Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
15.12.2019 - what changes?
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 15/12/2019 - Santa Special - Melksham
15/12/2019 - GWR Timetable recast
16/12/2019 - Network Rail Surgery, BWT
24/12/2019 - No GWR trains, Paddington
25/12/2019 - No GWR trains (at all)
25/12/2019 - No train - Severn Tunnel
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
December 13, 2019, 11:25:34 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[149] Advent Quiz - 2019
[104] New uses for pacers
[91] "The Class 43 High-Speed Train is literally the best trai...
[78] New Timetable Fares Issue - Pewsey
[57] Shortage of train crews on Great Western Railway since Septemb...
[56] Crystal Ball
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Two Track, Now!  (Read 1071 times)
Bob_Blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 395


View Profile
« on: November 14, 2019, 05:45:34 pm »

 Currently heading to London on 1L60 and have just departed Gillingham 23 minutes down due to an initial delay east of Axminster (late running GWR divert) and subsequent conflicts. Reinforces my view that this important diversionary route urgently needs to be looked at in terms of redoubling.
Logged
SandTEngineer
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3078


Retired in an S&T hut in the far Southwest


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2019, 06:23:44 pm »

Currently heading to London on 1L60 and have just departed Gillingham 23 minutes down due to an initial delay east of Axminster (late running GWR divert) and subsequent conflicts. Reinforces my view that this important diversionary route urgently needs to be looked at in terms of redoubling.

Already being dicussed here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=22446.msg276367#msg276367
Logged

Out of this nettle, Danger, we pluck this flower, Safety.
[Henry IV, Part 1, Act 2, Scene 3]
JontyMort
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 150


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2019, 08:37:16 pm »

Currently heading to London on 1L60 and have just departed Gillingham 23 minutes down.

<snip>

This important diversionary route urgently needs to be looked at in terms of redoubling.


Agreed re re-doubling. At the risk of upsetting GW sensitivities, it's surely more than a diversionary route - because it serves places worth stopping at (Andover, Salisbury, Sherborne, Yeovil).
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 17150


Coffee Shop Forum Roving Reporter


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2019, 08:40:03 pm »

... and Templecombe. Tongue
Logged

PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1193



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2019, 08:57:30 pm »

Agreed re re-doubling. At the risk of upsetting GW sensitivities,.................

Replace GW with BR(W) and you get precisely the reason why west of Salisbury was singled in the first place  Angry
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2391


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2019, 10:35:28 pm »

Agreed re re-doubling.
Wouldn't re re-doubling make it four tracks?
 Grin
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
JontyMort
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 150


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2019, 11:40:16 pm »

Agreed re re-doubling. At the risk of upsetting GW sensitivities,.................

Replace GW with BR(W) and you get precisely the reason why west of Salisbury was singled in the first place  Angry

Exactly. Not invented here.
Logged
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 841


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2019, 10:54:41 am »

Replace GW with BR(W) and you get precisely the reason why west of Salisbury was singled in the first place  Angry

IIRC Gerry Fiennes, in his terrific autobiography "I Tried to Run a Railway", says that the Salisbury route suffered because the local councils wouldn't fight for it, so BR(W) put its priorities elsewhere. (It's a superb book if you've not read it.)
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7707


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2019, 11:06:47 am »

I doubt full redoubling could ever be affordable, but an extension of some of the current double track sections, Axminster style, and a few extra signals so trains can be better flighted behind each other should be considered IMHO.
Logged

To view my GWML Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
bradshaw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 697



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2019, 12:52:21 pm »

P103 of his book has the detail (see attached photo).
Surely there are some fixes that would not be difficult to make. Extending the loop at Tisbury to the station, likewise at Templecombe. This would allow trains to carry out the station stops while waiting for another to pass.
Further improvements need an analysis of where the best crossing points need to be. Data from this weekís service might help in this. Do we need an extended loop at Chard towards Crewkerne? Recent building work in the ex-down goods yard plus the 1990s platform widening means that doubling the track through Crewkerne station itself is not an option.
A previous Wessex RUS went into this and is available somewhere online.
Logged
ZoŽ
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 711


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2019, 01:25:51 pm »

Extending the loop at Tisbury to the station
That won't be easy to do since the land for the second platform was sold and I have heard that the sale included a covenant stating that a Compulsory Purchase Order would never be used to reacquire the land.
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 17150


Coffee Shop Forum Roving Reporter


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2019, 03:11:45 pm »

Won't be easy at Templecombe either. Whilst the south side (former down) platform face extension fitted in 2013 could be removed (built such to allow that) you'd need much work done to bring the former platform up to modern standards. What's left is very narrow and car park space would have to be sacrificed. The relatively new ticket office may need moving back too. Add to that the need for access to the upside if double track was reinstated. That realistically means a new footbridge with lifts.
Logged

chopper1944
Full Member
***
Posts: 35


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2019, 03:34:34 pm »

The line between Exeter Central and Yeovil Junction needs to be two track all the way between. Two track between Yeovil Junction to Castle Cary should also be considered. The difficulties between Yeovil Junction to Salisbury of two tracks are probably insurmountable at present.   
Logged
ZoŽ
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 711


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2019, 03:45:15 pm »

One issue between Exeter and Yeovil Junction is the M5 bridge which was only built for a single track.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4650


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2019, 04:43:45 pm »

I hereby support this new campaign, and wish it every success!
Logged

Now, please!
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page