Salisbury - Exeter punctuality improvements?

[The Ham]

Though whether there's any need for such a train is another matter.

It depends on the time over which you are looking, with 2% growth year on year you'd be carrying double the passengers within 35 years.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Would it not be better to use the Network Rail plan for WofE track enhancements such as the Cranbrook loop and Tisbury Loop as your starting point rather than target areas of the route which have a less benfits to reliability of the Line? I know rolling stock is a diffrent question however there needs to be decent size fleet of units to replace 39 strong fleet of the SWR 158s and 159s on WofE and Romsey Rocket. Network Rail WofE plan

 

[The Ham]

Would it not be better to use the Network Rail plan for WofE track enhancements such as the Cranbrook loop and Tisbury Loop as your starting point rather than target areas of the route which have a less benfits to reliability of the Line? I know rolling stock is a diffrent question however there needs to be decent size fleet of units to replace 39 strong fleet of the SWR 158s and 159s on WofE and Romsey Rocket. Network Rail WofE plan

One of the things which stood out was:

In addition to these packages, it is recognised that demand on the eastern end of the West of England Line may require an additional London Waterloo to Salisbury services to address overcrowding. There is potential for this to be provided by one of the services unlocked by the WACE project in the Woking area, subject to a funding decision. To take advantage of the WACE scheme there will be the need for further investigation of the interactions at Salisbury as there may be platform capacity constraints when terminating another service at Salisbury. Alternatively, to the third service to Salisbury, the implementation of new rolling stock through the next franchise offers the opportunity to lengthen some services that cannot be extended using the current fleet.

Which would at least imply that at the time of the report (as it was published in 2020 so I would imagine that a lot of it pre dates COVID) there was a need for extra passenger capacity.

Which may have reduced since this report was being worked on, however does show that we could get to such a situation again.

Noting the issue with capacity at Salisbury to turn trains around, there could be three options.

Turn trains around at (say) Andover. This could mean additional stops easy of Basingstoke to make the service viable, however to keep it attractive it could be a good candidate for running as a battery train (as the round trip is about 63km) which could provide speed and acceleration improvements compared to running as a DMU so (for example) adding an extra stop at a station like Farnborough or Brookwood may not slow the headline journey time to London down.

Look at further infrastructure works at Salisbury to facilitate the reversal.

Look at further infrastructure works to allow a reversal further west than Salisbury.

 

[Kite159]

There's no point in running a fast service to Exeter, the demand to Exeter from beyond Honiton is pretty small. I'd support running the Okehampton and Barnstaple services through Exeter, so 1tph Okehampton to Honiton and 1tph Barnstaple to London.

Still got a fair few passengers who go the whole way to Exeter from Salisbury & before, probably hidden by ticket splitting if they are going beyond Exeter (ie splitting at Axminster).

Barnstaple to London will just be asking for trouble. As is turning trains at Andover from London.

-----

Platform space at Salisbury could be resolved in parts by upgrading the signalling to allow platform 5 to be used by departing trains (useful for GWR services which spin at Salisbury), and maybe even upgrading the reception road/platform 1 to passenger standards

 

[The exile]

One of the things which stood out was:



Which would at least imply that at the time of the report (as it was published in 2020 so I would imagine that a lot of it pre dates COVID) there was a need for extra passenger capacity.

Which may have reduced since this report was being worked on, however does show that we could get to such a situation again.

Noting the issue with capacity at Salisbury to turn trains around, there could be three options.

Turn trains around at (say) Andover. This could mean additional stops easy of Basingstoke to make the service viable, however to keep it attractive it could be a good candidate for running as a battery train (as the round trip is about 63km) which could provide speed and acceleration improvements compared to running as a DMU so (for example) adding an extra stop at a station like Farnborough or Brookwood may not slow the headline journey time to London down.

Look at further infrastructure works at Salisbury to facilitate the reversal.

Look at further infrastructure works to allow a reversal further west than Salisbury.

Or, shock horror, break a few artificial regional boundaries that have survived into the TOC era and combine them with the aspirations for a regular Swindon - Salisbury service. Obviously no one is going to do the whole Swindon - London journey that way, but it may solve the problem of how to cope with terminating 2 additional services at Salisbury (and provide something to stop at Wilton)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2025 ==

There's no point in running a fast service to Exeter, the demand to Exeter from beyond Honiton is pretty small.

What are loadings like approaching Honiton from the east or departing to the east? They’ve always seemed respectable when I’ve been there.

 

[devon_belle]

What are loadings like approaching Honiton from the east or departing to the east? They’ve always seemed respectable when I’ve been there.

I have only anecdata, but I agree. I feel many people from Exeter are going to Salisbury to change for Portsmouth, Brighton, and other places in the Network Railcard area, rather than up to London. It probably doesn't measure up with Honiton etc to Exeter in numbers, but the tickets are much more expensive. My memory is hazy, but the Saturday Exeter-Brighton trains used to be a quite busy 2-car train on that end of the line? That would be more than 15 years ago too.

 

[Brubulus]

I have only anecdata, but I agree. I feel many people from Exeter are going to Salisbury to change for Portsmouth, Brighton, and other places in the Network Railcard area, rather than up to London. It probably doesn't measure up with Honiton etc to Exeter in numbers, but the tickets are much more expensive. My memory is hazy, but the Saturday Exeter-Brighton trains used to be a quite busy 2-car train on that end of the line? That would be more than 15 years ago too.

I'm more trying to say that running a second commuter service beyond Honiton, is unlikely to be particularly full. While trains are well loaded at Honiton, most passengers are travelling longer distances, to Yeovil, Salisbury and London.

 

[martin butler]

At some point, the 159's and 158's are going to need to be changed, now, longer term, the best option has to be to electrify the route and have dual voltage units, that can operate on both 3rd rail, and overhead, this would also increase the operational flexibility of stock, Longer term, the 444, will also need to be uprated, These are a stock Siemens design, that run on OH, in Europe, So could these be reworked to run on OH,? It would mean that services where there is over loading, could run as either 5, or 10 CARS, and then the class could be cascaded onto the West of england services, short term, could voyagers be a temporarily solution, as a stop gap if Electrification can't be justified

 

[devon_belle]

I'm more trying to say that running a second commuter service beyond Honiton, is unlikely to be particularly full. While trains are well loaded at Honiton, most passengers are travelling longer distances, to Yeovil, Salisbury and London.

Ah, I see now. I would say I agree, except to extend that to Axminster. I think 2 tph Yeovil to London (one from Exeter) and 1-2 tph Exeter to Axminster (GWR) would serve the line well for a good few years to come.

 

[Brubulus]

Ah, I see now. I would say I agree, except to extend that to Axminster. I think 2 tph Yeovil to London (one from Exeter) and 1-2 tph Exeter to Axminster (GWR) would serve the line well for a good few years to come.

If you're going to run a second train to Yeovil and a second train from Axminster, you might as well just have 2tph to London from Exeter, much more useful. The good thing about running from Honiton is you only need one unit. It's an effective doubling of costs to run from Axminster.

 

[Zomboid]

If you're going to run a second train to Yeovil and a second train from Axminster, you might as well just have 2tph to London from Exeter, much more useful. The good thing about running from Honiton is you only need one unit. It's an effective doubling of costs to run from Axminster.

That depends on what happens at the other end. Axminster to Okehampton or similar would just create an increased risk of delay if it went to London, but if it is just to Exeter then I agree, might as well just do 2tph Exeter to London.

 

[The exile]

I'm more trying to say that running a second commuter service beyond Honiton, is unlikely to be particularly full. While trains are well loaded at Honiton, most passengers are travelling longer distances, to Yeovil, Salisbury and London.

Ah right, that makes it a lot clearer and I’d tend to agree (though what a second one to Axminster would do for the figures over the long term would be interesting).

 

[Zomboid]

At some point, the 159's and 158's are going to need to be changed, now, longer term, the best option has to be to electrify the route and have dual voltage units, that can operate on both 3rd rail, and overhead, this would also increase the operational flexibility of stock, Longer term, the 444, will also need to be uprated, These are a stock Siemens design, that run on OH, in Europe, So could these be reworked to run on OH,? It would mean that services where there is over loading, could run as either 5, or 10 CARS, and then the class could be cascaded onto the West of england services, short term, could voyagers be a temporarily solution, as a stop gap if Electrification can't be justified

It's probably technically possible, but would be expensive and would just move the problem since the 444s aren't sitting idle at the moment. It'd mean new trains for Weymouth, in which case you might as well buy new for Exeter and afford a costly and complicated retrofit.

 

[devon_belle]

Long term, I'd like to see Barnstaple, Okehampton and Taunton trains run through to Axminster. I think this would need interventions at Exeter Central to avoid sending trains up the bank while the platform is occupied (which isn't allowed). Something like re-instating the up through line with scissors, or even building a platform adjacent to that to provide 5 through lines. I think its an internal GWR ambition to do something like that, but there aren't any official plans AFAIK. Given the desire to provide 2 tph to Barnstaple, for the sake of resilience (I remember the original topic, I promise!) doubling throughout to Axminster would probably be needed. In that case, one could argue whether the money would be better spent doubling the Exmouth branch...

But back to reality, I think the Devon Metro plan is (rightly) to run trains from Barnstaple–Axminster? I guess that is only 1 tph – I wonder how the second tph that is desired would fit in. I can't remember if Taunton-Wellington-Cullompton-etc trains were ever touted to go to Axminster, or if that was just a crayonism on this forum. I guess that to commit to anything beyond 1 tph to Axminster would mean committing to funding some major enhancements to the single line section. I struggle to see how a resilient London service, which we do not have at present, can be provided as well as extra stopping trains without doubling nearly all of that section, as well as the various enhancements around Yeovil, Templecombe, and Tisbury mentioned upthread.

 

[BerkshireRails]

At some point, the 159's and 158's are going to need to be changed, now, longer term, the best option has to be to electrify the route and have dual voltage units, that can operate on both 3rd rail, and overhead, this would also increase the operational flexibility of stock, Longer term, the 444, will also need to be uprated, These are a stock Siemens design, that run on OH, in Europe, So could these be reworked to run on OH,? It would mean that services where there is over loading, could run as either 5, or 10 CARS, and then the class could be cascaded onto the West of england services, short term, could voyagers be a temporarily solution, as a stop gap if Electrification can't be justified

I would be tempted to say they could make use of the 37-strong fleet of 350/2s and modify them for WofE services or order new units like the Desrio Verve. There should be no reason why WofE can't support 23m long vehicles, as the existing services are operated by 23m long vehicles, which means a 10x23m car train will have a similar length to a 12x20m car train. Voyagers aren't really a good option for WofE due to their low capacity; for example, a three-coach 159 South Western Turbo and a four-coach 220 Voyager have only a 5-seat difference between the two, despite the 220 being 23+ metres longer. The Voyager has 174 seats and the South Western Turbo has 169 seats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2025 ==

Turn trains around at (say) Andover. This could mean additional stops easy of Basingstoke to make the service viable, however to keep it attractive it could be a good candidate for running as a battery train (as the round trip is about 63km) which could provide speed and acceleration improvements compared to running as a DMU so (for example) adding an extra stop at a station like Farnborough or Brookwood may not slow the headline journey time to London down.

Those services to Andover could be extensions of the Basingstoke stoppers, which are 2Ls, and the existing WofE services are 1Ls, using either OLE between Basingstoke and Salisbury as part of an AC route from GWML to Southampton, or modifying the 350/2s and 450s for battery traction. Also, another advantage is that the 350s & 450s are able to take advantage of the SWML 100mph limit between Worting Junction and Byfleet & New Haw. Eversholt says the 158/159s can do 0.8ms-2, and a 450 does 1ms-2. A 450 will be able to maintain the higher acceleration rate for longer due to being an electric drive rather than a Hydraulic drive on the 158s and 159s.

 

[Brubulus]

I would be tempted to say they could make use of the 37-strong fleet of 350/2s and modify them for WofE services or order new units like the Desrio Verve. There should be no reason why WofE can't support 23m long vehicles, as the existing services are operated by 23m long vehicles, which means a 10x23m car train will have a similar length to a 12x20m car train. Voyagers aren't really a good option for WofE due to their low capacity; for example, a three-coach 159 South Western Turbo and a four-coach 220 Voyager have only a 5-seat difference between the two, despite the 220 being 23+ metres longer. The Voyager has 174 seats and the South Western Turbo has 169 seats.

I'd be tempted to order a FLIRT fleet for SWR and GWR. The WofE line is one of the worst candidates for batteries, given the distance from Basingstoke to Exeter. Secondly the SWR diesel fleet is pretty small and a single fleet for regional and local services in the west is a good idea. The size of the order would also ameliorate one of the primary issues with flirts(and other low floor units), which is the need for depot rebuilds.
6 car FLIRTs could work for Portsmouth-Cardiff and WofE, while 3 and 4 car units could work the regional services.

Secondly GWR can't order Civities if they want to replace their 150s, since some branch lines require 20M units. Though the 230s give some flexibility in that respect, but it's not a particularly good long-term solution.

 

[Zomboid]

be tempted to order a FLIRT fleet for SWR and GWR. The WofE line is one of the worst candidates for batteries, given the distance from Basingstoke to Exeter

I've long thought that 25kV from Reading to Southampton via Andover is the answer for electric freight, and once you've got that far it's not such a daunting gap for batteries. Electrify from there to Gillingham and from Exeter to Honiton and that's probably a sensible gap to deal with on battery. If Basingstoke to Salisbury remains unelectrified, then Salisbury to Yeovil and a bit at the Exeter end would probably be sufficient. The Exeter end helping with the GWR services around there, too.

 

[The Ham]

At some point, the 159's and 158's are going to need to be changed, now, longer term, the best option has to be to electrify the route and have dual voltage units, that can operate on both 3rd rail, and overhead, this would also increase the operational flexibility of stock, Longer term, the 444, will also need to be uprated, These are a stock Siemens design, that run on OH, in Europe, So could these be reworked to run on OH,? It would mean that services where there is over loading, could run as either 5, or 10 CARS, and then the class could be cascaded onto the West of england services, short term, could voyagers be a temporarily solution, as a stop gap if Electrification can't be justified

Voyagers, if reformed to be 10 coach trains could nearly match a 9 coach 159 train.

I've previously suggested that you could run such a train every 2 hours (as the existing Exeter service) and then have a cross platform change at Yeovil from a diesel service from Exeter to a battery service (probably needs some additional electrification) to Waterloo.

The better acceleration of the battery unit would likely cut the journey time enough to offset the delay from the change.

 

[geoffk]

It might turn out to be, but if I'm remembering right about not being able to pass GWR trains at Honiton then solving that as well has extra benefits.

The basic hourly service doesn't require trains to pass at Honiton so trains use the down platform in both directions - except when the down train is late and the crossing takes place there instead of at Pinhoe, to avoid delaying the up train. Platforms at Whimple, Crewkerne and Templecombe have been built out across the empty track bed.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The basic hourly service doesn't require trains to pass at Honiton so trains use the down platform in both directions - except when the down train is late and the crossing takes place there instead of at Pinhoe, to avoid delaying the up train. Platforms at Whimple, Crewkerne and Templecombe have been built out across the empty track bed.

A three-car 159 and 4 four-car 220 only have the difference of 5 seats. Don't forget some WofE services run as 10 cars between London Waterloo and Salisbury, with the rear being detached due to the maximum length of SWR trains being six cars between Salisbury and Exeter.

Would it not be better to install the GWR Fast Charging tech to save a change of train?

They are looking at installing a loop at Cranbrook, which could reduce the delay the down train gets by allowing it to get 15 minutes closer to Pinhoe than Honiton. Cranbrook is around 5 minutes from Pinhoe, and Honiton is 20 minutes from Pinhoe.

 

[Mag_seven]

We seem to be straying away from the topic of this thread, which is how to improve punctuality on the Salisbury to Exeter route. Can we get back on topic, please.

Thanks

Edit: Some posts have been moved to the following thread:

Potential new rolling stock for GW Thames Valley Branches?xeter punctuality improvements?

I'd be tempted to order a FLIRT fleet for SWR and GWR. The WofE line is one of the worst candidates for batteries, given the distance from Basingstoke to Exeter. Secondly the SWR diesel fleet is pretty small and a single fleet for regional and local services in the west is a good idea. The size...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[BerkshireRails]

Would the removal of calls at Clapham Junction improve WofE punctuality?

 

[brad465]

Would the removal of calls at Clapham Junction improve WofE punctuality?

They are already removed from most peak time WofE services in the main peak flow; they are typically fast between Waterloo and Basingstoke (Woking is also skipped in the peak).

 

[Haywain]

Would the removal of calls at Clapham Junction improve WofE punctuality?

I don't think so, not to a worthwhile extent. That would have minimal impact on the delays incurred on the single line sections.

 

[Zomboid]

There's no shortcut, the line needs more double track. The only question is which bits need doubling. And I think we've had just about the whole lot suggested already!

 

[BerkshireRails]

There's no shortcut, the line needs more double track. The only question is which bits need doubling. And I think we've had just about the whole lot suggested already!

Network Rail suggests;
New 6km Loop at Cranbrook,
Honiton Country end Loop extension to 3.9km past the platforms,
Axminster London end Loop extension to 142 milepost,
Yeovil Junction double track extended by 1 mile at the Country end,
Tisbury Loop is extended by 5.5km in the country direction, which will see an extra platform at Tisbury on the Down Exeter, with the Up Exeter using the existing platform.

 

[brad465]

Network Rail suggests;
New 6km Loop at Cranbrook,
Honiton Country end Loop extension to 3.9km past the platforms,
Axminster London end Loop extension to 142 milepost,
Yeovil Junction double track extended by 1 mile at the Country end,
Tisbury Loop is extended by 5.5km in the country direction, which will see an extra platform at Tisbury on the Down Exeter, with the Up Exeter using the existing platform.

If these two were ever pursued they might as well have one long dynamic loop connecting both areas. If Cranbrook is at the centre of that proposed loop, there would only be 4.3 miles (7km) of single track between there and the proposed Honiton loop extension.

Likewise with the proposed Axminster loop extension; I can't find the distance between there and Chard Junction, but extending the loop 2 miles towards the latter and there cannot be much between there and the CJ loop.

 

[martin butler]

That there has had to be a program of limited redoubling, to keep the line to a reasonable standard service wise, goes to show how short sighted the original decision was to single the line west of Salisbury weas in the first place, the closure of an alternative route to Plymouth also given the fragileness of the line to storm disruption at Dawlish has been, shown to have in my view been a mistake. Had the line not been singled, and kept open all the way to Plymouth, then the regular disruption would at least have been avoided.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

If these two were ever pursued they might as well have one long dynamic loop connecting both areas. If Cranbrook is at the centre of that proposed loop, there would only be 4.3 miles (7km) of single track between there and the proposed Honiton loop extension.

Likewise with the proposed Axminster loop extension; I can't find the distance between there and Chard Junction, but extending the loop 2 miles towards the latter and there cannot be much between there and the CJ loop.

Instead of faffing around with extra pointwork and complex signalling alterations, I feel it would be far simpler and cheaper to just double between existing loops. So Honiton - Axminster, Chard Jcn. - Yeovil Jcn., Tisbury - Wilton South.

 

[BerkshireRails]

If these two were ever pursued they might as well have one long dynamic loop connecting both areas. If Cranbrook is at the centre of that proposed loop, there would only be 4.3 miles (7km) of single track between there and the proposed Honiton loop extension.

Likewise with the proposed Axminster loop extension; I can't find the distance between there and Chard Junction, but extending the loop 2 miles towards the latter and there cannot be much between there and the CJ loop.

That wouldn't be a bad idea to have one long dynamic loop.

Chard Loop sits at 139 miles 48 chains according to the Sectional Appendix.

That there has had to be a program of limited redoubling, to keep the line to a reasonable standard service wise, goes to show how short sighted the original decision was to single the line west of Salisbury weas in the first place, the closure of an alternative route to Plymouth also given the fragileness of the line to storm disruption at Dawlish has been, shown to have in my view been a mistake. Had the line not been singled, and kept open all the way to Plymouth, then the regular disruption would at least have been avoided.

It is to allow a more reliable SWR WofE service, plus Devon Metro between Exeter and Yeovil, as well as a diversionary route for GWR IETs.

Instead of faffing around with extra pointwork and complex signalling alterations, I feel it would be far simpler and cheaper to just double between existing loops. So Honiton - Axminster, Chard Jcn. - Yeovil Jcn., Tisbury - Wilton South.

You have to redo the points at Chard Junction as they are only designed for 25mph. Tisbury really needs to be doubled to the station at a minimum so that both trains can do their station duties and be clear of the single line.