Riviera Line improvements

[DevonshireRail]

Various discussions have taken place here regarding a DAL that follows a new alignment between Exeter and Newton Abbot. The Riviera Line is a highly congested section of mixed traffic railway and this new alignment would be great to run longer distance services on. It was mentioned in a recent discussion about Dawlish-avoiding lines that Exeter-Plymouth express trains run at an average speed of 54 mph. Besides new alignments, is there anything that can be done on the existing South Devon Main Line to increase speed and capacity? Any stretches where additional passing loops or speed increases are possible?

 

[MarkyT]

I propose additional bidirectional signalling capability along the seawall and neighbouring estuary sections, with associated new crossovers.

The capability to run down trains on the up line between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth has become a useful method for permitting expresses to overtake local trains when managing late running. Bi di signalling was not provided specifically to allow this, but to permit a reduced service to all run in both directions on the inner line in the event of very rough weather or damage to the wall or outermost track resulting from that. It can also allow inspection patrols to take place on the closed line at quiet periods.

My proposal would provide a matching bi-di capability on the down line along the same section with additional crossovers at Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren. This could allow for similar overtaking moves but also permit closure of the inner track for inspection at quiet periods or after cliff fall damage which seems is considered just as critical as wall-related problems on the sea-facing side. At Dawlish Warren I'd relocate the existing crossover and build the new one between the loop turnouts so some parallel running can take place. I'd also raise the speed of the crossovers to ~60mph so moves to and from bang road are not excessively slower than normal-direction movements.

Furthermore, I'd consider another bi-di section along the Exe estuary through Starcross with another pair of crossovers in the vicinity of Marsh Barton.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Reinstate loops at Exminster plus a new station - the village has expanded considerably since closure.

Reinstate quadruple track Aller Divergence to Hackney through Newton Abbot - with the former becoming a junction once again.

Reinstate scissors crossover at Paignton North for maximum platform flexibility.

Improve signalling headways.

 

[MarkyT]

Reinstate loops at Exminster plus a new station - the village has expanded considerably since closure.

Reinstate quadruple track Aller Divergence to Hackney through Newton Abbot - with the former becoming a junction once again.

Reinstate scissors crossover at Paignton North for maximum platform flexibility.

Improve signalling headways.

Supportive of a new station, but platform loops encompassing only a single station are of imited utility as they impose long dwells for the stoppers when being overtaken by expresses.

Something substantial needs doing at Newton Abbot. The current three platform layout is not conducive to making connections and quickly keels over with late running and any additional special traffic.

Not a new scissors ideally, but a second crossover on the north approach to Paignton is very desirable so an up departures can be made from either platform.

It's continuous 3 aspect throughout, in the normal direction, so there's not much opportunity to increase throughput. The current capacity constraints are largely due to the stopping/non-stopping traffic mix and the service tiers' varying journey times.

Revising my bi-di proposal, the additional section from Dawlish Warren towards Exeter might finish at a pair of crossovers near Turf Lock. This would make it approximately equal in length to the Dawlish Warren - Teignmouth section, at around 7km. With fast pointwork, a non-stop should be able to do this wrong road in around five minutes to overtake a local so a signaller may be looking for say a 7 minute margin between up trains to achieve an overtake.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Reinstate scissors crossover at Paignton North for maximum platform flexibility.

Why specifically a scissors crossover at Paignton. Unless the existing crossover needs replacing and there’s some undiscovered space constraint a scissors is a very expensive and maintenance hungry solution.

Why do you propose a scissors rather than just install an additional crossover?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Why specifically a scissors crossover at Paignton. Unless the existing crossover needs replacing and there’s some undiscovered space constraint a scissors is a very expensive and maintenance hungry solution.

Why do you propose a scissors rather than just install an additional crossover?

I'm wanting the flexibility that the pre-1986 layout offered, where a train could arrive at, or depart from, either platform - not too fussed how this is achieved! There is a rising gradient from the level crossing, however - no idea if an additional crossover is permissible.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm wanting the flexibility that the pre-1986 layout offered, where a train could arrive at, or depart from, either platform - not too fussed how this is achieved! There is a rising gradient from the level crossing, however - no idea if an additional crossover is permissible.

An up passenger departure could not leave Paignton from platform 1 in the old layout either, as the left-hand crossover in the scissors had no facing point lock, and only an elevated shunt disc signal was provided for the movement.

The lever frame at tiny Paignton North SB was full, with no space for the extra lever(s) required for a passenger move. I suggest pre-WW2 GWR chose not to extend the existing box for additional facilities because they intended to build a new large one controlling both ends of the station as part of the major five platform rebuild planned. That project was put on hold at outbreak of war and never restarted.

The lever frame was so full that the facing point locks on the right hand crossover element of the scissors were achieved using Princes and Langley 'economical' FPL mechanisms, where the same lever and rod run move the point blades and drive the lock bolt home using lost motion in a cam assembly. The same principle is used inside the casings of many traditional-style electric point machines, and the same black (lower) and blue (upper) lever colouring is used if operated from a frame. The GWR very rarely used economical points, while the Midland and later LMS employed them widely.

While it's not desirable to have pointwork in areas of vertical curvature, it can be installed once on the continuous inclined plane of a gradient. I'd relocate the right hand crossover up the hill closer to the protecting signal and install a new left hander in its place close to the level crossing, Both should be outside the vertical curve while the arrangement should maintain flexibility by ensuring the protecting signal overlap remains clear of conflicting movements.

 

[brad465]

Is there an Exeter resignalling programme planned? That would be the best time to add more flexibility at Paignton.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I'm wanting the flexibility that the pre-1986 layout offered, where a train could arrive at, or depart from, either platform - not too fussed how this is achieved! There is a rising gradient from the level crossing, however - no idea if an additional crossover is permissible.

But that wasn’t offered in the pre-1986 layout!

 

[MarkyT]

Is there an Exeter resignalling programme planned? That would be the best time to add more flexibility at Paignton.

It was a mid to late 1980s scheme, so Exeter is approaching 40 years old, the usual threshold for starting to consider replacement, although when maintained in good order equipment can and often does last longer. While it's theoretically possible to life-extend relay based systems endlessly by replacing each element like Trigger's broom, this becomes increasiningly costly as the lineside cabinets, buildings and main cables degrade, and the approach locks in the old design and technology, weakening or delaying the case for a modern replacement.

 

[sharpener]

The lever frame was so full that the facing point locks on the right hand crossover element of the scissors were achieved using Princes and Langley 'economical' FPL mechanisms, where the same lever and rod run move the point blades and drive the lock bolt home using lost motion in a cam assembly. The same principle is used inside the casings of many traditional-style electric point machines, and the same black (lower) and blue (upper) lever colouring is used if operated from a frame. The GWR very rarely used economical points, while the Midland and later LMS employed them widely.

Interesting video. I suppose the lost motion required in any of the "economical" approaches means that the movement of the switch blades only occurs in the middle part of the lever travel, does this mean the levers are correspondingly harder to pull? Was there ever a design where more than one lever stroke was needed for the complete action (a bit like a Tirfor)?

 

[GCarlos_18]

Reinstating 4 tracks through Newton Abbot (until Aller) seems eminently sensible, and increased use of bi-di sounds like it would make the two tracks between Exeter and Newton more useful.

What about the line from Newton (well, Aller Jct) onwards to Plymouth? That section is twisty, undulating and slower than that between Exeter and Newton. Is there any benefit to new faster alignments (inc longer tunnels) between Aller and Totnes, and between Totnes and Ivybridge (or even Plympton) (abandoning the old alignments)? Is that way too expensive? Can the existing alignment be sped up cost-effectively with electrification and perhaps smoothing a few corners?

[Going bold crayon-wise, if you also built the Dawlish Avoiding Line you could maybe send all expresses from Exeter via DAL, the western island at Newton and then via Totnes to Plymouth and Cornwall; with stoppers going via the coast, eastern island at Newton, and then to Torquay and Paignton. Thus you have a frequent and reliable Devon Metro route from (Oke/Barny to) Exeter-coast-Newton-Paignton, complementing faster trains which go (Bristol/London to) Exeter-Newton-Totnes-Plymouth-Cornwall.]

 

[MarkyT]

Interesting video. I suppose the lost motion required in any of the "economical" approaches means that the movement of the switch blades only occurs in the middle part of the lever travel, does this mean the levers are correspondingly harder to pull?

Maybe the case. The examples at Paignton were right outside the box so should have been a fairly easy pull anyway.

Was there ever a design where more than one lever stroke was needed for the complete action (a bit like a Tirfor)?

Interesting idea. Might work well with double wire operated points, though the frames typically used for those in Europe have levers with a very long stroke of 180 degrees around a pivot point above the operating floor. UK frame designs vary in stroke between 40 and 60 degrees, with the pivot axis below the floor. Perhaps the Tirfor device might be a way to provide sufficient movement to convert a UK frame for wire point operation. You'd need an electric check lock to ensure the item controlled had fully reached detected position before allowing the lever to be moved fully to the desired position to activate mechanical releases. On the other hand you could buy an electric point machine and power it via the cable you'd need for detection anyway.

 

[sharpener]

You'd need an electric check lock to ensure the item controlled had fully reached detected position before allowing the lever to be moved fully to the desired position to activate mechanical releases.

I was thinking of the mechanism in a ratchet crimping tool where it requires several strokes, but the movement is all in one direction and it cannot be released until the final end point is detected. This would correspond to the locking slots in the Princes and Langley sliding plate. The last bit would also operate an escapement which would reverse the direction. Yes it would need some form of detection at both ends of travel.

On the other hand you could buy an electric point machine and power it via the cable you'd need for detection anyway.

Much lighter cable though so of less value. Or use a fibre-optic cable to do it purely optically, has no secondhand value at all, has this been tried? (I have used this concept for proximity sensors on 1/5 scale model torpedoes.)

 

[brad465]

One thing I would like to see, though flooding damage has made this far more costly, is reinstating the Heathfield branch to passenger service. The main aim would be a parkway station at Heathfield that not only serves here and Bovey Tracey, but provides through services to Paignton, which could encourage fewer cars to travel directly into Torbay itself. The station and line would also be a good railhead for whenever the sea wall is closed, with RRBs going here to link up with Paignton trains (although for Plymouth the bus would still be better off carrying on to there).

I would seek an hourly frequency minimum, increasing to 2tph during high tourist season, but this would also require Newton Abbot-Paignton upgrades if all the existing services are retained on top.

 

[30907]

The main aim would be a parkway station at Heathfield that not only serves here and Bovey Tracey, but provides through services to Paignton, which could encourage fewer cars to travel directly into Torbay itself.

An intriguing idea, as Torbay seems to have no park-and-ride (apart from one for Brixham). However, I wonder about the road traffic implications, as traffic to Torbay from the north currently uses the A380 not the A38. If a rail-bases P and R for Torbay is needed, then the Edginswell area where the A380 splits, or even better Newton itself (brownfield, replacing industrial buildings) would be better.
Either way, I foresee Paignton LC being a problem.

The station and line would also be a good railhead for whenever the sea wall is closed, with RRBs going here to link up with Paignton trains.

How often are such closures?

 

[MarkyT]

An intriguing idea, as Torbay seems to have no park-and-ride (apart from one for Brixham). However, I wonder about the road traffic implications, as traffic to Torbay from the north currently uses the A380 not the A38. If a rail-bases P and R for Torbay is needed, then the Edginswell area where the A380 splits, or even better Newton itself (brownfield, replacing industrial buildings) would be better.

The long-proposed Edginswell station is not intended to have car parking, though there is a line of 45 metered street parking spaces nearby along Newton Road, at £3.20 a day, so quite comparable to many smaller station parking charges. I think an advertised P&R would better rely mainly on the existing No 12 bus route, rather than a new dedicated bus or rail, which doesn't serve Torquay town centre very well, though would offer a quick route to Paignton centre and Torre Abbey Sands clearly. A bus P&R just needs a field near an existing bus stop and a road junction, though it could be at Edginswell if desired.

 

[DevonshireRail]

What about the line from Newton (well, Aller Jct) onwards to Plymouth? That section is twisty, undulating and slower than that between Exeter and Newton. Is there any benefit to new faster alignments (inc longer tunnels) between Aller and Totnes, and between Totnes and Ivybridge (or even Plympton) (abandoning the old alignments)? Is that way too expensive? Can the existing alignment be sped up cost-effectively with electrification and perhaps smoothing a few corners?

How helpful would tilting 802s (like the Pendolinos on the WCML) be here to deal with the curves?

 

[D6130]

How helpful would tilting 802s (like the Pendolinos on the WCML) be here to deal with the curves?

Don't think they're ever likely to be built, to be honest. The class 8xx template and body profile would be totally unsuited to tilting and the necessary equipment....and it would cost a fortune to install the necessary balises and ancillary track equipment. Tilting technology is a thing of the past in the UK.

 

[sharpener]

How helpful would tilting 802s (like the Pendolinos on the WCML) be here to deal with the curves?

I think historically the problem with this section has been not enough power to cope with the gradients, not the curves, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Devon_Railway_Company#Route. I can recall OH being due to arrive on an HS125 which had the stop at Totnes cancelled in order to be able to take a run at Rattery Bank as it had only one working power car. IIRC there were strict instructions explained on here at the time that if such a train came to a stand drivers were forbidden from attempting a restart as it would burn out the traction motors.

My impression from more recent journeys on 80x is that they have more than enough power now the engines have been uprated from the original 80% of MTU's nominal power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800#Notes. Assuming they are all working. Happy to be corrected about some of the detail!

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

One thing I would like to see, though flooding damage has made this far more costly, is reinstating the Heathfield branch to passenger service. The main aim would be a parkway station at Heathfield that not only serves here and Bovey Tracey, but provides through services to Paignton, which could encourage fewer cars to travel directly into Torbay itself. The station and line would also be a good railhead for whenever the sea wall is closed, with RRBs going here to link up with Paignton trains (although for Plymouth the bus would still be better off carrying on to there).

I would seek an hourly frequency minimum, increasing to 2tph during high tourist season, but this would also require Newton Abbot-Paignton upgrades if all the existing services are retained on top.

Heathfield is on the 'wrong' road (A38) and too far from Torbay for a P & R IMO. Bovey Tracey isn't very big and the road to Newton Abbot from Drumbridges (the A38 junction) is being substantially improved as we speak.

A more worthwhile project would be to extend the Riviera Line services to Goodrington and Churston for (Brixham) - whether the Dartmouth Steam Rly. (is that what they are called this week?) could be co-exist is another matter. Frankly, I'd 'nationalise' it and make it part of the NR network right through to Kingswear - I've never been a fan of their operation!

 

[dk1]

How helpful would tilting 802s (like the Pendolinos on the WCML) be here to deal with the curves?

I foolishly thought TASS was going to be provided through Devon & Cornwall when Virgin introduced the Voyagers to the South West. With the curvature I thought it perfect but obviously was never going to be.

 

[DevonshireRail]

Heathfield is on the 'wrong' road (A38) and too far from Torbay for a P & R IMO. Bovey Tracey isn't very big and the road to Newton Abbot from Drumbridges (the A38 junction) is being substantially improved as we speak.

A more worthwhile project would be to extend the Riviera Line services to Goodrington and Churston for (Brixham) - whether the Dartmouth Steam Rly. (is that what they are called this week?) could be co-exist is another matter. Frankly, I'd 'nationalise' it and make it part of the NR network right through to Kingswear - I've never been a fan of their operation!

I've been thinking about a Churston railhead recently, it's only 2 miles outside Brixham. Considering that the DSR stopped calling there after COVID, surely one of the few constraints is coordinating the timetable during the summer months? Terminating at Churston means that the DSR still have Kingswear services as their unique selling point.

In the longer term, and bureaucracy aside, I completely agree with nationalising the whole thing.

 

[MarkyT]

I've been thinking about a Churston railhead recently, it's only 2 miles outside Brixham. Considering that the DSR stopped calling there after COVID, surely one of the few constraints is coordinating the timetable during the summer months? Terminating at Churston means that the DSR still have Kingswear services as their unique selling point.

The station at Paignton, near the town centre, bus station, hotels and beach is what attracts the punters. I doubt a limited steam operation just from Churston to Kingswear would be anywhere near as popular.

In the longer term, and bureaucracy aside, I completely agree with nationalising the whole thing.

The steam railway is a very popular and successful attraction. I and many others would not like to see it go, though I am in favour of improved regular rail services too if they were feasible.

I suggest two options might be explored for extending National Rail beyond Paignton while keeping the steam operation.

1. To Goodrington only.
This is fairly easy. One of the Goodrington carriage sidings becomes a passenger running line and is extended to a new platform just to the south of Tanners Road overbridge. There's room for another independent track under the bridge, though the turnouts for the DSR engineering yard will likely need moving south a few metres to make space. Local Devon Metro services are extended one stop to the new terminus, which reduces platform occupancy time at Paignton. Car parking is provided in the existing council run seasonal facility adjacent. Easy interchange with buses is possible here too, and if the DSR also reopened their platform, they could also benefit from customer parking, difficult in central Paignton.

Sands Road level crossing needs to be upgraded from its train crew operated status, as it's far too time consuming to use frequently on the the NR side. I suggest a AFBCL Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally monitored. Although it's only a 2 barrier crossing, it's one way for vehicular traffic so conforms to the requirement this configuration has for separate entrance and exit barriers. For up approaches from the south on NR and DSR, the crossing would be initiated automatically by a strike in track circuit and treadle arrangement. For down trains the crossing would still be initiated by crew operating a switch but that can be on the platform at the usual stopping point and crew can just press it once and get back in the cab, rather than having to supervise the barrier lowering and then confirm the crossing is clear. The automation, including OD sensors, takes care of all that and if the flashing red lights are working, barriers are down and still intact, and there are no obstructions detected, the drivers flashing white light will show and the train can proceed.

2. To Churston.
This would see the infrastructure between Paignton and Churston transferred to NR/GBR, and the local service extended to a new dedicated platform at Churston, but steam would continue to run to Paignton in an arrangement similar to the NYMR at Whitby. The constraints on the single line could be managed by flighting trains using extra intermediate signals and having separate platforms at Paignton and Churston.

A dedicated NR terminal platform at Churston


Sands Road crossing would still need addressing for more frequent trains. All DSR locomotives permitted to Paignton would need to be equipped with mainline safety and communication systems: AWS, TPWS, GSM-R etc, as they are on the NYMR, and central locking of passenger doors might be a requirement. How much work is done at Goodrington would depend on what the intended functions of the two new stations were. If the intention is to provide a railhead with better parking than other NR stations in the area, it matters little whether it's at Goodrington or Churston. For bus interchange from Brixham, you'd leave the same bus at Churston, Goodrington or Paignton. It's not neccessary to provide big 'railhead' car parks at both stations. Goodrington is a less sensitive area for this than Churston with its large houses and golf club, and there's already a large seasonal car park at Goodrington, so I'd not provide a station car park at Churston.

I think going to Goodrington makes most sense, as the railway systems remain segregated. Under the Churston option, transfer to NR/GBR would lose the DSR liability for maintaining two large viaducts and a vulnerable clifftop section, but at the cost of many new safety systems if they want to continue operating to Paignton. With the rolling stock so fitted and a limited 'mainline license', perhaps occasional local steam excursions beyond Paignton might run. Day trips to Exeter along the sea wall? Run round and replenish in Riverside Yard?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The station at Paignton, near the town centre, bus station, hotels and beach is what attracts the punters. I doubt a limited steam operation just from Churston to Kingswear would be anywhere near as popular.

The steam railway is a very popular and successful attraction. I and many others would not like to see it go, though I am in favour of improved regular rail services too if they were feasible.

I suggest two options might be explored for extending National Rail beyond Paignton while keeping the steam operation.

1. To Goodrington only.
This is fairly easy. One of the Goodrington carriage sidings becomes a passenger running line and is extended to a new platform just to the south of Tanners Road overbridge. There's room for another independent track under the bridge, though the turnouts for the DSR engineering yard will likely need moving south a few metres to make space. Local Devon Metro services are extended one stop to the new terminus, which reduces platform occupancy time at Paignton. Car parking is provided in the existing council run seasonal facility adjacent. Easy interchange with buses is possible here too, and if the DSR also reopened their platform, they could also benefit from customer parking, difficult in central Paignton.

Sands Road level crossing needs to be upgraded from its train crew operated status, as it's far too time consuming to use frequently on the the NR side. I suggest a AFBCL Automatic Full Barrier Crossing, Locally monitored. Although it's only a 2 barrier crossing, it's one way for vehicular traffic so conforms to the requirement this configuration has for separate entrance and exit barriers. For up approaches from the south on NR and DSR, the crossing would be initiated automatically by a strike in track circuit and treadle arrangement. For down trains the crossing would still be initiated by crew operating a switch but that can be on the platform at the usual stopping point and crew can just press it once and get back in the cab, rather than having to supervise the barrier lowering and then confirm the crossing is clear. The automation, including OD sensors, takes care of all that and if the flashing red lights are working, barriers are down and still intact, and there are no obstructions detected, the drivers flashing white light will show and the train can proceed.

2. To Churston.
This would see the infrastructure between Paignton and Churston transferred to NR/GBR, and the local service extended to a new dedicated platform at Churston, but steam would continue to run to Paignton in an arrangement similar to the NYMR at Whitby. The constraints on the single line could be managed by flighting trains using extra intermediate signals and having separate platforms at Paignton and Churston.

A dedicated NR terminal platform at Churston
View attachment 210079

Sands Road crossing would still need addressing for more frequent trains. All DSR locomotives permitted to Paignton would need to be equipped with mainline safety and communication systems: AWS, TPWS, GSM-R etc, as they are on the NYMR, and central locking of passenger doors might be a requirement. How much work is done at Goodrington would depend on what the intended functions of the two new stations were. If the intention is to provide a railhead with better parking than other NR stations in the area, it matters little whether it's at Goodrington or Churston. For bus interchange from Brixham, you'd leave the same bus at Churston, Goodrington or Paignton. It's not neccessary to provide big 'railhead' car parks at both stations. Goodrington is a less sensitive area for this than Churston with its large houses and golf club, and there's already a large seasonal car park at Goodrington, so I'd not provide a station car park at Churston.

I think going to Goodrington makes most sense, as the railway systems remain segregated. Under the Churston option, transfer to NR/GBR would lose the DSR liability for maintaining two large viaducts and a vulnerable clifftop section, but at the cost of many new safety systems if they want to continue operating to Paignton. With the rolling stock so fitted and a limited 'mainline license', perhaps occasional local steam excursions beyond Paignton might run. Day trips to Exeter along the sea wall? Run round and replenish in Riverside Yard?

Yes, Goodrington would be a good start, being relatively easy to achieve and with, as you say, a large ready made car-park.

As for Churston it is a pity it couldn't continue to Brixham - it is as after all the terminus of the main bus flow through the Bay rather than Kingswear. The course of the old branch seems to be blocked at the Brixham end, and in any event the station was rather inconveniently situated high above the town. I think a former (controversial) Mayor of Torbay did propose reopening it at one point.

 

[MarkyT]

Aside from the train length limitations in the platforms at Paignton that prevent usage by 10 car 22x and 80x trains, there are other constraints that affect combinations of movements. In the following diagram, showing the revised north junction and a passenger conversion of one of the sidings for Goodrington service extensions, a route is set for a down arrival in platfrom 1 from Torquay (white path going right to left from green entrance signal). Note the overlap beyond the red exit signal (yellow path) trails through the junction at the south end of the station, locking out any simultaneous movements between Platform 2 and Goodrington until the arrival in 1 has timed out to a stand. A down arrival in 2 similarly locks out any simultaneous movement between 1 and Goodrington.


The ideal way to increase standage and simultaneously solve the overlap issue is to move the junction and lengthen the double track over the crossing. The signals could be moved closer to the crossing, parallel with the DSR signal and the platforms extended and possibly straightened a bit. This is difficult however due to the narrow alignment immediately either side of the crossing with structures very close to the track. The railway equipment building could likely be removed with a new signal system, but the other building in the way is the old crossing keepers cottage, now a private home.

Let's imagine the railway could acquire that property at reasonable cost by some means. This would be my ideal layout under those circumstances:


Counterintuitively, one way to resolve the overlap conflict at the south end would be to convert one of the platforms at Paignton to a terminal bay, probably 2. That would clearly be trading some new flexibility for loss of the ability to move directly between 2 and Goodrington. The additional crossover at the north end is also essential in this layout. With greater use of 1, the internal circulation of the station needs to be reviewed. Perhaps a post-fire opportunity.

With the south junction removed, the signal standage and both platform lengths could be adjusted to take full 10x26m formations, and that would likely also need the signalling building near the crossing removed.

The diagram shows a down arrival in 2 at the same time as an ECS from Goodrington to 1, illustrating the new flexibility. The layout below might be designed to be an interim stage to achieving the ultimate configuration above, once the space issue was resolved, or a new idea emerged.

 

[Ashley Hill]

The loco release line at Goodrington is essentially the old up line. Upgrading this and running into a new platform at Happy Valley would not necessarily be too much of a problem. Would providing signal controls into roads 1-4 need feathers and position lights from Paignton.
Would it be possible to have duel control of Sands Road crossing? NR movements being controlled from the panel via CCTV, whilst the DSR continue with its traincrew operation?
The idea of running to Goodrington was actually considered back in the 1980s.

 

[zwk500]

Counterintuitively, one way to resolve the overlap conflict at the south end would be to convert one of the platforms at Paignton to a terminal bay, probably 2.

I can't see how 3 tracks across Sands level crossing fits without demolition, and I struggle to see demolition of non-railway property being justified. However, couldn't you resolve the overlap conflict with a ROL and a Warner route on both platforms?

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, Goodrington would be a good start, being relatively easy to achieve and with, as you say, a large ready made car-park.

As for Churston it is a pity it couldn't continue to Brixham - it is as after all the terminus of the main bus flow through the Bay rather than Kingswear. The course of the old branch seems to be blocked at the Brixham end, and in any event the station was rather inconveniently situated high above the town. I think a former (controversial) Mayor of Torbay did propose reopening it at one point.

I don't think it ever got any further than rather vague notions of Swiss style light rail.

I bring you the new Brixham branch, with a new cut off from Paignton gaining the old formation then leaving it just past Churston Ferrers to dive into a 1.8km tunnel descending at ~1:30 to emerge in the central car park. It'd be fast compared to the bus to Paignton, and likely more reliable, but couldn't match frequency, though the supposed 10 minute interval #12 sometimes becomes 3 buses running together every half an hour!

I can't see how 3 tracks across Sands level crossing fits without demolition, and I struggle to see demolition of non-railway property being justified. However, couldn't you resolve the overlap conflict with a ROL and a Warner route on both platforms?

I agree it's difficult, but the terminal bay layout doesn't require that as it still has only 2 tracks passing the constrained location.

The existing junction is so tight, there's no room for ROLs. If you moved the signals back to create space for ROLs, the standage would be reduced further; you might not be able to reverse a 9-car 80x.

Intermediate signals along the platforms with their overlaps clear of the junction could partially solve this; a short train could be routed to one of these while another movement took place at the south.


Another interesting avenue might be to propose a standards derogation to move the protecting signals at the north of the station closer to the level crossing. When the colour lights were erected, they were placed at the modern standard distance from the road, 25m. The old semaphores were much closer, so the resignalling cost about 15m standage, the critical additional distance that could allow a 10-car to be handled.

The loco release line at Goodrington is essentially the old up line. Upgrading this and running into a new platform at Happy Valley would not necessarily be too much of a problem. Would providing signal controls into roads 1-4 need feathers and position lights from Paignton.

Perhaps have another position light just before the fan with a miniature alphanumeric route indicator. Then a single shunt route to that from each platform signal.

Would it be possible to have duel control of Sands Road crossing? NR movements being controlled from the panel via CCTV, whilst the DSR continue with its traincrew operation?
The idea of running to Goodrington was actually considered back in the 1980s.

In principle, it'd just be moving the NR side control unit into the box and providing the CCTV supervision. While I could see how it might work technically, there might be obscure rules and regulations implications that prevent it. I expect many ideas and suggestions were explored in the lead-up to Exeter resignalling.

I think historically the problem with this section has been not enough power to cope with the gradients, not the curves, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Devon_Railway_Company#Route. I can recall OH being due to arrive on an HS125 which had the stop at Totnes cancelled in order to be able to take a run at Rattery Bank as it had only one working power car. IIRC there were strict instructions explained on here at the time that if such a train came to a stand drivers were forbidden from attempting a restart as it would burn out the traction motors.

Curvature definitely restricts speed in many parts of Devon and Cornwall. Dainton is 55mph on both ramps, with curves down to ~360m radius. Much of Totnes to Plymouth is 60mph with curves down to ~400m. The sea wall is also constrained by curves.

My impression from more recent journeys on 80x is that they have more than enough power now the engines have been uprated from the original 80% of MTU's nominal power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800#Notes. Assuming they are all working. Happy to be corrected about some of the detail!

The first time I went up Dainton in a brand new fully engined 220, I was astonished at the performance. Most modern trains handle the gradients well.

 

[zwk500]

I agree it's difficult, but the terminal bay layout doesn't require that as it still has only 2 tracks passing the constrained location.

The terminal bay layout does solve that issue but if trains are wanting to regularly work in and out of Goodrington you'd really rather have the loop if you can somehow keep it for operational reasons.

The existing junction is so tight, there's no room for ROLs. If you moved the signals back to create space for ROLs, the standage would be reduced further; you might not be able to reverse a 9-car 80x.

Ah, I didn't realise it was that tight even for a very short ROL or even PROL.

Intermediate signals along the platforms with their overlaps clear of the junction could partially solve this; a short train could be routed to one of these while another movement took place at the south.

That's an idea. It's an extra couple of SEU in the costs but preserves the flexibility of both platforms without imposing the overlap timeout restriction (although the overlap timeout may not be that critical if the departure to Goodrington can always be signalled first.