!

Because for the loop idea you require two trains for maximum capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

It isn't nonsense that it costs around £2 million per car. Class 345 costs £2.45 million per car, so even just for the 7-car Henley regatta service would cost 17.15 million to replace at minimum with a new unit if not even more.

That is for the most complex train in service in this country.

 

[Benjwri]

Having passed through Twyford last Friday I was astonished at the number of people waiting for the Henley service, however for just 3 days a year the investment required to add a loop simply cannot be justified. Non-diesel trains, eventually, of some sort, and strengthened for the Regatta, but nothing more.

I certainly agree with this. I was there every day last week. Friday was the problem day. Saturday was busier but ran far better thanks to the 7 car train. The only problem here is the classic one that GWR does not have enough trains. It is a solution that is impossible to beat on price, because without using more trains any frequency enhancement would provide no benefit, with capacity being the issue.

Regarding school traffic, I don’t really see how an increased frequency would help it. The services could easily be retuned to better arrive at an optimal time for the schools if they needed. As it is they connect well with existing services on the GWML.

 

[cactustwirly]

I certainly agree with this. I was there every day last week. Friday was the problem day. Saturday was busier but ran far better thanks to the 7 car train. The only problem here is the classic one that GWR does not have enough trains. It is a solution that is impossible to beat on price, because without using more trains any frequency enhancement would provide no benefit, with capacity being the issue.

Regarding school traffic, I don’t really see how an increased frequency would help it. The services could easily be retuned to better arrive at an optimal time for the schools if they needed. As it is they connect well with existing services on the GWML.

It's only Friday and Saturday that's really busy.
Rest of the week a 4 car 165 is sufficient

 

[stevieinselby]

FLIRTs offer a worse capacity for units of similar length than the existing trains.

That's true for pretty much any modern train – and especially if you compare a modern train with 2+2 seating to a 1990s train with 3+2 seating.

 

[Benjwri]

It's only Friday and Saturday that's really busy.
Rest of the week a 4 car 165 is sufficient

Thursday this year wasn’t ideal, queues reached an hour at one point, a 4 car was fine on Wednesday I agree.