Does Gunnislake have a future?

[NickBucks]

As an aside are the PPM's still available ? I thought I read there were problems with the company a while ago and the PPM's on the Stourbridge service had to be replaced by conventional DMU's . Anyone have an update ?

 

[DT611]

As an aside are the PPM's still available ? I thought I read there were problems with the company a while ago and the PPM's on the Stourbridge service had to be replaced by conventional DMU's . Anyone have an update ?

haven't heard that, would be interesting to know more info if its true

 

[richw]

haven't heard that, would be interesting to know more info if its true

It's not true. PPMs were still in operation this week, and are still manufactured new as well.

 

[455driver]

There would have to be a shift swap at some point during the day to achieve reasonable early start and late finish times.

20 minutes journey time each way with a short turnround at Gunnislake so an hourly round trip service would be easy with one unit locked in. For breaks a slightly longer layover could be created at Bere Alston if the journey time could be reduced by a couple of minutes. Then perhaps any booked turnround might be considered a 20 minute PNB perhaps?

Or simply change drivers at Bere Alston so the drivers have their PNBs when that train arrives back at Plymouth and then the driver goes somewhere else, the same drivers dont have to be stuck on the same route.

 

[DT611]

It's not true. PPMs were still in operation this week, and are still manufactured new as well.

thank you

 

[berneyarms]

I don't really see what the issue is here - I cannot see Gunnislake being withdrawn as it is a socially necessary service.

Operating a Bere Alston-Gunnislake shuttle would of course mean changes to set diagrams and driver rosters, but that isn't really an issue. That just means swapping people around.

 

[Taunton]

Plymouth, like Bristol, has very few local train lines and hardly makes use of the suburban stations it does have

Significantly due to Plymouth, like Bristol, having its main station nowhere near the central commercial or shopping area, and therefore being beaten by the bus on almost all grounds. The former GWR is far and away the worst for this - even Paddington is the furthest out terminus in London, and the Heathrow Express narrowly escaped an Advertising Standards Authority judgement that it did not go to Central London as advertised, as Paddington is in the W2 postal area, not normally considered Central London.

 

[plymothian]

Significantly due to Plymouth, like Bristol, having its main station nowhere near the central commercial or shopping area, and therefore being beaten by the bus on almost all grounds. The former GWR is far and away the worst for this - even Paddington is the furthest out terminus in London, and the Heathrow Express narrowly escaped an Advertising Standards Authority judgement that it did not go to Central London as advertised, as Paddington is in the W2 postal area, not normally considered Central London.

I would take issue at this. Only because it is a huge perception, that is not truly born out in reality.

PLY - Royal Parade is a 10 minute walk; whilst
BRI - Cabot Circus is 20 minutes.
TAU - Corporation Street is 15.

 

[6Gman]

Passenger: Why is the station so far from the town?

Stationmaster: We thought it was a good idea to put it near the railway line.



I'll get my coat

 

[edwin_m]

The former GWR is far and away the worst for this

And their WR successors made many of them worse - branch termini at Exmouth, Looe and St Ives (and probably others too) were cut back further from the town centres, mostly to make space for car parks which were predominantly for visitors to the town rather than people driving to catch a train. And getting back on topic, Gunnislake as well!

The terminus for Tavistock was cut back to Bere Alston

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Originally I thought the condition of running the new Tavistock service was that the Gunnislake service would be relatively unchanged - The earlier timetable showed the Gunnislake and Tavistock trains would take turns on the branch/s, with the trains passing on the main line not far from St Budeaux.

 

[fgwrich]

Parry people movers on the Gunnislake branch

Given that the original one couldn't make it up the Mid Hants railway without bursting then I agree!

It'll probably be worked with a single 153 on a Tavistock/Bere Alston to Gunnislake shuttle, with 150s working the main route.

 

[Busaholic]

Significantly due to Plymouth, like Bristol, having its main station nowhere near the central commercial or shopping area, and therefore being beaten by the bus on almost all grounds. The former GWR is far and away the worst for this - even Paddington is the furthest out terminus in London, and the Heathrow Express narrowly escaped an Advertising Standards Authority judgement that it did not go to Central London as advertised, as Paddington is in the W2 postal area, not normally considered Central London.

Having lived in London for the first 40 years of my life, I can't agree that Paddington is not in Central London, however defined. Charing Cross used to be the place from which distances to other cities was measured, so if being pedantic one could say Charing Cross was the only truly Central London station, but nowadays Oxford Circus seems to be regarded as the epicentre. I used to continue my commute from Charing Cross to a point midway between Euston and Kings Cross and would consider neither of those stations (or St Pancras) nearer to the centre than Paddington, while Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street and London Bridge, tho in or near the City of London, are even further from the West End. Plymouth station too is not so far from the shopping centre so that I haven't needed to take a taxi when laden with shopping (except when raining). Bristol,though, I do agree with you. I once was almost late for an interview there having thought I'd left plenty of time to walk from Temple Meads: when you add all the subways etc to the theoretical distance you've walked a hell of a way to the centre. Living there for a couple of years I thought it the most dysfunctional place for public transport and, I fear, things haven't changed much for the better since.

 

[edwin_m]

According to walkit.com, Charing Cross to Paddington is 2.6 miles and Charing Cross to Kings Cross is 1.9 miles. Driving journey planners are less useful due to one way systems etc.

However if you destination is in the City, the distance from Kings Cross remains about the same but the distance to Paddington increases by a mile or more. Crossrail will do a lot to link Paddington better to the City and Canary Wharf.

 

[IanXC]

If the LSWR is reinstated back to Tavistock,would it be daft to suggest operating Bere Alston- Gunnislake with a Heritage dmu? It would save FGW a sprinter for use elsewhere. The former up platform & Callington bay platform are still there, albeit trackless..

Given the unit would be "locked in" the branch, I think it would meet the rules, but there'd be a lengthy ECS move requires. Also is there a suitable heritage unit available, given ATW recently gave up on theirs?

On someones point about a PPM type unit, I know this ideas not on but could some kind of similar stronger solution be used? Or maybe they could operate a heritage EMU service e.g a shortened Class 313 or 315 using recommissioned 3rd rail?

I don't think this line ever was electrified, sounds like a rather expensive solution, given platforms may not be long enough either.

Bere Alston station still has the three former platforms, only the old down one has track, the up island however is still perfectly intact, with buildings, the old signalbox, telegraph poles etc not only all in place but seemingly painted and maintained. As it is probably over 45 years since the current unstaffed halt layout came into being this is probably something of a record for the old Western Region, whose policy in the late 1960s seemed to be to demolish everything unwanted to ground level.

Presumably one of these buildings or the signal box could be the solution to the PNB facilities location?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Given the unit would be "locked in" the branch, I think it would meet the rules, but there'd be a lengthy ECS move requires. Also is there a suitable heritage unit available, given ATW recently gave up on theirs?

My idea was that a few years back with the advent of Community railways! I think the Bodmin &Wenford Rly expressed an interest in operating the Liskeard to Looe branch using one of their dmu's. Maybe it could be maintained at Laira for use on the Gunnislake branch? Then again I would imagine it would all depend on the costs of bringing it up to modern mainline spec plus of course crew training etc.

 

[Busaholic]

According to walkit.com, Charing Cross to Paddington is 2.6 miles and Charing Cross to Kings Cross is 1.9 miles. Driving journey planners are less useful due to one way systems etc.

However if you destination is in the City, the distance from Kings Cross remains about the same but the distance to Paddington increases by a mile or more. Crossrail will do a lot to link Paddington better to the City and Canary Wharf.

The point is they are all in central London - Zone 1 travelcard. If the GWR, LMS, LNER, GNER had by some miracle all have been building their London termini at the same time and had agreed a place in common to pool their resources and create a seamless interchange (a completely Utopian idea) then it would probably have been where Tottenham Court Road station is now - a station with 100 plus platforms, if you also extended the Southern, Southeastern and Lswr services. The lines from Paddington, Euston, Charing Cross etc feeding into this giant wen would mean no rooms for rows of shops, offices etc so the central London of today would never have evolved and people would have been moaning 'there's nothing when you get to London except a giant station with thousands of incomprehensible loudspeaker announcements and three hour queues at the ticket office while they sort out which of five different routes to Birmingham you want if you have the temerity to want to go right now and not having decided three months ago.'

Rant over. We are far better with the current London termini in situ, with the big exception, in my opinion, that Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross should become one station if HS2 ever gets built, with a connection from it to HS1 and the possibility of non-stop through trains to the continent.

 

[455driver]

Given the unit would be "locked in" the branch, I think it would meet the rules, but there'd be a lengthy ECS move requires. Also is there a suitable heritage unit available, given ATW recently gave up on theirs?

Why the ECS moves?
The unit could run out on a Monday morning, stay locked in on the branch all week and just run back on a Friday night for servicing over the weekend.

Fuel capacity shouldnt really be a problem and if it was then a small road tanker could refuel it on a Wednesday.

 

[berneyarms]

Scratch this post - didn't see context!!

 

[edwin_m]

The point is they are all in central London - Zone 1 travelcard. If the GWR, LMS, LNER, GNER had by some miracle all have been building their London termini at the same time and had agreed a place in common to pool their resources and create a seamless interchange (a completely Utopian idea) then it would probably have been where Tottenham Court Road station is now - a station with 100 plus platforms, if you also extended the Southern, Southeastern and Lswr services. The lines from Paddington, Euston, Charing Cross etc feeding into this giant wen would mean no rooms for rows of shops, offices etc so the central London of today would never have evolved and people would have been moaning 'there's nothing when you get to London except a giant station with thousands of incomprehensible loudspeaker announcements and three hour queues at the ticket office while they sort out which of five different routes to Birmingham you want if you have the temerity to want to go right now and not having decided three months ago.'

Rant over. We are far better with the current London termini in situ, with the big exception, in my opinion, that Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross should become one station if HS2 ever gets built, with a connection from it to HS1 and the possibility of non-stop through trains to the continent.

The stations were mainly built where the built-up area ended at the time, as even then it would have been hugely costly and disruptive to demolish large chunks of the capital city. Later arrivals such as the Midland faced that sort of problem in order to get as close to London as their competitors, but by then the railway was proven and sufficiently lucrative that the funds could be raised.

I believe the original idea was for the GWR to go into Euston (not sure if the collapse of this plan led in some way to them ending up relatively far out at Paddington?). And perhaps Kings Cross could have been put a bit further west. But it that had happened it would have unravelled very quickly as none of the companies would have had any space to expand.

The remoteness of Paddington was one of the main reasons the Metropolitan Railway was built.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Why the ECS moves?
The unit could run out on a Monday morning, stay locked in on the branch all week and just run back on a Friday night for servicing over the weekend.

Fuel capacity shouldnt really be a problem and if it was then a small road tanker could refuel it on a Wednesday.

Sounds a bit of a waste of a train 'locking it in' on the Bere Alston - Gunnislake section of the Branch line!
It could bounce between the two stations all day every 45 minutes, with a rest for the driver's tea /lunch breaks. A replacement crew would have to travel to Bere Alston to relieve the early shift.
With 2 more trains the best service Plymouth to Tavistock would struggle to do an hourly service at Bere Alston.
With changing trains at Bere Alston, the Gunnislake service could lose traffic?

 

[Bevan Price]

The stations were mainly built where the built-up area ended at the time, as even then it would have been hugely costly and disruptive to demolish large chunks of the capital city. Later arrivals such as the Midland faced that sort of problem in order to get as close to London as their competitors, but by then the railway was proven and sufficiently lucrative that the funds could be raised.

I believe the original idea was for the GWR to go into Euston (not sure if the collapse of this plan led in some way to them ending up relatively far out at Paddington?). And perhaps Kings Cross could have been put a bit further west. But it that had happened it would have unravelled very quickly as none of the companies would have had any space to expand.

The remoteness of Paddington was one of the main reasons the Metropolitan Railway was built.

Yes - the original Act for the GWR line from Bristol included a proposed to join the London & Birmingham Railway at Kensal Green. However, the GWR use of broad guage made this impracticable - and the L&BR also was uncooperative. At the time, London "ended abruptly" at Marble Arch, so there would be plenty of room for a station at Paddington.
(See D&C Regional History of Railways, Vol. 3, Greater London, by H.P.White)

Reluctance of the city authorities to allow railways to enter the built-up central area was a reason for the stations being built on the (then) fringes of the populated areas. According to White, plans for a "Grand Terminus" at Hungerford Market might have meant no Waterloo, Victoria & Charing Cross, but the various railway companies failed to reach agreement on this idea, and built their individual termini.

 

[Tomnick]

I really don't see the need to shut the Gunnislake unit inside all day. Even if St Budeaux to Tavistock was operated as a single NSTR section (with an intermediate instrument at Bere Alston), there should be time to nip the Gunnislake unit between St Budeaux and Bere Alston during the Tavistock unit's turnaround at Plymouth. It wouldn't take much to provide an NSTR section as far as Bere Alston, then OTW sections to each of Gunnislake and Tavistock from there, to provide a lot more flexibility.

 

[The Ham]

Sounds a bit of a waste of a train 'locking it in' on the Bere Alston - Gunnislake section of the Branch line!
It could bounce between the two stations all day every 45 minutes, with a rest for the driver's tea /lunch breaks. A replacement crew would have to travel to Bere Alston to relieve the early shift.
With 2 more trains the best service Plymouth to Tavistock would struggle to do an hourly service at Bere Alston.
With changing trains at Bere Alston, the Gunnislake service could lose traffic?

Given the existing service isn't hourly it shouldn't be too much of a problem, however given Tavistock is at 16min by road from Bere Alston therfore (allowing for the same time by train) Tavistock to Plymouth would likely be about 40 minutes, that then allows about 10min at each end and you can run an hourly service with two trains.

It may not be the most effective use of a train, but then very few of the Cirnish branch lines are. However it is likely that it could be the stomping ground of a unit which otherwise wasn't of use (i.e. wasn't quite up to current requirements).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really don't see the need to shut the Gunnislake unit inside all day. Even if St Budeaux to Tavistock was operated as a single NSTR section (with an intermediate instrument at Bere Alston), there should be time to nip the Gunnislake unit between St Budeaux and Bere Alston during the Tavistock unit's turnaround at Plymouth. It wouldn't take much to provide an NSTR section as far as Bere Alston, then OTW sections to each of Gunnislake and Tavistock from there, to provide a lot more flexibility.

Given that the Majority of people would be heading to Plymouth, even timing it so that the Gunislake unit could make it to Devonport probably wouldn't bring that much benefit.

Looking at just the stations between Plymouth and Bere Alston their annual use is about 68,000 people, this is compared with 42,000 for Bere Alston and 52,000 for Gunnislake, with a further 30,000 for Calstock (a total of about double that of the first few stations out of Plymouth at about 128,000).

If there was justification for direct services it may be possible to run Plymouth to Gunnislake and back on an 3 hour cycle with the time in the middle used for two shutle runs between Gunislake and Bere Alston. That would then mean that it would just be possible for two units doing that to run it on a 2 hour frequency (passing at Bere Alston), although it would be farily tight.

 

[edwin_m]

I really don't see the need to shut the Gunnislake unit inside all day. Even if St Budeaux to Tavistock was operated as a single NSTR section (with an intermediate instrument at Bere Alston), there should be time to nip the Gunnislake unit between St Budeaux and Bere Alston during the Tavistock unit's turnaround at Plymouth. It wouldn't take much to provide an NSTR section as far as Bere Alston, then OTW sections to each of Gunnislake and Tavistock from there, to provide a lot more flexibility.

The intention is to have no signalling at all beyond the place at St Budeaux where the branch staff is picked up and dropped off - this then unlocks the frame at Bere Alston in conjunction with a one-train staff to Gunnislake. Even providing an instrument at Bere Alston is an extra cost, both for cable routes and for alterations to the interlocking at St Budeaux.

Hopefully if the line is successful, or when Plymouth is re-signalled, the arrangements can be improved.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

I really don't see the need to shut the Gunnislake unit inside all day. Even if St Budeaux to Tavistock was operated as a single NSTR section (with an intermediate instrument at Bere Alston), there should be time to nip the Gunnislake unit between St Budeaux and Bere Alston during the Tavistock unit's turnaround at Plymouth. It wouldn't take much to provide an NSTR section as far as Bere Alston, then OTW sections to each of Gunnislake and Tavistock from there, to provide a lot more flexibility.

The track layout at Bere Alston to provide a Gunislake-Tavistock shuttle would require a footbridge to access the platforms - An extra capital expense for D.C.C. The plan is to build out the existing island platform (The former UP platform) so passengers on the Tavistock-Plymouth and the Gunislake-Bere Alston services can board and alight on the island side. The existing operational platform will be used only twice a day when the Gunislake and Tavistock trains combine/split in the evening and morning.

I agree that is does seem a waste as a Gunislake-Bere Alston shuttle is not an efficient use for a train and staff.

 

[TheBigD]

When first proposed by the developers (forgotten their name) there was a draft timetable which showed the proposed services... I believe a link was posted on this website... Tavistock trains were patched around the existing Gunnislake trains...

Has the proposed service changed from that originally proposed???

 

[Busaholic]

Having started this thread, I've been surprised (but gratified) by the interest shown in the subject. It seems that Gunnislake does have a future post-Tavistock. What would be the chances of an extension beyond Gunnislake though, if only by a preserved railway like Bodmin and Wenford? Is there any track in situ? Don't know this part of Cornwall at all well.

 

[paul1609]

Gunislake Station was rebuilt on the other side of the main road in the early 1990s so the low headroom bridge could be demolished. The original station site became a housing estate shortly after so i would say there is no chance of any extension.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Here is another permutation!!
Run one train (153) between Tavistock and Gunnislake .
And another 2 coach train between Bere Alston and Plymouth.
Hope they can spend a little more & install some signalling and a loop.