Salisbury to exeter redoubling

[Zoe]

The loop at Tisbury needs to be extended through the station with a restored second platform.

That won't be easy as I believe the land was sold.

 

[lancastrian]

That won't be easy as I believe the land was sold.

Typical short sightedness of politicans at all levels in this country if this is true, also if it hasn't happened in this case.

 

[Chafford1]

Typical short sightedness of politicans at all levels in this country if this is true, also if it hasn't happened in this case.

Probably more the fault of British Rail in the 60s than that of politicians.

The current layout at Tisbury appears to have enough space for a second track, but not a second platform.

The solution would appear to be either:

1) Extended double tracking on each side of the station

or:

2) Double the track where the current station is and build a new station to the west of the current station - no doubt very expensive with car park and access road. Images from 'Google Earth' appear to rule out a station to the east of the current location due to housing.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Close the station?
Sell the land for a few thousand £'s... Been done too often on BR
...To buy it back - will cost an arm & a leg.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Have staggered platforms?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Have facing crossovers & platform 1 signaled both ways.

 

[Chafford1]

Whatever happens elsewhere, there's no chance of Seaton Junction reopening on this line!

[/QUOTE]

And how it was according to Frederick Lea in the early 1960s - Seaton Branch train to the right, Express Dairy siding on the left!

 

[thehstman]

I cant see why they dont extend the services from waterloo-exeter to paignton and plymouth?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I cant see why they dont extend the services from waterloo-exeter to paignton and plymouth?

They did until December 2008; they don't anymore because I think it means they would lose the stock for the hourly service.

 

[Eagle]

I cant see why they dont extend the services from waterloo-exeter to paignton and plymouth?

Simple: there's not enough 159s to do that.

 

[thehstman]

if they dont do the hourly service they can do it?!

 

[OxtedL]

That's what was happening before.

...Where are you going with this?

 

[Uzair]

For Tisbury, could they not adopt the method used at Penryn station on the Falmouth Docks/Maritime Line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penryn_track_diagram_2009.png

 

[MidnightFlyer]

thehstman - yes, but it would be utterly pointless.

 

[Uzair]

I cant see why they dont extend the services from waterloo-exeter to paignton and plymouth?

Apart from the lack of 159's to maintain the hourly service, I believe it is faster to take travel along the Great Western Main Line to Plymouth.

 

[damo2804]

Just to clarify a couple of my points from earlier:

1) I gave the 2 hour 35 mins example to demonstrate the optimum service that would be possible. Obviously intermediate stops should be made at stations like Gillingham Yeovil and Honiton for example as they have high passenger numbers.

2) Reinstating the down platform at Tisbury is easily solved by a useful thing called a compulsory purchase order.

3) My petition now stands at 108 signatures and counting. Not that impressive untill you consider that 3 weeks ago the count was just 33 signatures. I have done a little publicising on Facebook and the numbers have shot up. So the desire for change is out there and I have been much encouraged by this.

4) I hope everyone had a very good Christmas and will have a great 2012

 

[Chafford1]

Just to clarify a couple of my points from earlier:

1) I gave the 2 hour 35 mins example to demonstrate the optimum service that would be possible. Obviously intermediate stops should be made at stations like Gillingham Yeovil and Honiton for example as they have high passenger numbers.

2) Reinstating the down platform at Tisbury is easily solved by a useful thing called a compulsory purchase order.

3) My petition now stands at 108 signatures and counting. Not that impressive untill you consider that 3 weeks ago the count was just 33 signatures. I have done a little publicising on Facebook and the numbers have shot up. So the desire for change is out there and I have been much encouraged by this.

4) I hope everyone had a very good Christmas and will have a great 2012

I'd like to see this happening, but it's a 'nice to have' rather than an essential upgrade, given the alternative routes available to London via Westbury and Bristol. A more realistic and achievable lobbying position would be for (a) extra track around Tisbury (if not at the station itself) to eliminate the delays to services there and (b) more double track between Exeter Central and Honiton so that the Waterloo services can run non-stop between those two stations and that there will be more capacity for freight from the new terminal at Cranbrook.

It took 23 years from when the Tisbury loop was opened in 1986 before further redoubling was implemented at Axminster in 2009 - and will probably take another 10 years before extra track is added at the new station at Cranbrook. So probably not realistic to expect substantial expansion on this line anytime soon.

 

[wheel]

2) Reinstating the down platform at Tisbury is easily solved by a useful thing called a compulsory purchase order.

IIRC when the land was sold off, a clause was put into the sale agreement saying that it wouldnt be possible to buy it back even with a compulsory purchase order.

I have read it somewhere, but I cant find the article again.

I suspect that to enable double track through the station again, that the out of use platform edge will need to be moved back as per what happened at Axminster when that was re-doubled.

 

[Chafford1]

IIRC when the land was sold off, a clause was put into the sale agreement saying that it wouldnt be possible to buy it back even with a compulsory purchase order.

I have read it somewhere, but I cant find the article again.

I suspect that to enable double track through the station again, that the out of use platform edge will need to be moved back as per what happened at Axminster when that was re-doubled.

Even if a compulsory purchase order was possible, you would probably have to relocate the entire industrial estate - given its not inconsiderable size, this would be expensive.

In terms of timetabling, worth looking at Barry Doe's article from 2004 commissioned by Devon County Council on providing an hourly Waterloo -Exeter service, plus an additional Axminster - Shuttle and new station at Broadclyst (now Cranbrooke). A very thorough article which highlights the problem of running decent services over a single track:

http://www.devon.gov.uk/barry_doe.pdf

 

[DavidBrown]

The annoying thing abot redoubling the Pinhoe to Axminster stretch is that it would be remarkably easy to do (in terms of major infrastructure projects) - the bridges, embankments and even the second platform at Feniton are all still there ready and waiting for some track. The biggest costs would come with signalling (obviously), rebuilding the level crossings at Crannaford and Feniton, and most annoyingly rebuilding the M5 bridge, as it is only big enough for one track. That alone will cause massive disruption for both road and rail and cost a bomb, and I suspect is one reason why the redoubling hasn't been done already.

 

[Chafford1]

According to Barry Doe, an additional hourly Axminster - Exeter service needs another 3 mile passing loop from Whimple to the new station at Cranbrook. The proposal was accepted by Devon County Council, agreed by Network Rail and South West Trains ran the timetable through their computers and found it would work. Unfortunately the new service required two extra trains and funding for the new loop was not available.

Avoiding expensive reconstruction of the M5 single track bridge could be achieved by recommencing double track immediately to the east of the bridge. This would only leave a short piece of single track to negotiate between Pinhoe and the M5 bridge.

 

[lancastrian]

Avoiding expensive reconstruction of the M5 single track bridge could be achieved by recommencing double track immediately to the east of the bridge. This would only leave a short piece of single track to negotiate between Pinhoe and the M5 bridge.

That is so typically short sighted by our Government Planners, replacing or building a bridge with only space for a single track to go through, especially over a line that was double track.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. That is true in spades for transport planners all over the country.

 

[damo2804]

That is so typically short sighted by our Government Planners, replacing or building a bridge with only space for a single track to go through, especially over a line that was double track.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. That is true in spades for transport planners all over the country.

I may be wrong but I am 99% sure that if network rail wishes to redouble through here then the highways agency is obliged to reconstruct the M5 bridge at their own expense as the abutments are built on railway land. In fact I believe I read somewhere that they will be more than happy to do so when required.

The annoying thing abot redoubling the Pinhoe to Axminster stretch is that it would be remarkably easy to do (in terms of major infrastructure projects) - the bridges, embankments and even the second platform at Feniton are all still there ready and waiting for some track. The biggest costs would come with signalling (obviously), rebuilding the level crossings at Crannaford and Feniton, and most annoyingly rebuilding the M5 bridge, as it is only big enough for one track. That alone will cause massive disruption for both road and rail and cost a bomb, and I suspect is one reason why the redoubling hasn't been done already.

Dont forget the platform at Whimple would be cutting back to where it was and the down platform reinstating along with a footbridge.

The new signalling currently being installed has been designed with redoubling in mind and would only require the relocation of signals and other equipment. If loops were added or extended extra signalling would be required at greater cost.

As far as I am concerned redoubling of the whole line is also fairly simple as the line is mainly on the up formation from Axminster/Chard Junction to Crewkerne, mainly on the down side between Crewkerne and Yeovil Junction, the Up side through Templecombe to Buckhorn weston tunnel where it takes the centre line through the tunnel and then swaps to the down side and then back to the up side just before Gillingham. From Gillingham to Wilton Junction The single line is mainly located on the down side with brief reallignments to the centre or the up side.

Tisbury would need its down platform rebuilt and a footbridge installed, as would Templecombe (minus footbridge) & Crewkerne would also need similar treatment to Whimple. Feniton would need its up platform rebuilt as well.

Yeovil Junction to Pinhoe should be the priority as this is the main diversionary route for Paddington trains and with double track it could accomodate all of its services which would not have to stop anywhere, as well as the south west trains services. Redoubling of the templecombe to Wilton section should be seen as phase two.

Once complete the major source of delays on the route will have been removed and this will have knock on effects to the weymouth route as any delays on the Exeter line affect trains on this route as paths could be missed east of worting junction. Also it means that the main flaw will be removed in that services will be able to be tailoured to meet public demand rather than the demands of the infrastructure, which should mean the end of waiting around in loops or at Salisbury station for 10 to 15 mins at a time.

 

[paul1609]

I havent been down that way for a couple of years but the former Up line was till then still in situ for 4 or 5 miles where it was used as access to the MOD base at Dinton a couple of miles north of Tisbury. Ive always thought that this would be a relatively cheap dynamic loop if relaid and extended to the existing loop at Tisbury.

 

[Chafford1]

I havent been down that way for a couple of years but the former Up line was till then still in situ for 4 or 5 miles where it was used as access to the MOD base at Dinton a couple of miles north of Tisbury. Ive always thought that this would be a relatively cheap dynamic loop if relaid and extended to the existing loop at Tisbury.

That sounds highly logical and reasonable - new signalling would no doubt be expensive and presumably the track is still largely the pre April 1967 'up-line' which means it and the track bed would likely need extensive replacement/ renewal. I wonder whether Tim Shoveller, the new MD at SW Trains, would be receptive to your idea - he mentioned the Exeter line in his recent on-line 'Rail Professional' interview.

As it is, upgrades for the Salisbury - Exeter line will be limited to the current signalling upgrade scheme and possibly, a small increase in line speeds (from 85 to 90mph) between Worting Junction and Exeter, which would, if taken forward, be funded through Network Rail's Discretionary Fund.

 

[lancastrian]

I may be wrong but I am 99% sure that if network rail wishes to redouble through here then the highways agency is obliged to reconstruct the M5 bridge at their own expense as the abutments are built on railway land. In fact I believe I read somewhere that they will be more than happy to do so when required.

Well it would be brilliant if the Highways Agency would rebuild the bridge for double track, although I have grave doubts if they would ever be happy about it. Proberbly they would try and weasel out of it.

 

[IanXC]

For Tisbury, could they not adopt the method used at Penryn station on the Falmouth Docks/Maritime Line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penryn_track_diagram_2009.png

Malton is another station which operates with 1 platform on a double track route.

I may be wrong but I am 99% sure that if network rail wishes to redouble through here then the highways agency is obliged to reconstruct the M5 bridge at their own expense as the abutments are built on railway land. In fact I believe I read somewhere that they will be more than happy to do so when required.

Thats kind of them isn't it! I fail to see why they would be "more than happy" to spend millions of pounds!

 

[Eagle]

Malton is another station which operates with 1 platform on a double track route.

That's not actually that different to the system in use at Cambridge (pre-7/8), if you think about it.

 

[The Planner]

I may be wrong but I am 99% sure that if network rail wishes to redouble through here then the highways agency is obliged to reconstruct the M5 bridge at their own expense as the abutments are built on railway land. In fact I believe I read somewhere that they will be more than happy to do so when required.

That clause is in pretty much every new road scheme that passes over railway land and has been for some time, I have yet to see evidence of it ever being used though.