I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads?) stated (in response to objections) that if there was ever a requirement for the railway to be redoubled, this bridge would be widened. I am sure it came in the form of a 'guarantee'. Don't expect it holds much water now though....

I could easily see the replacements for 158/159 units as being bi-modes (diesel and third rail) so there would be less diesel going into London. It would make sense for the third rail to reach Salisbury (although ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) not keen on such extensions) as there are divisions and attachments of units there so extra time in switching modes would be negligible. It would also help SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) when diverting away from Winchester if the Laverstock curve and line to Southampton was also third railed.

The Electric Spine (now not frequently talked about) had overheads from Basingstoke to Southampton but would have had a severe impact on compatibilty between 25kv and 750dc (probably only one system possible).

I really do wonder if its not beyond the wit of engineers to gradually change the contact point on third rail to either side or beneath which would do away with many of the safety concerns (and improve reliability in ice/snow). Yes, it might take 25 years or more to complete but when you have a large job to do you need to start? Although I understand 750dc is less efficient it is difficult to believe that overheads will replace third rail in the London area due to the enormous costs and disruption in raising bridges and other infrastructure changes. Think that goes into the bin marked 'too difficult' and the best should be made of the existing arrangements.

The Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust (https://www.sdrt.org/) have issued their own statement (in relation to a recent announcement) which reads:-


The S&DRT notes the helpful joint statement by the WSR plc, WSRA and WSSRT issued on 1 May. Whereas we might take some issue with the suggestion that, hitherto, we were not minded to enter into any discussions, we are grateful nevertheless to the WSRA and WSSRT for bringing about that discussion now.

We also note the position statement provided at the same time by the WSR plc. There are a number of matters in that statement with which we might take even greater issue or of which we might question the relevance but we do not think it helpful to do so publicly at this time.

We welcome the involvement of the Heritage Railway Association and look forward to engaging in discussions via that body.

Ian Young, 3 May 2020

The joint statement referred to is here together with the Position Statement issued by WSR PLC only (https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/news/detail/joint-position-statement-regarding-somerset-dorset-railway-trust).

Make of it what you will and other issues both recent and historical.

Very interesting, thank you. I was on the last train (13 coaches and top and tailed by Class 31 diesels) to Torrington and have a soft spot for that line which should have remained open to Bideford, if not Torrington. 

The loss of the China Clay traffic was due to the tight curvature of the railway beyond Torrington towards Meeth being unsuitable for the new high capacity wagons that were to replace the Clay Hoods. I believe that a trial run was held.

One downside is that the railway runs on the opposite of the river to the main part of Bideford although that is not a show stopper.

The Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) Valley Railway have made a start on rebuilding the line back towards Bideford from Torrington.

http://www.tarkavalleyrailway.co.uk/about_us.html

and should be supported. Also the Bideford Railway Heritage Centre who have a site at that station and additionally care for Instow Signal Box

https://www.bidefordrailway.co.uk/

so lots of work going on already!

I would suggest that the way things have evolved, that the current set up of heritage steam & diesel is worth far more to the local economy than trying to compete with a frequent, faster and free to seniors (after 9.30am?) bus service could ever be! It is impossible to run a realistic heritage and DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) service as the infrastructure is set up currently - indeed what would be the purpose?

There is a block signal at Feniton since the Basingstoke resignalling. Any reversal would need to enter the single line and would be OK if the preceeding up train had passed Feniton. Unsure if it is permissable to have an up train pass Pinhoe onto the single line with a down train between Honiton & Feniton though!

If, like the previous occasion, pathways are included for an empty stock working to/from Bristol (presumably for maintenance?). Recall seeing a Voyager through Yeovil!

Probably due to Sherborne's Pack Monday Fair.

That looks like Colyton Station Cafe (Seaton Tramway).

Enough to drive me round the bend! 

There was some question about the Barnstaple services terminating at Exeter St Davids rather than Exeter Central when the timetable is recast.

I wonder if that can now be clarified as it would certainly be a backwards step (and a change of trains or a walk up a steep hill) for those wishing to visit Exeter City centre  and would take the gloss off the timetable improvements.

Establishment by SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) of a train crew depot at Yeovil Junction from December 2019. What improvements/opportunities is this likely to bring?

Indeed that used to happen. For SWT^▸ (South West Trains)'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.

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.

 

Certainly get that issue as well!