Great Western Coffee Shop

Seeing engineering diversions because of Whiteball tunnel (and other diversions at times too) and hearing about line and service capacity issues on "The Mule" from Exeter to Salisbury - issues with Devon Metro and how far east it can go, and seeing suggestions of running 2 trains per hour from Salisbury to Yeovil ... can someone (and I suspect we have a member or two who know this really well!) fill us in on what can run on "The Mule" and what is an overload.


I suppose the operational points (at which trains can turn around and / or branch off) are ...

Exeter St David's
Exeter Central
St Jame's Park
Exmouth Junction
Honiton
Axminster
Yeovil Junction
Salisbury

From my years of living and working in Africa, that is a lightly loaded mule - I am sad to say.

You could add Chard Junction as a turnaround location, but as there is no station there (currently) it would mostly be empty stock movements, but the signalling does allow reversal of passenger movements if required.  The current signalling also allows reversals in both directions at Crewekerne.

In a former role we once looked at redoubling much more of the line or providing additional loops (one in particular in the Crannaford area) and additional intermediate signals.  Think I still have a copy of the feasibility report in my archive (garage).  Looking back that was in 1995, so nothing new then...... ::)

Thank you. Now would your former role and expertise be able to help clarify headway / trains per hour through each logical section of the line. Pretty please  ;)

Oh, all right then.  It will be after this weekend though, providing thats not too late for you?

At the SERUG meeting on Tuesday Andrew Ardley gave some insight into the ideas being bounced around for the future. As part of the Devon Metro idea there will have to be an additional loop between Pinhoe and Honiton. Also additional resilience for GWR diversions, including additional section signals between Castle Cary and Yeovil Pen Mill.

Much of this can be seen in the following link (p111-113 for WoE)

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Wessex-Route-Study-Final-210815-1.pdf

Additional passing loops to the east of Yeovil will be dependent on the type of traction being used in the future. At the same meeting Ian Warmsley pointed out that demanding new trains now would result in bimodes. Delaying to see how the route was developed might, just might, allow electrification to be factored in. He then went on to say that the ORR's dislike of 3rd rail needs to be reviewed. He has an article on this in the current Modern Railways, to which the ORR has demanded a reply.
In addition, with the number of vehicles coming off lease in the coming months these should be some very competitive leasing rates available. Indeed Warmsley quotes one fleet manager who would let them out for a very basic fee just to remove storage costs.

The answer is to redouble the line completely between Castle Cary, Yeovil Pen Mill, Yeovil Junction and all the way to Exeter

It's a pity that the botched new platform and pseudo-heritage horror inflicted on Templecombe constrains potential options there.

Thank you - this is in the "useful and important data" category and not the "urgent - travel this weekend" one!


Technicallity - was it even double between Yeovil Pen Mill and Yeovil Junction?

There was double track between Yeovil Junction and Yeovil Town with double track crossovers between the two lines where they ran parallel. Tthis was controlled by a signal box which was only opened when the connection needed to be used

The link between Yeovil Pen Mill and Yeovil Junction was definitely double track in the past.

1903 25" OS map:
https://maps.nls.uk/view/106008477

1962 6" OS maps
https://maps.nls.uk/view/189241608
https://maps.nls.uk/view/189241593

The link was installed in WWII to facilitate military movements. Yeovil South Junction opened in 1943.

It is not only Templecombe that has limitations imposed. At Crewkerne the up platform was extended outwards to increase clearances for passengers passing under road bridge as well as reducing the height difference between platform and train. This was done in readiness for the Cl 159.
Now they have sold off the down goods yard for housing so have nowhere to reintroduce double track without a great deal of work.
The car park is at capacity most days and SWR has plans to site a new one in the field on the opposite side of the road.

I should have been clearer with my previous post. There were double tracks down the bank from Yeovil Junction to Yeovil Town. That would mean that the earthworks should support a double track link back to Yeovil Pen Mill.

Redoubling lines is never straightforward though. Particularly after many years of the remaining line running along the centre of the formation.

I could of saved them a lot of money and pulled the 1995 study out of my archive...... ;D

Is it me having a selective memory or have there been more late notice diversions along the Honiton route in recent months?

I’m wondering if it is down to closer working between fellow First Group companies GWR and SWR.

Obviously the fact there have been planned diversions in recent times means it’s easier to ensure crew have the necessary route knowledge but just seems to happen more often.

It would be good to read that 1995 study.

also, the M5 motorway bridge to the east of Pinhoe only allows for a single track, so that would need to be re-modelled if the line were to be completely re-doubled.

There are many obstacles in the way of complete double tracking unfortunately. As mentioned some of the platforms have been extended onto the disused formation. At Templecombe, not only is the platform in the way but the bridge as rebuilt only has a single width span and the large green container containing signalling equipment etc is also on the formation! And that is only one location.

Other formidable issues are the various tunnels which have had the track moved to the centre. I understand that in some repairs have been made to the walls that have reduced the width. Also embankment slips at some locations have resulted in the track being moved to the centre. Any redoubling may have to incur significant earthworks. Signalling cables have routinely been laid in the spare formation.

Extra loops have been mooted in places where an extra track can reinstated with least expenditure.

 

One thing looked at in 2008/9 was extending the Axminster dynamic loop to Chard Junction.  I think it fell on its sword due to costs.

Now then, youre expecting a lot.  You haven't seen my archive (garage).  A car has never been in it in the past 30 years..... ::)

That's what I was wondering ... and what the compromises are and where extra Devon Metros might fit in.

My solution would be to promote cross-TOC co-operation during times of disruption by terminating all SWR Waterloo to Exeter services at Yeovil Junction and having diverted GWR services pick up the station stops between Yeovil Junction and Exeter St.Davids, running to the SWR booked times.  Less delay caused by trying to squeeze too many services onto the existing limited infrastructure, and providing the same capacity (although services might be a bit more comfy than usual).

That was one thing they used to do in the past as far as I remember.

Network Rail have released the following

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wessex-Route-Strategic-Plan.pdf

P42 CP6 key renewals strategy
P84 sets WoE improvements placed in CP7

Indeed that used to happen. For SWT's (as was) passengers it was often a nightmare as the two timetables didn't 'fit' even when the diversions were planned. Often waiting at Yeovil Jct (with limited facilities/personnel) for 30 plus minutes and in the cold when the station was unstaffed. Very unsatisfactory. I have seen GWR guards refuse to take passengers as train was already full. This plan wouldn't work in an emergency situation. Only real solution is to get on and build some more infrastructure as promised to allow an hourly diversionary path for GWR trains.

Taking the cynical approach............ this would mean having to share revenue between the TOCs - although, probably not so bad now with First having a finger in both pies.

AND they have to work every Sunday too.

The sensible approach (IMHO) is to get the number of times that diversions have to happen down to a much lower level than we have seen in recent years, and then have an attitude approach that says "look - on theses rare occasions what's going to work best for the customers".      Neither of those are new ideas, and indeed it's comforting to see both as part of the plan (Network Rail's CP6 to catch up on a lot of maintenance) and de facto already somewhat in place, with things like GWR and Cross Country ticket acceptance on each other's services when things go belly up.    Work does need to be done in extra quarters as well though - ranging from freight train reliability through buses accepting train tickets when the train ain't running, and the timely provision of taxis to sort our smaller blips.

I thought I heard somewhere that the new platform at Templecombe could be moved back should re-doubling ever be on the cards.

Am I having a "senior moment" or has anybody else heard the same?

Templecombe's platform change was indeed made such that it could be easily removed for re-doubling.

Might well be the case, and happy to stand corrected if it is - still hate the overall effect though.

I used to use the waiting room on the "old"  Templecombe platform regularly as a child during the Class 50 era as I often went with my dad to Wincanton, changing to the bus outside the station entrance. It had a cosy, welcoming atmosphere, with heater, toilets and books available and open for much of the operating day, a testament to one of the earliest examples of community and rail working in partnership, celebrated in the displays of the history of that partnership on show.

Now that old waiting room atmosphere, along with the previously interesting to visit signalbox/ticket office, has been pointlessly ruined by aforementioned pseudo-heritage rebranding, and made inaccessible to visitors on non "special" days by the locked out of use footbridge. The modern monstrosity of the replacement ticket office/waiting room is bereft of appeal by comparison, only open limited hours, and the level of shelter on the new platform is woefully inadequate on days of inclement weather.

Your resident fluffy bunny kicker is not a fan.

The loco shed for Yeovil SR was behind Yeovil Town station, so traffic between Town and the LSWR main line was quite busy in the late fifties.