Landslip at Hook, Waterloo to Basingstoke route closed

[Ncarter2]

On 16/01/2023 at 14:33, Grovenor said:

A decent P-way and S&T  team could slew the down fast into the upfast either side overnight then you would have one up and one downavailable with no need for pilot working or handsgnalling.

It’s a a possibility that this will be the case. Options were discussed yesterday and again today. 

[adb968008]

31 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I assume you are being facetious?  To suggest that a 4-track railway - Basingstoke to Woking - that has at least seven trains per hour, with two different stopping patterns, could satisfactorily operate as a 2-track and that hardly anyone is using the railway, simply doesn't reflect reality.  Routinely splitting/joining trains would mean reducing the number of services towards the London end of the route, exactly where you need more services, not fewer. 

 

Even post-pandemic, Waterloo is back to being Britain's busiest station and a lot of that traffic is relatively long distance commuters.  I travelled in today and there were, I thought, a few more people than usual coming in on the Alton line; on the return tonight the 8-car was packed to maybe 125% loading (why these trains, one of the few forming a service to Woking, weren't strengthened, isn't clear).  However Waterloo was noticeably quieter than most Tuesdays, suggesting that most people have taken the advice not to travel which in the era of hybrid working, is not so disruptive.  People will cope for a week or maybe two.

Bear in mend also that the party of government has a huge deficit in the opinion polls.  Do you really think they would risk a cull of services through the region which contains most of their last remaining safe seats?

Only partially facetious.

Railways are 25% down, the taxpayer cant afford it.

Something somewhere has to give, and its not just the embankment.

SWR is somewhat gold plated in its operations todate.

 

i’m not convinced the frequency of non-stops ex-Woking/Basingstoke to London are such as neccessity… As for two competing train companies from Exeter to London… not even Liverpool or Manchester has that luxury… GWRs service from Exeter is very good.

 

 

[john new]

5 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Works better if you run the SWR service up to Basingstoke then get people onto the GW service from Basingstoke to Reading which is designed to make proper connections at Reading. Trying to cut out a change of trains often creates even greater overall delay for the customer.

 

John

Sensibly, but unfortunately someone for political reasons split the railway up into separated TOCS, you would have interchangeable stock of similar types. Then when something like this happens you have enough flexibility to perhaps couple things together. What would work much better for pax west of Basingstoke is drop the short haul Basingstoke Reading and run the longer distance trains up to Reading. AND crucially make all the tickets interchangeable so people can easily get to Paddington from Reading.

 

Yes probably not attainable in the modern era for political reasons, but those splinterings are part of the problem when things go wrong.

[bécasse]

IIRC slewing was exactly what was done with the big slip in the 1960s.

[john new]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Only partially facetious.

Railways are 25% down, the taxpayer cant afford it.

Something somewhere has to give, and its not just the embankment.

SWR is somewhat gold plated in its operations todate.

 

i’m not convinced the frequency of non-stops ex-Woking/Basingstoke to London are such as neccessity… As for two competing train companies from Exeter to London… not even Liverpool or Manchester has that luxury… GWRs service from Exeter is very good.

 

 

Yes, it (GWR) probably is from Exeter but does not stop anywhere else like, Honiton, Axminster, Yeovil etc, etc… Those of us in the west do actually want to go to London and to/from points en-route.

[adb968008]

3 minutes ago, john new said:

Sensibly, but unfortunately someone for political reasons split the railway up into separated TOCS, you would have interchangeable stock of similar types. Then when something like this happens you have enough flexibility to perhaps couple things together. What would work much better for pax west of Basingstoke is drop the short haul Basingstoke Reading and run the longer distance trains up to Reading. AND crucially make all the tickets interchangeable so people can easily get to Paddington from Reading.

 

Yes probably not attainable in the modern era for political reasons, but those splinterings are part of the problem when things go wrong.

 

tbh the way things are going, selling off whole lines, as purely private ventures maybe the way to go.

 

An American style system, where everything is private owned and operated.

Basingstoke to Exeter, with lines to Southampton, and Yeovil to Weymouth may be a  locally operated commuter business, with running rights to various agreed off own-network locations.

 

 

[Nick C]

13 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 Additionally maybe reduce Portsmouth/Weymouth capacity and start split/joining services enroute.

Already frequently full and standing, with one of the Woking-Waterloo trains being (at least Pre-Covid) the most overcrowded in the country, 150% of capacity. Splitting and joining already a major part of the service, as there's not capacity east of Basingstoke. There's also a lot more housing being built in the area, so there will be a lot more people commuting, even with hybrid working.

 

What does need to change is the awkward stopping pattern that was brought in to "improve journey times to London" - with many fasts missing out one or more of Basingstoke, Woking and Clapham Junction, making it more difficult to travel between those stations. Not everyone wants to go to Waterloo! 

[john new]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

 

tbh the way things are going, selling off whole lines, as purely private ventures maybe the way to go.

 

An American style system, where everything is private owned and operated.

Basingstoke to Exeter, with lines to Southampton, and Yeovil to Weymouth may be a  locally operated commuter business, with running rights to various agreed off own-network locations.

 

 

In other words make everything a worse mess for pax than it already is. We must  just agree to differ as I guess our views are direct opposites.

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, john new said:

Sensibly, but unfortunately someone for political reasons split the railway up into separated TOCS, you would have interchangeable stock of similar types. Then when something like this happens you have enough flexibility to perhaps couple things together. What would work much better for pax west of Basingstoke is drop the short haul Basingstoke Reading and run the longer distance trains up to Reading. AND crucially make all the tickets interchangeable so people can easily get to Paddington from Reading.

 

Yes probably not attainable in the modern era for political reasons, but those splinterings are part of the problem when things go wrong.

Unfortunately, in times of disruption, turning what remains of the normal service on its head will seldom provide a solution.

 

There are various problems with sending Exeter-Waterloo trains to Reading from Basingstoke, including:

 

(a) they have to be fitted around Reading's normal traffic patterns when they get there as do the return workings. Effectively, they have to run within the established Basingstoke-Reading service pattern, not leave Basingstoke when they normally would if going to Waterloo.

 

(b) when they come back, they can be expected to be out of sync with the down departure timetable from Basingstoke. The crossing pattern on the single-line sections West of Salisbury is highly sensitive to down trains presenting late from Salisbury, e.g., any down train arriving Honiton more than 17 minutes late will normally be held to cross the next up working (if that is right time), resulting in a departure at xx.55 against the booked xx.17 (varies a minute either way). 

 

Any down service that arrives Honiton an hour or more late, which happened at least once yesterday, is at risk of being terminated short and commencing its return working from there. Thus any passengers to/ from Exeter face effective cancellations unless substitute buses can be provided at short notice. Even if they can, up ones can't get to Honiton in the time the train would, so the truncated up train is late from the get-go. Ideally, you wouldn't do it, but crew rostering can make it unavoidable in order to comply with working time legislation. All this has knock-on effects at crossing points further up, with another late arrival in Basingstoke delaying its back working. Also, of course all the Exeter passengers are stuck in Honiton until an alternative can be arranged. That will usually be a bus if one can be procured or (more likely) a wait for the next down train which (hopefully) may "only" be 20-40 minutes late....

 

As a general rule of thumb, in a situation like this, a better outcome for all concerned will usually be obtained by retaining as much "normality" as possible and fitting the disruption around it. That way, when any "Plan B" throws up unforeseen issues (and they always do), there is still a basic framework for at least knowing what the service is supposed to look like! 

 

John

 

 

 

[adb968008]

Maybe venture a solution where by our income taxes dont have to rise another 1-2% to support it then ?

 

my line is DOO, some services shrunk from 10 to 4 car. It is still so full people cannot board, and several stations are now unmanned.. yet apparently its running at a loss, we are told… i’m on Southerm, they lost the 455/8’s with no replacement. Some 171’s have gone too recently.

 

Whats SWR given up ?

 

Avantis cut Manchesters to hourly, slowed Scottish services

Northern has always been a budget operation

 

SWR feels gold plated, I dont see that much overcrowding, except on metro.

Edited January 18, 2023 by adb968008

[Dunsignalling]

40 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Maybe venture a solution where by our income taxes dont have to rise another 1-2% to support it then ?

TBH, any expectation of our rail network being able to seamlessly provide alternatives to lost services on a 4-track main line in the face of an incident that has put 2.5 of them out of action is pure pie-in-the-sky and has been since the 1960s, let alone privatisation.

 

Nobody would expect the M3 to function smoothly with one side completely out of action and all traffic having to negotiate a one-lane-each-way contraflow on the other!

 

Why do we seem to expect our railwaymen and women to perform miracles?

 

Anybody who expects to be able to go anywhere conveniently, however the way they normally do it might be disrupted, needs to buy a vehicle with caterpillar tracks!  

 

John

Edited January 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

TBH, any expectation of our rail network being able to seamlessly provide alternatives to lost services on a 4-track main line in the face of an incident that has put 2.5 of them out of action is pure pie-in-the-sky and has been since the 1960s, let alone privatisation.

 

Nobody would expect the M3 to function smoothly with one side completely out of action and all traffic having to negotiate a one-lane-each-way contraflow on the other!

 

Why do we seem to expect our railwaymen and women to perform miracles?

 

Anybody who expects to be able to go anywhere conveniently, however the way they normally do it might be disrupted, needs to buy a vehicle with caterpillar tracks!  

 

John

You brought the thread back on topic which is noble.

But the answer totally ignored the question.

You protected SWR in this thread very well.

 

But I do think SWR isnt immune to cuts, it will come, and this landslip allows the dft to focus on where the fat is, as its being demonstrated where it is in this incident.

 

They just need to look at the plan this week, and shrink wrap it for the longer term.

 

Exeter, Portsmouths are redundant, duplications.

 

Cut Portsmouth, Southern is coping just fine.

 

on WoE stick a regional service 2 coach service Exeter to Salisbury.
Cut Salisbury to Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, with a shorter train.

I’d maybe move all that under GWR, in which case extend Salisibury - Basingstoke to Reading, and free up the existing 165’s, so it becomes a non-change for those that need.
The spare sprinters go towards Castle HST cuts.

if it means some abandon trains for cars, so be it, but if others move to use alternative duplicate services, it reduces those services losses, ergo the taxpayer burden, so losing passengers is still a win.

 

As for the comments about joining trains together enroute on the SWR not being possible… Southern manages just fine, Waterloo just recently got expanded platforms, and longer trains gives that vital extra passenger space closer to London. Besides SWR do it at Salisbury anyway.

 

Lets move on.

Edited January 18, 2023 by adb968008

[Mike_Walker]

11 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

tbh the way things are going, selling off whole lines, as purely private ventures maybe the way to go.

 

An American style system, where everything is private owned and operated.

Basingstoke to Exeter, with lines to Southampton, and Yeovil to Weymouth may be a  locally operated commuter business, with running rights to various agreed off own-network locations.

 

 

There is only one privately owned and operated passenger service (Brightside in Florida) in both the United States and Canada.  Amtrak and VIA are owned by the national governments although sometimes working in partnership with state/provincial governments which also own the various commuter networks.  Only a small part of the mileage covered by Amtrak and VIA are owned by those organisations the remainder belongs to the privately-owned freight companies who have a bad habit of prioritising their freight trains to the detriment of passenger trains - a long-standing joke is that "on time" on Amtrak is to appear on the correct day!  Many of the commuter lines do however own their own infrastructure.

 

As others have said, there may be two routes connecting London and Exeter but that's only the end points, in between they serve very different markets and to withdraw one or the other would leave a large part of the population without access to rail services.  Avanti and LNER both link London and Glasgow by different routes; are you suggesting one of those be withdrawn too?

 

Your recent posts show you appear to have little knowledge of how the modern railway is structured and the markets it serves.  

[Dunsignalling]

36 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

You brought the thread back on topic which is noble.

But the answer totally ignored the question.

You protected SWR in this thread very well.

 

But I do think SWR isnt immune to cuts, it will come, and this landslip allows the dft to focus on where the fat is, as its being demonstrated where it is in this incident.

 

They just need to look at the plan this week, and shrink wrap it for the longer term.

 

Exeter, Portsmouths are redundant, duplications.

 

Cut Portsmouth, Southern is coping just fine.

 

on WoE stick a regional service 2 coach service Exeter to Salisbury.
Cut Salisbury to Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, with a shorter train.

I’d maybe move all that under GWR, in which case extend Salisibury - Basingstoke to Reading, and free up the existing 165’s, so it becomes a non-change for those that need.
The spare sprinters go towards Castle HST cuts.

if it means some abandon trains for cars, so be it, but if others move to use alternative duplicate services, it reduces those services losses, ergo the taxpayer burden, so losing passengers is still a win.

 

As for the comments about joining trains together enroute on the SWR not being possible… Southern manages just fine, Waterloo just recently got expanded platforms, and longer trains gives that vital extra passenger space closer to London. Besides SWR do it at Salisbury anyway.

 

Lets move on.

I came out of Exeter yesterday afternoon on the train that most of the East Devon students use, it was a 6-car but had it been a 3-car (which it sometimes is) it would have been full and standing. It does thin out considerably after Axminster but it does need to be a six again further up under normal circumstances. I recently did the same service when another disruption dictated it was only a 2-car. It was still wedged when it left Honiton and had lost 3-4 minutes at every stop ensuring people had chance to get off. 159s are not suburban units!

 

Cutting train lengths between Salisbury and Exeter may sound easy but would depend on getting units on/off the depot much more frequently, the scope for which varies with what else is going on. Salisbury is not a one-TOC station. There's enough of a scramble at Salisbury when one set is coming off the back of a 9-car and it's been chaos when I've seen a 9-car cut to three there due to a unit fault!

 

TBH, just because you have a crap TOC, I don't see the necessity to advocate lumbering everyone else with similar!

 

John  

 

   

[Mike_Walker]

The attitude of adb968008 sounds to me a lot like the ignorant civil servants at the DafT that are doing so much damage to our railway network these days.

[adb968008]

On 18/01/2023 at 10:36, Mike_Walker said:

The attitude of adb968008 sounds to me a lot like the ignorant civil servants at the DafT that are doing so much damage to our railway network these days.

 

 

one can be a rail enthusiast, but that doesnt mean one knows it all.

Asking questions is how to learn.

That can involve taken a position on scenarios that is not always popular.
 

if you think how a railway could be shrunk, by watching an incident and looking for savings is a banned discussion, report it to a moderator.

 

But if you think the dft are not watching this exercise, I think you are wrong. Last year the engineering works stopped Southern at Balham, they proceeded to keep the schedule for a further few weeks, because it was not causing excessive resistence and it suited the planning. The tracks between Balham and Clapham went rusty… yes they did.

 

no consequence from the public was loud enough.

5 months later, unthinkably the 455/8’s just vanished overnight, several months earlier than their lease expiration too !!

 

Were the two linked, probably not, but I could imagine if the world fell apart, the 455’s may not have gone if the reaction was loud enough.

 

still no consequence from the public was loud enough.

The world kept turning.

455’s, 456’s, 442’s, 769’s, 365’s are gone / going.

i’m guessing 230’s, 379’s will go.

SWR will lose its 455’s.

its a shrinking network.

 

To believe SWR is immune is fallacy. The South of England was the railways breadbasket. Like it or not that game has changed.

 

The North has never enjoyed 12 coach suburban commuters in my life time. It was subsidized by the south. Imo I think Beeching 2 is coming, predominently in the south, by stealth or enmasse, but cuts are coming.

 

In May some will be delivered, but in my mind, in that typically British way, more will dribble through later… this feels like the later 1970’s, early 80’s, but in reverse, predominantly with a Southern flavour feeling the pain, the North feels like its in an economic boom.

 

so what i’m saying is..

not having chaos in 2022, is actually a dangerous thing… if the railway can cope in a crisis, then maybe that could become the status quo for savings, moving forwards... thats the risk SWR are facing imo… it makes it an easy target.

 

To address your comment on Avanti / LNER both serving Edinburgh, Glasgow and cut one… maybe yes, because you missed TPE who also serve duplicate both, and their links on the same lines to the Yorkshire, Lancashire and Midlands too. As a regular Avanti user, Ive seen a huge reduction on Manchester… is it standing only ?, yes it is… was it standing before Covid ?, yes it was.. was it standing just after Covid ? No it wasnt… and imo thats why its gone.

Northern / TPE seem to exist in chaos… and nothing dare be cut, its unspoken, despite having a near brand new fleet of mk5’s growing weeds for 5 years…  Blackpool South, S&C making a profit, give over.. but they are untouchable… because of noise.. people, press, politically. (i think some of those redundant mk5’s should be in London replacing Chiltern mk3’s…but can you imagine that political push back… besides I think that Chiltern Service will be paired back too).

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by adb968008

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

You brought the thread back on topic which is noble.

But the answer totally ignored the question.

You protected SWR in this thread very well.

 

But I do think SWR isnt immune to cuts, it will come, and this landslip allows the dft to focus on where the fat is, as its being demonstrated where it is in this incident.

 

They just need to look at the plan this week, and shrink wrap it for the longer term.

 

Exeter, Portsmouths are redundant, duplications.

 

Cut Portsmouth, Southern is coping just fine.

 

on WoE stick a regional service 2 coach service Exeter to Salisbury.
Cut Salisbury to Basingstoke instead of Waterloo, with a shorter train.

I’d maybe move all that under GWR, in which case extend Salisibury - Basingstoke to Reading, and free up the existing 165’s, so it becomes a non-change for those that need.
The spare sprinters go towards Castle HST cuts.

if it means some abandon trains for cars, so be it, but if others move to use alternative duplicate services, it reduces those services losses, ergo the taxpayer burden, so losing passengers is still a win.

 

As for the comments about joining trains together enroute on the SWR not being possible… Southern manages just fine, Waterloo just recently got expanded platforms, and longer trains gives that vital extra passenger space closer to London. Besides SWR do it at Salisbury anyway.

 

Lets move on.

Have you ever actually used the trains between Basingstoke and London? You cite a 25% drop in numbers - well 75% of 150% is still 112% - that's all the seats, all the standing space, and another 12% on top. There is no free capacity in the rush hour, and demand is only going to increase (especially with more pressure for people to go more often to offices). Switching to car for journeys into London isn't an option for most, due to traffic, parking and ULEZ - and it certainly shouldn't be encouraged, quite the opposite.

 

The trains already split and join en-route - Poole & Weymouth stoppers join at Southampton for example. Everything going up in the rush hour is 8, 10 or 12 car.

 

Do you have any figures for the losses? The most recent figures I can find (2016) state that SWT (as it was then) and Southern received negative subsidies - i.e. they paid more in than they got out.

[adb968008]

19 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Have you ever actually used the trains between Basingstoke and London? You cite a 25% drop in numbers - well 75% of 150% is still 112% - that's all the seats, all the standing space, and another 12% on top. There is no free capacity in the rush hour, and demand is only going to increase (especially with more pressure for people to go more often to offices). Switching to car for journeys into London isn't an option for most, due to traffic, parking and ULEZ - and it certainly shouldn't be encouraged, quite the opposite.

 

The trains already split and join en-route - Poole & Weymouth stoppers join at Southampton for example. Everything going up in the rush hour is 8, 10 or 12 car.

 

Do you have any figures for the losses? The most recent figures I can find (2016) state that SWT (as it was then) and Southern received negative subsidies - i.e. they paid more in than they got out.

Basingstoke to London, I do quite regularly, yes. Indeed Ive frequently visited a well known telcom in Hook too.

 

I would love to have a seat row of 4, with a table, free wifi, usb socket all to myself.

it would be nice if the train had a tavern car, and a butler to wait on me too.

 

Unfortunately its 2023.

Any notion of not being rammed sideways, standing in a grim toilet, with my work bag above my head, with 3 other people, staring at grafiti, whilst thrown side to side, in a train, when travelling for work left my brain around 2003… At that point i’m not a rail enthusiast… just an angry commuter.

 

However, as often I stay overnight, it can also be reverse commute for me from London to Basingstoke, quite often, its the former that applies, and its quite pleasant at 7am, looking at mass grim death on wheels going to London, whilst i’m lording it, seemingly on my own private train going southwards.

 

And that, is what is the railways problem, the planners need to solve.. in 200 years of railways, I dont think any solution other than cut backs in hard times, has ever been found… so why in 2023 would I or you expect anything different ?

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by adb968008

[Mike_Walker]

No one is denying that cuts are coming, probably from the May timetable change and will be across the board.  All the TOCs, including those controlled by DOR, have been instructed by the DfT to submit proposals on how to reduce their costs by 25%.  This is a blanket instruction that applies equally to all irrespective of their individual circumstances and may take the form of service cuts - either thinning out frequencies or "bustitution" of branch lines - or by fleet reduction which will inevitably result in shorter trains.

 

12 car trains never regularly operated outside the London and South East area because they weren't needed.  Here on the GWML we saw a great deal of investment in extending platforms to handle 12 car 387s which were needed before the pandemic but now, with so much WFH, they are not and it is doubtful we shall ever get back to traffic levels that require them.

 

The trouble is, the civil servants responsible for devising these cuts are all living in the south east were the impact on commuter traffic has been the most pronounced.  If you go to Manchester for example commuter traffic has rebounded to broadly pre-pandemic levels with overcrowding as a result yet the DfT don't seem to realise this.

 

Any discussion about the finances of TOCs is now largely irrelevant.  Some did get substantial public financial support whilst others had to pay hefty premiums but that was under the old franchise agreements all of which have now been terminated.  As I've said before, today, all revenue is collected by the TOCs but is passed on directly to the government.  They get reimbursed for their costs plus a small fee.

 

There was an interesting discussion on Today on Radio 4 this morning just after 8.10 concerning Trans Pennine which is worth catching on BBC Sounds if you didn't hear it live.

[adb968008]

16 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

All the TOCs, including those controlled by DOR, have been instructed by the DfT to submit proposals on how to reduce their costs by 25%.  This is a blanket instruction that applies equally to all irrespective of their individual circumstances and may take the form of service cuts - either thinning out frequencies or "bustitution" of branch lines - or by fleet reduction which will inevitably result in shorter trains.

 

So now, your LSWR… what 25% are you going to cut ?

 

(And youve a live event going on right now, which you can monitor and judge political, press and public reaction)…

 

Southern could look at Xmas 2021… remove more metro, Reigates could be easy for instance.

 

XC/ Avanti can blame drivers to make a temporary change somewhat permanent.

 

Chiltern, LNER, GN have older stock thats been or can be easy to cut.

 

SWR have a brand new fleet sitting in sidings, waiting to 1:1 replace an older fleet… you cant cut 25% of a 701 the day after it comes into service, can you ?

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by adb968008

[Dunsignalling]

When it comes down to brass tacks, commuting is a bloody silly way to live one's life anyhow!

 

TBH at least half of what happens in London could be done as well or better in places that don't require public transport provision on a scale that's only needed for four hours a day. 

 

John

Edited January 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Unfortunately, in times of disruption, turning what remains of the normal service on its head will seldom provide a solution.

 

There are various problems with sending Exeter-Waterloo trains to Reading from Basingstoke, including:

 

(a) they have to be fitted around Reading's normal traffic patterns when they get there as do the return workings. Effectively, they have to run within the established Basingstoke-Reading service pattern, not leave Basingstoke when they normally would if going to Waterloo.

 

(b) when they come back, they can be expected to be out of sync with the down departure timetable from Basingstoke. The crossing pattern on the single-line sections West of Salisbury is highly sensitive to down trains presenting late from Salisbury, e.g., any down train arriving Honiton more than 17 minutes late will normally be held to cross the next up working (if that is right time), resulting in a departure at xx.55 against the booked xx.17 (varies a minute either way). 

 

Any down service that arrives Honiton an hour or more late, which happened at least once yesterday, is at risk of being terminated short and commencing its return working from there. Thus any passengers to/ from Exeter face effective cancellations unless substitute buses can be provided at short notice. Even if they can, up ones can't get to Honiton in the time the train would, so the truncated up train is late from the get-go. Ideally, you wouldn't do it, but crew rostering can make it unavoidable in order to comply with working time legislation. All this has knock-on effects at crossing points further up, with another late arrival in Basingstoke delaying its back working. Also, of course all the Exeter passengers are stuck in Honiton until an alternative can be arranged. That will usually be a bus if one can be procured or (more likely) a wait for the next down train which (hopefully) may "only" be 20-40 minutes late....

 

As a general rule of thumb, in a situation like this, a better outcome for all concerned will usually be obtained by retaining as much "normality" as possible and fitting the disruption around it. That way, when any "Plan B" throws up unforeseen issues (and they always do), there is still a basic framework for at least knowing what the service is supposed to look like! 

 

John

 

 

 

Having done far more emergency train servicer planning than anybody else contributing this thread John is absolutely right.  First of all you don't mess about with what can work normally if you can avoid doing so for the very simple reason that it is not the problem you are trying - initially fairly quickly - to solve.  

 

Look at what happened to what was done quickly by taking SWR trains to Reading - it fell apart.  It was  not something any experienced or sensible emergency planner would have done or should have done for the simple reason that you were injecting too much complexity without the time to think it through and do it properly.  Trying to put together two separate routes where there are considerable differences in pathing at the place where they meet is daft.  

 

You could possibly do it once you have time to consider a longer term plan - because it would need a completely new train plan for one of those routes and for part of the major station at at least one end of those routes.  But then you are effectively writing a new timetable (for Basingstoke - Exeter in this case because of the pathing constraints between Basingstoke and Reading) plus you will have major resourcing problems to resolve as well.

 

So the simplest and most reliable answer is to keep what works and isn't affected (i.e. Basingstoke - Reading) as it is but try to strengthen trains if you can (but that will be constrained by platform lengths at Basingstoke and Reading) so all you can do is swop some 2 car diagrams over to 3 car by transferring the 3 car set from another GWR route (which I suspect has already happened).  Trains between Exeter and Basingstoke then continue at their existing times and passengers have to change trains.  

 

Simplicity in the plan always means greater operational reliability and less confusion for passengers.

 

As for the slip site there have been some interesting comments but one thing I find a little odd is the lack of attention to what seems to be a site with a history and apparently some concern about the embankment.  I contrast this with the Western Zone of NR where considerable preventative work has taken place not only on various long known slip sites - some of which haven't moved for many years - but also at sites where it would seem the present regime have had concerns and have set about dealing with things to avoid or mitigate the risk of slips.  What I find a little odd is that one Zone has paid, and is continuing to pay, considerable attention to this while another seems not to have - or were there more urgent needs that the site east of Hook?

[The Stationmaster]

51 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

So now, your LSWR… what 25% are you going to cut ?

 

(And youve a live event going on right now, which you can monitor and judge political, press and public reaction)…

 

Southern could look at Xmas 2021… remove more metro, Reigates could be easy for instance.

 

XC/ Avanti can blame drivers to make a temporary change somewhat permanent.

 

Chiltern, LNER, GN have older stock thats been or can be easy to cut.

 

SWR have a brand new fleet sitting in sidings, waiting to 1:1 replace an older fleet… you cant cut 25% of a 701 the day after it comes into service, can you ?

 

Don't forget what SWR have already cut (at the behest of DafT)

[Dunsignalling]

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

… As for two competing train companies from Exeter to London… not even Liverpool or Manchester has that luxury… GWRs service from Exeter is very good.

 

 

But any advantage it has is lost if one has to get to/from Exeter from the London end to use it. I try to avoid doing so as I prefer seats with a reasonable amount of upholstery. Despite (or because of) their age, SWR 159s have much more comfy seats than GW's IETs.

 

SWR's longer journey time is also offset by Waterloo being in the bit of London where I usually want to go, while Paddington generally isn't!

 

Whenever I do use GW, it means driving 18 miles each way to Taunton, and a hefty station parking fee, to make it practical. Not an option everyone may have.

 

John

Edited January 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[The Stationmaster]

7 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But any advantage it has is lost if one has to get to/from Exeter from the London end to use it. I try to avoid doing so as I prefer seats with a reasonable amount of upholstery. Despite (or because of) their age, SWR 159s have much more comfy seats than GW's IETs.

 

SWR's longer journey time is also offset by Waterloo being in the bit of London where I usually want to go, while Paddington generally isn't!

 

Whenever I do use GW, it means driving 18 miles each way to Taunton, and a hefty station parking fee, to make it practical. Not an option everyone may have.

 

John

When I was working in Wiltshire it was quite interesting to learn about passengers' different reasons - even there - for using either teh GWR route from Westbury compared with the LSWR route from Gillingham or Tisbury.  Some people who lived more conveniently for one or the other would drive to the further one depending on where they were heading in London or whatever else they had in mind.

With the flexibility offered by car ownership for people living in country villages it was something which had never previously occurred to me but it was an important factor for some people.