A scheduled stop in the middle of nowhere..

[darrel]

The early morning Skipton to Lancaster train used to (Prehaps still does) stop at Settle jn signal box to drop of water. The ECS from Skipton to Ribblehead used to stop at Blea Moor box to drop off water neither box having running water. The Lancaster service would occasionally stop at the distant signal at Wennington to drop off the lamp lighter as well.

I know this sounds like something from a long time ago, but it was still happening in 2001.

[Zomboid]

I doubt that rebuilding Tisbury would be there silver bullet to kill any redoubling project, but it wouldn't help. The way traffic seems to be growing down that way a tipping point is going to be reached sooner or later, though we're not there yet.

Isn't this wonderfully off topic now? There are other routes with passing loops in odd places. Didn't the loop at Llandrindod Wells get moved to the station after having been just north of the town/station for some years? There are lots of such loops on the Montreal - Ottawa Via rail route as well.

[Dunsignalling]

Now then. About Tisbury Loop. Some of you may have read this tale before.

 

In early 1984 the Southern Region was given back the former-LSWR route from Wilton South to Exeter Central. The wicked Western Region had been owners for the previous 30 years and run it down remarkably. The first thing the Southern did was run an Officers' Special down the route and note the infrastructure. The minutes included stations at Wimpole and Pinhole. 

 

The reliability of the service had been diabolical for decades, due to a lack of resilience if anything went wrong. So any train or serious signal failure would banjax the service for the rest of the day. There was a call for a quick fix, a new loop somewhere east of Gillingham, please. I chaired an exploratory meeting in the summer of that year, and the Civil Engineer's chaps came up with the good news that Tisbury was do-able. 

 

My only concern is that the loop was intended to be an operator's loop, a bolthole if you like, not a timetabled recess, which it seems to have become. 

 

No doubt today's railway knows what it is doing.....

Beyond the unwise disposal of land at Tisbury, there are other obstacles to redoubling further down the line with the (former up) platforms at Crewkerne and Whimple having been substantially widened, leaving insufficient room for double track. 

 

I consider that full redoubling is improbable for at least three decades, though I would love to be proved wrong. There is a more imminent need, beautifully illustrated only yesterday, for an additional loop between Pinhoe and Honiton. Whimple is the logical location for it operationally and it would presumably have to follow the precedent set at Tisbury were it to go ahead. 

 

As for your final point. You might well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

 

John

[alaneggleston]

.

Isn't this wonderfully off topic now? .

Yes, but isn't that one of joys of RMWeb and railways, one subject can lead to another and another and another and...............................and you end up learning something new about a subject you never knew existed nor probably wanted to know about. Sorry going off topic again..................

[The Stationmaster]

I seem to recall that Waterloo - Exeter came surprisingly high on the list of most remunerative Inter-City routes by around 1982/3? Like many places I guess the rationalisation might have gone too far, or did the pruning allow some new growth to occur?

 

I think the latter as much as anything.  The Salisbury -Exeter route obviously 'lost' through express trains such as the ACE and the meandering stopping trains as many intermediate stations went plus junctions that only existed to serve branches.  But it gained what was effectively a reasonable, and therefore easily remembered, interval service serving most stations and that probably helped contribute to growth.

 

The eastern end also benefitted from the 'moving out' of London commutable country from the mid '70s onwards while Waterloo also provided an attractively sited London terminus for leisure traffic - all of which created some interesting overlaps of travel patterns in the area east of Yeovil towards Gillingham.  As service reliability improved (with the Warships out of the way) and roads became busier - the A303 being pure h*ll in summer for local users thus discouraging them from crossing it to get to other stations so traffic grew.

 

As well as some stations reopening another important change was the provision of the crossing loop at Yeovil Jcn in 1975 which allowed trains to cross in the station instead of a Down train having to be held on the double line section from  Templecombe.

 

It is if course very easy to judge the changes and rationalisations of the 1960s/'70s from the viewpoint of later years but all of them undoubtedly met their financial cases in terms of avoided track renewals.  For example a stretch was relaid with cwr on the Salisbury - Exeter line west of Gillingham which enabled a curve to be eased by using all the formation but the cost equated almost precisely to £1 million per mile.  The singling west of Yeovil alone amounted to avoided relaying for just over 40 track miles so you could reasonably reckon that even with relaying every 40 years (and in reality it would be more frequent except where there was cwr) some £40 million, at mid 1970s prices, would be saved in renewal cost plus track maintenance costs would be almost halved.

 

Now of course we are seeing some of these singled routes being re-doubled but circumstances have changed massively since the lines were singled and other rationalisations took place and it is hardly possible to compare what is happening now - with much more money available - with the straitened times of the late '60s right through to the early '90s.

[Joseph_Pestell]

That would be far too sensible.

On the same line, Chard Jn loop lost its station a long time ago. Not sure how often it's used as a passing point though, I don't venture that far west generally.

Also on that route, is possible for an up train to be held just outside Templecombe whilst waiting for a down train, presumably only if disruption is occurring.

I have been stuck waiting at Chard Jct for a long time on a down train waiting for a late up working.

 

The site of the old down platform at Tisbury has been for sale at least twice in recent years. NR should get in there and secure a future double-track facility.

[Zomboid]

The western seem to have been much more enthusiastic about singling lines than other regions were, creating all kinds of problems down the line when traffic grew.

Though it is unfair to be too critical of rationalisations which took 30+ years to need undoing.

Though the Sherborne to Yeovil one which took 6 months to be unrationalised is a different matter...

[The Stationmaster]

The western seem to have been much more enthusiastic about singling lines than other regions were, creating all kinds of problems down the line when traffic grew.

Though it is unfair to be too critical of rationalisations which took 30+ years to need undoing.

Though the Sherborne to Yeovil one which took 6 months to be unrationalised is a different matter...

 

I suspect (but don't know for certain) that there was a case of 'operating cost blindness' going on there as retaining/restoring the double line meant a new lever frame in the 'box at Yeovil Jcn plus the cost of providing Signalmen.  But whatever it was it was a daft decision - even in the spirit of those times.  And of course it also involved a further bit of money saving when it was provided in 1967 as there was no loop through the platform and it took 8 years to get that put right.

[Dunsignalling]

I have been stuck waiting at Chard Jct for a long time on a down train waiting for a late up working.

 

The site of the old down platform at Tisbury has been for sale at least twice in recent years. NR should get in there and secure a future double-track facility.

Prior to the installation of the Axminster loop and the introduction of the more-or-less-clock-face hourly service pattern, Chard loop was used quite a bit through the day with crosses at Honiton being more concentrated in the morning and evening peaks (if the latter word can be justified in this context).

 

You are so right about Tisbury - NR need to get their act together quickly and acquire it before the site gets redeveloped and any possibility of reinstating a double track formation through Tisbury station disappears forever. 

 

John

[caradoc]

The Aberdeen/Inverness route has two stations with passing loops not at the (single) platform, Keith and Forres, as a result of rationalisation by BR.

 

Note to those delight in slagging off today's railway, there is a major scheme to seriously improve the infrastructure and provide the best service the route has ever had. 

[Zomboid]

You are so right about Tisbury - NR need to get their act together quickly and acquire it before the site gets redeveloped and any possibility of reinstating a double track formation through Tisbury station disappears forever.

 

John

Given that NR has to sell off land to fund the existing enhancement program, I think the chances of it speculatively buying land for a possible future enhancement can be reasonably accurately estimated at zero.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Given that NR has to sell off land to fund the existing enhancement program, I think the chances of it speculatively buying land for a possible future enhancement can be reasonably accurately estimated at zero.

 

Usually, I would agree. But in this case, there is widespread recognition that doubling to Gillingham and then to Yeovil is certainly going to happen fairly soon. So it makes sense to acquire the small amount of land needed when it is available.

 

An alternative to doubling through the stations would be longer "dynamic" loops. But they require more sophisticated signalling and that seems to be the resource that NR are most lacking at the moment.

[Dunsignalling]

The western seem to have been much more enthusiastic about singling lines than other regions were, creating all kinds of problems down the line when traffic grew.

Though it is unfair to be too critical of rationalisations which took 30+ years to need undoing.

Though the Sherborne to Yeovil one which took 6 months to be unrationalised is a different matter...

If I was informed correctly, the singling of the line west of Yeovil, was intended as an interim measure leading to eventual closure. It was only repeated flooding of the GW line at Stafford's Bridge that made Swindon decide to keep it going as a diversionary route.

 

I was employed outside the area (and the industry) at the time of singling but wasn't the other signal box at Yeovil Jn intended to be the one retained? Apart from the over-singling in respect of Yeovil-Sherborne, the scheme had to be rethought when it started slipping down the side of the bank towards the station approach road. The planned retention of an elderly wooden box also suggests that the line onward to Exeter wasn't expected to survive for too long.  

 

Mind you, had the powers-that-be just left the double track alone and converted the signalling to TCB controlled from a single panel (the Southern had Sherborne box in mind for that even before the line was transferred to WR control) they could have saved 45 years worth of Signallers wages and costs at Yeovil Jn, Honiton, Templecombe and Gillingham. 

 

All in all, short-sighted planning, non-implementation of middle-to-long-term intentions and a fortuitous sequence of events, without all of which, I should never have enjoyed 20 years in the best job I ever had. I am, therefore, loath to criticize.

[Glorious NSE]

I'm not convinced you'll ever need double track through Tisbury - I reckon if you doubled from Tisbury Loop to Wilton and maybe made Gillingham loop a bit longer you'd be able to run up to a 20 minute service between Salisbury and Yeovil if you wanted...which is pretty impressive for a rural area!

It's not as if the railway has to cope with 20mph freight trains bimbling about anymore.

[Zomboid]

You can do a lot with single lines and well placed loops. What double track throughout brings is resilience, and no need for trains to stop at loops, so that would improve journey times. I'm not that knowledgeable on signalling matters, but a reliable and resilient 20 minute interval service on a single track seems optimistic.

Redoubling (partially) the Cotswold line was solely based on resilience arguments, after all.

[Oldddudders]

But they require more sophisticated signalling and that seems to be the resource that NR are most lacking at the moment.

No change there. Nearly 30 years ago I represented NSE on the Board's Business Resources Forum, a cross-Business group intended to identify pinchpoints frustrating investment programmes. Signal design engineers were in short supply, and the DS&TE was unable to meet demand. A second Birmingham office was being set up, but the resources to man it were still an issue. At this time the sandwich-board men were parading around the Network Technical Centre, offering jobs at Westinghouse!

 

Then the first recession kicked in, and rising spends met reducing fare income. So everything slowed down again. Then came Privatisation, with an imperative to reduce numbers to make units saleable. Railtrack was less than manic in its investment ambitions, so, again, no call to ramp up design capability in what had now become the Private Sector. Network Rail has admirable intentions compared to its predecessor, but cannot magically procure competent persons who do not exist.

[Dunsignalling]

You can do a lot with single lines and well placed loops. What double track throughout brings is resilience, and no need for trains to stop at loops, so that would improve journey times. I'm not that knowledgeable on signalling matters, but a reliable and resilient 20 minute interval service on a single track seems optimistic.

Redoubling (partially) the Cotswold line was solely based on resilience arguments, after all.

My own thought on this is that, in order to run a resilient 20 minute schedule on a single line route, you would need to add so many loops, each with two sets of points to maintain and more complicated signalling than on a simple double-track route; so that doing it wouldn't save much over full doubling.

 

Single line sections are bottlenecks and, however cleverly the schedule is designed around them, what happens when things go wrong is dependent on many variables, e.g..

• How the signaller reacts and regulates trains as the situation develops - regulating plans never cover all eventualities.

• How early he/she becomes aware that some action will be required.

• Deciding when the point has been reached to make one train 40 minutes late to prevent every other service for the rest of the day being 20+ minutes adrift.  

The list is by no means exhaustive - keeping a single line going and recovering the service is more complex than busy panel signallers with the luxury of four lines to play with generally comprehend. The good bit was that we usually had a fair bit of thinking time once the immediate action had been decided upon.   

 

John

[Glorious NSE]

You can do a lot with single lines and well placed loops. What double track throughout brings is resilience, and no need for trains to stop at loops, so that would improve journey times. I'm not that knowledgeable on signalling matters, but a reliable and resilient 20 minute interval service on a single track seems optimistic.

Redoubling (partially) the Cotswold line was solely based on resilience arguments, after all.

 

Modern loop installations like Axminster usually mean neither train has to make an out of course stop.

 

My own thought on this is that, in order to run a resilient 20 minute schedule on a single line route, you would need to add so many loops, each with two sets of points to maintain and more complicated signalling than on a simple double-track route so that doing it wouldn't save much over full doubling.

 

You'd need one loop to do what I suggested, as you'd have double track from Salisbury to Tisbury and from Sherborne to Yeovil.

 

And it's not the cost of double track, it's the new fully accessible two platform stations you'd need to build in two places! 

[Oldddudders]

• Deciding when the point has been reached to make one train 40 minutes late to prevent every other service for the rest of the day being 20+ minutes adrift.  

 

John

And presumably in the era of Delay Attribution some bizarre £ factors influence that decision.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Back to the original thread.

I remember stopping at post apocalyptic wasteland in the middle of nowhere, then I realised I'd arrived in Liverpool.

 

Mike

[Mark Saunders]

And presumably in the era of Delay Attribution some bizarre £ factors influence that decision.

 

and then the fun starts with everyone looking for someone else to blame!

[southernman8]

If I was informed correctly, the singling of the line west of Yeovil, was intended as an interim measure leading to eventual closure. It was only repeated flooding of the GW line at Stafford's Bridge that made Swindon decide to keep it going as a diversionary route.

 

I was employed outside the area (and the industry) at the time of singling but wasn't the other signal box at Yeovil Jn intended to be the one retained? Apart from the over-singling in respect of Yeovil-Sherborne, the scheme had to be rethought when it started slipping down the side of the bank towards the station approach road. The planned retention of an elderly wooden box also suggests that the line onward to Exeter wasn't expected to survive for too long.  

 

Mind you, had the powers-that-be just left the double track alone and converted the signalling to TCB controlled from a single panel (the Southern had Sherborne box in mind for that even before the line was transferred to WR control) they could have saved 45 years worth of Signallers wages and costs at Yeovil Jn, Honiton, Templecombe and Gillingham. 

 

All in all, short-sighted planning, non-implementation of middle-to-long-term intentions and a fortuitous sequence of events, without all of which, I should never have enjoyed 20 years in the best job I ever had. I am, therefore, loath to criticize.

I understand that the new owners of the ex-Parmiters site south of Tisbury Station ( now earmarked for housing) have offered land back to the railway to enable the down platform to be reinstated. Negotiations are being held. Whether the existing loop will be extended, a dynamic loop created or indeed doubling between Wilton South & Tisbury will follow is unknown. The latter is quite possible I understand (unlike certain other sections of line).

 

The question of singling the line or retaining double in the 1960's with much longer sections is frequently discussed. I guess the decision was made higher up the line of command (as there were other routes similarly treated). I do wonder if the retention of double track would have been as cheap given the saving in wages, saving in signalbox/point maintenance. Too late now! At the time there were tales of good quality CWR being taken away and replaced by jointed track - all leading to a suspicion that the line was considered as having a limited life.

 

Other loops are being mooted as part of the resilience plans for the railway in South West. One around Whimple/Cranbrook is sorely needed in the event of delays!

[Dunsignalling]

And presumably in the era of Delay Attribution some bizarre £ factors influence that decision.

Oh. Yeah!

 

Not all trains are equal, even when they are all Class 1.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

Modern loop installations like Axminster usually mean neither train has to make an out of course stop.

 

 

You'd need one loop to do what I suggested, as you'd have double track from Salisbury to Tisbury and from Sherborne to Yeovil.

 

And it's not the cost of double track, it's the new fully accessible two platform stations you'd need to build in two places! 

Axminster loop is a bit of a special case for which I have never been able to grasp the full rationale. It is massively over-signalled, the two lines being theoretically capable of holding up to three trains each way when it is actually impractical to have more than two in one and one in the other because of the single line entry-exit at either end. On top of that, because the planned 70mph points were de-specced to 50mph, approach controls abound.  

 

IMHO, had Axminster been designed cost-effectively, the funds released could have been more gainfully invested extending Honiton loop down to just short of the single-track-width "Iron Bridge" (now just off the A30), with one additional signal each way to split what would once have been referred to as Station Limits.

 

Given that full doubling just ain't gonna happen, such an extension would provide nearly all of the benefit to be gained from an additional loop at /near Whimple at considerably lower cost.

 

John

[rab]

In a (probaly futile) attempt to bring this thread back on topic, didn't the down Cornish Riviera stop at Laira to change locos,