Cornwall Metro funding approved

[jamieh27]

Yes, I believe it's a totally new platform going in, to hold a four car unit

So it does look like there will be 4 car (2+150s) on the Newquay to Falmouth line, that will be good, they may have to extend the platforms at Perranwell, Falmouth Town and possibly Falmouth Docks.

 

[Meerkat]

So it does look like there will be 4 car (2+150s) on the Newquay to Falmouth line, that will be good, they may have to extend the platforms at Perranwell, Falmouth Town and possibly Falmouth Docks.

Apart from cost are there any problems making those extensions?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

So it does look like there will be 4 car (2+150s) on the Newquay to Falmouth line, that will be good, they may have to extend the platforms at Perranwell, Falmouth Town and possibly Falmouth Docks.

Not necessarily. The platform length at Newquay is probably sensible future-proofing at fairly minimal cost, but it doesn’t mean that the plan for the overall scheme is for 4-car units.

 

[RPI]

So it does look like there will be 4 car (2+150s) on the Newquay to Falmouth line, that will be good, they may have to extend the platforms at Perranwell, Falmouth Town and possibly Falmouth Docks.

Not that I'm aware of, it is simply future proofing the infrastructure, also a four car could possibly be used for things like Boardmasters or other events.

A four car currently won't fit at any of the stations on the Falmouth branch either, with the exception of Perranwell, but I believe part of this project is to have platform extensions on the Falmouth branch too.

 

[DDB]

Does it also mean the platform could still be used by another 2 car unit with a sick 2 car unit parked at the end until it can limp home at the end of service?

 

[RPI]

Does it also mean the platform could still be used by another 2 car unit with a sick 2 car unit parked at the end until it can limp home at the end of service?

That I don't know, depends if permissive working will be allowed

 

[testertrev]

Does anybody know exactly where the loop will be located, I am presuming they will locate the Newquay end near where the old loop started to curve round to st Dennis junction and the Par end on the straight part where the line runs next to the old A30 road. how long is the loop planned to be, is it going to be a similar set up to the one at Tisbury on the Salisbury Exeter line or will it be a dynamic type loop?

Loop will be roughly where you state, scheme designed on maximum train length of 10 car IET. Loop will be signalled in both directions so similar to Tisbury

 

[The exile]

Does it also mean the platform could still be used by another 2 car unit with a sick 2 car unit parked at the end until it can limp home at the end of service?

Most of the time it wouldn’t be necessary as the other platform would still be available.

 

[jamieh27]

Not that I'm aware of, it is simply future proofing the infrastructure, also a four car could possibly be used for things like Boardmasters or other events.

A four car currently won't fit at any of the stations on the Falmouth branch either, with the exception of Perranwell, but I believe part of this project is to have platform extensions on the Falmouth branch too.

Penryn I think can fit 4 coaches. I know the other stations can't but they might extend it in the near future.

 

[RPI]

Penryn I think can fit 4 coaches. I know the other stations can't but they might extend it in the near future.

Penryn can only hold three if I recall correctly

 

[jamieh27]

Penryn can only hold three if I recall correctly

I don't know looks long enough for 4 or maybe 3 and 1/2 lol.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't know looks long enough for 4 or maybe 3 and 1/2 lol.

At any rate, if there is a need to run 4-car Newquay-Falmouth in the future, I'm guessing that extending the platforms is not going to pose any particular difficulties. They are all effectively single platform stations, and looking on Google maps, I can't see any buildings or other obstacles in the way of extending the platforms. And at Penryn, the passing loop extends some way beyond the platform, so presumably it should be easy to simply extend the platform in both directions to accommodate two longer trains.

 

[zwk500]

I don't know looks long enough for 4 or maybe 3 and 1/2 lol.

Penryn's operational length in both directions is given as 71m in the Timetable Planning Rules, so not a 4-car. The key at Penryn is the loop length as it's not coincident with the platform, but I couldn't see a separate length quoted for that.
The sectional appendix quotes a single platform length for Penryn of 238m.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Penryn's operational length in both directions is given as 71m in the Timetable Planning Rules, so not a 4-car. The key at Penryn is the loop length as it's not coincident with the platform, but I couldn't see a separate length quoted for that.
The sectional appendix quotes a single platform length for Penryn of 238m.

Those figures seem odd to me. If the operational length is 71m (And I'm assuming that means, 71m for each train) but the total length is 238m that seems to imply a length of 238 - (2 * 71) = 96 m is not operational. I can understand you'd probably need a non-operational gap in the middle where the passing loop diverges from the platform, but that seems a quite unnecessarily huge gap.

 

[John R]

Those figures seem odd to me. If the operational length is 71m (And I'm assuming that means, 71m for each train) but the total length is 238m that seems to imply a length of 238 - (2 * 71) = 96 m is not operational. I can understand you'd probably need a non-operational gap in the middle where the passing loop diverges from the platform, but that seems a quite unnecessarily huge gap.

Looking at googlemaps the two lengths aren't equal, with the Truro end much longer. The operational length will be determined by the shorter of the two, as a train has to call at both during its return journey.

 

[jamieh27]

Looking at googlemaps the two lengths aren't equal, with the Truro end much longer. The operational length will be determined by the shorter of the two, as a train has to call at both during its return journey.

I assume you mean Platforms 2 and 3> If so Platform 3 was extended in 2021 to accommodate 9 car IETs. Platform 2 wouldn't have wiggle room for an extension because of the signalling equipment and level crossings.

 

[RPI]

Those figures seem odd to me. If the operational length is 71m (And I'm assuming that means, 71m for each train) but the total length is 238m that seems to imply a length of 238 - (2 * 71) = 96 m is not operational. I can understand you'd probably need a non-operational gap in the middle where the passing loop diverges from the platform, but that seems a quite unnecessarily huge gap.

The gap in the middle is significant, effectively, the whole of what used to be the only platform at Penryn prior to the loop being installed is now fenced off out of use, but is used as an access path to the operational platforms at each end

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

Not my picture, but you can see beyond the signal the significant section of the original platform that is now out of use, the Falmouth bound platform is in the far distance.

 

[John R]

I assume you mean Platforms 2 and 3> If so Platform 3 was extended in 2021 to accommodate 9 car IETs. Platform 2 wouldn't have wiggle room for an extension because of the signalling equipment and level crossings.

We're discussing Penryn, not Truro.

 

[zwk500]

Those figures seem odd to me. If the operational length is 71m (And I'm assuming that means, 71m for each train) but the total length is 238m that seems to imply a length of 238 - (2 * 71) = 96 m is not operational. I can understand you'd probably need a non-operational gap in the middle where the passing loop diverges from the platform, but that seems a quite unnecessarily huge gap.

96m does not sound unreasonable to me - you'd need an overlap (40m?) and about 50m for the crossover.

Looking at googlemaps the two lengths aren't equal, with the Truro end much longer. The operational length will be determined by the shorter of the two, as a train has to call at both during its return journey.

The lengths are quoted independently for each direction, both are stated as 71m.

 

[RPI]

We're discussing Penryn, not Truro.

Truro bay platform also can't take more than three cars, not an issue with through services as they'd use the main platforms.

 

[jamieh27]

Truro bay platform also can't take more than three cars, not an issue with through services as they'd use the main platforms.

Its usually 2 coaches so not a problem, in the future if they do go for a 3 coach Siemens bespoke battery train it could fit or possibly a short extension to fit them. For now it be 2 coach 150s or 2 coach 175s when they run.

 

[RPI]

Its usually 2 coaches so not a problem, in the future if they do go for a 3 coach Siemens bespoke battery train it could fit or possibly a short extension to fit them. For now it be 2 coach 150s or 2 coach 175s when they run.

Going off topic, but the bay platform can't be extended unless the extend beyond the buffer stop into the road!

 

[jamieh27]

Going off topic, but the bay platform can't be extended unless the extend beyond the buffer stop into the road!

They probably won't if it extends into the road it will be where the gates are which is sometimes used to ease flow of passengers if there is an event going on at Falmouth. Sometimes Falmouth trains do depart from P3.

 

[Express380]

They probably won't if it extends into the road it will be where the gates are which is sometimes used to ease flow of passengers if there is an event going on at Falmouth. Sometimes Falmouth trains do depart from P3.

They only leave from P3 on the first working of the day as since resignalling they mostly use P2 and this is only during disruption normally.

 

[RPI]

They probably won't if it extends into the road it will be where the gates are which is sometimes used to ease flow of passengers if there is an event going on at Falmouth. Sometimes Falmouth trains do depart from P3.

I've stood at those gates on many occasions checking tickets during tall ships!

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Cornwall Live is reporting that project has now been hit by rising costs, and the accessible footbridge at Par may now not be delivered. It has gone from an astonishing £3.8m to £5m.

Par Footbridge.

"We still want to deliver Par bridge if at all possible, but it's not an absolute requirement now for GWR in terms of the service level agreement they have with us. If the project cannot fund all of that bridge, the amount of money that it can fund will be ring-fenced and we will work with partners to extend the time-scale if necessary to deliver the bridge and look for other funding to complete that project.

"It's everybody's desire to get that bridge built," added Mr Mason. The committee heard that the £3.8m estimate for the Par bridge had increased to a more recent estimate of up to £5m, which will be confirmed by January.

N.B. This is a Reach site.

 

[jamieh27]

Cornwall Live is reporting that project has now been hit by rising costs, and the accessible footbridge at Par may now not be delivered. It has gone from an astonishing £3.8m to £5m.

Par Footbridge.


N.B. This is a Reach site.

NNNNNNNNNNNOooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[D Williams]

No surprise here then. Network Rail can't even build a permanent footbridge at Lostwithiel.

 

[nwales58]

£5m buys a health centre with a hospital outpatients unit, GP surgery, social services offices and more (Blaenau Ffestiniog).

Or a footbridge with lifts (Par).

Although comparing apples and pears, especially on running costs, on benefit-cost ratio and NPV of benefits the health centre is massively better value for public money.

We cannot afford Network Rail.

 

[John R]

No surprise here then. Network Rail can't even build a permanent footbridge at Lostwithiel.

Given there’s a level crossing adjacent to the station, it hardly seems a high priority when compared with all the competing needs for level access where there is absolutely no level access.