Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Busaholic]

Fingers crossed, we may get something to raise our hopes this coming Wednesday?

We're all counting on it

 

[21C101]

Cost of reopening the Okehampton route is now down to £350m million if the Plymouth Herald is to be believed, a much more affordable figure than previous figures touted about. With recent semi secret visit of the Minister of Transport to inspect the underside of Meldon Viaduct, I'm cautiously but not excessively optimistic of some news that will have Brunel spinning in his grave.

Source: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/City-needs-paper-shuffling/story-24712343-detail/story.html

Is the platform at Crediton long enough for a pair of 3 car SWT Class 159s to divide, front to Plymouth rear to Barnstaple?

 

[455driver]

Cost of reopening the Okehampton route is now down to £350m million if the Plymouth Herald is to be believed, a much more affordable figure than previous figures touted about. With recent semi secret visit of the Minister of Transport to inspect the underside of Meldon Viaduct, I'm cautiously but not excessively optimistic of some news that will have Brunel spinning in his grave.

Source: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/City-needs-paper-shuffling/story-24712343-detail/story.html

Is the platform at Crediton long enough for a pair of 3 car SWT Class 159s to divide, front to Plymouth rear to Barnstaple?

Give it a bloody rest will ya! :roll:

 

[yorksrob]

Cost of reopening the Okehampton route is now down to £350m million if the Plymouth Herald is to be believed, a much more affordable figure than previous figures touted about. With recent semi secret visit of the Minister of Transport to inspect the underside of Meldon Viaduct, I'm cautiously but not excessively optimistic of some news that will have Brunel spinning in his grave.

Source: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/City-needs-paper-shuffling/story-24712343-detail/story.html

Is the platform at Crediton long enough for a pair of 3 car SWT Class 159s to divide, front to Plymouth rear to Barnstaple?

It's a comment piece from the prospective UKIP candidate, but still eminently sensible for all that. More so than some of the blinkered comments underneath.

 

[LateThanNever]

Give it a bloody rest will ya! :roll:

That'll be a yes then...

 

[21C101]

Give it a bloody rest will ya! :roll:

Me? Stir it?

 

[drinnicksiding]

Is the platform at Crediton long enough for a pair of 3 car SWT Class 159s to divide, front to Plymouth rear to Barnstaple?

Joining up again at St David's? Wouldn't be good to hang around in Crediton when most people not heading to London (I.e willing to wait) are heading to Exeter

 

[21C101]

Joining up again at St David's? Wouldn't be good to hang around in Crediton when most people not heading to London (I.e willing to wait) are heading to Exeter

No I would join them at Crediton as well basically for operational reasons ie not cluttering up much busier St Davids or Central with joining and splitting trains.

Exeter Central will of course have the Exmouth portion and the specially built Class 159 self powered restaurant car joining there to make a 10 car 159 to Waterloo.

 

[455driver]

No I would join them at Crediton as well basically for operational reasons ie not cluttering up much busier St Davids or Central with joining and splitting trains.

Exeter Central will of course have the Exmouth portion and the specially built Class 159 self powered restaurant car joining there to make a 10 car 159 to Waterloo.

What about the unimportant stuff at Crediton, you know the fact that the platforms are not permissive due to the restrictions with the capabilities of the signalling?

 

[drinnicksiding]

No I would join them at Crediton as well basically for operational reasons ie not cluttering up much busier St Davids or Central with joining and splitting trains.

Exeter Central will of course have the Exmouth portion and the specially built Class 159 self powered restaurant car joining there to make a 10 car 159 to Waterloo.

So if I want to get Exeter I could be waiting for the train at crediton whilst delayed. Thats me out already. Enough to put me off. You need to attract the casual passenger wanting to get to Exeter hassle-free.

 

[yorksrob]

So if I want to get Exeter I could be waiting for the train at crediton whilst delayed. Thats me out already. Enough to put me off. You need to attract the casual passenger wanting to get to Exeter hassle-free.

This is made out to be a bigger issue than it really is. Whilst there is a danger of getting held up by a late portion, if this was as big a problem as made out, the South Eastern division would have emptied of passengers decades ago.

 

[21C101]

So if I want to get Exeter I could be waiting for the train at crediton whilst delayed. Thats me out already. Enough to put me off. You need to attract the casual passenger wanting to get to Exeter hassle-free.

I don't really see what the issue is. Trains split and join on the Southern all the time, even on HS1, without any difficulty at all? I dont think a three minute stop at Crediton rather than a one minute stop would put anyone off?, and even if there is a delay of a few minutes you are sat in the train not on the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What about the unimportant stuff at Crediton, you know the fact that the platforms are not permissive due to the restrictions with the capabilities of the signalling?

If you are going to fork out £350 million or whatever the latest estimate is for reopening Plymouth via Okehampton, a bit of platform extension and signalling modification at Crediton is small change that wouldn't even register on the overall costs.

 

[plymothian]

The Credition - Coleford Junction section would need upgrading anyway. It would be restricting to operate OTS as a through line over such a distance (to, say, Okehampton where the token is exchanged) if we are imagining a potentially high tph working.

So to go all the way in fantasy, Yeoford would probably need reinstating as a junction station with the UD North Devon and UD Okehampton becoming U and D lines respectively; Salmon Pool LC may needing changing from one train at a time. This of course would then mean the signalling of UD North Devon from Coleford Junction would need changing as the token would need moving back from Crediton to Yeoford, or it becomes Single Line TCB as far as Eggesford & OTNS onwards like the Exmouth line.

 

[21C101]

So to go all the way in fantasy

Nah, that involves Ilfracombe, Bude and Padstow

 

[455driver]

Nah, that involves Ilfracombe, Bude and Padstow

No doubt all operating to and from Waterloo!

 

[MarkyT]

No doubt all operating to and from Waterloo!

Every half hour!

 

[drinnicksiding]

The Credition - Coleford Junction section would need upgrading anyway. It would be restricting to operate OTS as a through line over such a distance (to, say, Okehampton where the token is exchanged) if we are imagining a potentially high tph working.

So to go all the way in fantasy, Yeoford would probably need reinstating as a junction station with the UD North Devon and UD Okehampton becoming U and D lines respectively; Salmon Pool LC may needing changing from one train at a time. This of course would then mean the signalling of UD North Devon from Coleford Junction would need changing as the token would need moving back from Crediton to Yeoford, or it becomes Single Line TCB as far as Eggesford & OTNS onwards like the Exmouth line.

Completely agree. The infrastructure is already in place, it would allow for delays on both lines. Whilst okay at present, if there is regular traffic on both lines, dualling Coleford to Crediton is a must!

Where is Salmon Pool for my benefit.

On the subject, should a cut-price Okehampton route be agreed to (being a single line with passing places at half-hourly intervals to allow for an hourly service), is it too early to say where?

For example, they would be better at stations. If you are going to stop, then surely it's better to serve thar community whilst doing so. I'm not keen on loops like Tisbury - what's the point? Is a second platform that expensive/unattractive?

Okehampton already has two platforms. Looking at a 1965 timetable, Tavistock would be half an hour away, and a valuable stop, so two platforms there would be good. I think Okehampton to Bere Alston in 30 mins is a bit ambitious. By my rough workings, that would suffice with trains passing at Crediton and, say, Keyham. That said, by choosing stations to pass at, I am contriving a slower service. Crediton to Plymouth in then in excess of 1hr 30 - when a lot of the talk has been about trying to get the journey time as comparable to the South Devon line as possible. That said, would an extra 45 minutes be reasonable in a crisis?

 

[yorksrob]

On the subject, should a cut-price Okehampton route be agreed to (being a single line with passing places at half-hourly intervals to allow for an hourly service), is it too early to say where?

For example, they would be better at stations. If you are going to stop, then surely it's better to serve thar community whilst doing so. I'm not keen on loops like Tisbury - what's the point? Is a second platform that expensive/unattractive?

Okehampton already has two platforms. Looking at a 1965 timetable, Tavistock would be half an hour away, and a valuable stop, so two platforms there would be good. I think Okehampton to Bere Alston in 30 mins is a bit ambitious. By my rough workings, that would suffice with trains passing at Crediton and, say, Keyham. That said, by choosing stations to pass at, I am contriving a slower service. Crediton to Plymouth in then in excess of 1hr 30 - when a lot of the talk has been about trying to get the journey time as comparable to the South Devon line as possible. That said, would an extra 45 minutes be reasonable in a crisis?

I think we would be better looking at long loops, in effect, some double track sections. This would help to avoid waiting around for the train coming in the other direction during normal operations, but could also allow more than one train each way passing eachother during disruption.

Obviously it would be better if they were centred on stations like Okehampton and Tavistock - If for whatever reason you do have to wait, better to be in a platform.

 

[21C101]

On the subject, should a cut-price Okehampton route be agreed to (being a single line with passing places at half-hourly intervals to allow for an hourly service), is it too early to say where?

For example, they would be better at stations. If you are going to stop, then surely it's better to serve thar community whilst doing so.

Okehampton already has two platforms. Looking at a 1965 timetable, Tavistock would be half an hour away, and a valuable stop, so two platforms there would be good.

I would guess that Okehampton is a dead cert, already got two platforms in good condition and a footbridge. If it were a dynamic loop I would imagine it would extend three miles towards Crediton (it can't go the otherway due to the Cycle path)

Okehampton - Tavy was 30 mins in 1965 (29 mins in 1950 non stop) for 16 miles. this is because from 1920s onwards there was a 40mph speed restriction to save on p'way costs south of Bridestowe. So with a 75 speed limit 30 minutes for the 22.5 miles from Okehampton to Bere Alston should not be at all impossble.

Bere Alston is going to need signalling and pointwork along with a bay platform for the Gunnislake branch, so the obvious place to put a loop is there by reinstating the island platform. How far you extend it towards Tavistock to ensure reliability is the key issue I guess.

Journey times from Crediton to Cowley Bridge are <15 mins which would allow a half hourly service, similarly journey times From Bere Alston to St Budeax Victoria Road (where the second platform will be reinstated for the Tavistock opening are currenlty 16 mins, so a dynamic loop at Bere Alston would allow a half hourly service.

So loops at Bere A and Okehampton along with reconfiguring the double track from Crediton to Coleford would allow an hourly service from Exeter to Plymouth as well as an hourly Exeter - Barnstaple and hourly Tavistock Plymouth local

I'm not keen on loops like Tisbury - what's the point? Is a second platform that expensive/unattractive?

Nor was Gerry Daniels when he was area manager. He liberated the stretch from Wilton to Templecombe from the clutches of Western Region in the early '80s and got the loop built (as well as getting Templecombe reopened for £9,000 thanks to voluntary labour from the Locals). However the fiends at Western Region (cow dung be upon them) had sold the down platform at Tisbury off as part of their scorched earth policy and the owners apparently wouldn't sell it back, so there was sadly no choice.

Last time I passed it looked like whatever business was there is not in operation anymore so if Tisbury - Salisbury is doubled as part of Salisbury Resignalling just perhaps it might get put back.

 

[drinnicksiding]

I think we would be better looking at long loops, in effect, some double track sections. This would help to avoid waiting around for the train coming in the other direction during normal operations, but could also allow more than one train each way passing eachother during disruption.

Agreed. Much better, but costs permitting.

oke - Tavy was 30 mins in 1965 (29 mins in 1950 non stop) for 16 miles. this is because from 1920s onwards there was a 40mph speed restriction to save on p'way costs south of Bridestowe. So with a 75 speed limit 30 minutes for the 22.5 miles from Okehampton to Bere Alston should not be at all impossble.

Bere Alston is going to need signalling and pointwork along with a bay platform for the Gunnislake branch, so the obvious place to put a loop is there by reinstating the island platform. How far you extend it towards Tavistock to ensure reliability is the key issue I guess.

I'm assuming there'd be no reason for such a speed restriction to return? E.g because of terrain, cycle path proximity or simply cost-wise?

From the earlier discussions re Meldon Viaduct, that will almost certainly be restricted to 30mph. Maybe the case with some other structures? Through Tavistock perhaps?

Worth noting that the Tavistock station is not proposed for either of the old sites, assuming the Kilbride plans go ahead regardless/to save more red tape costs.

Having a passing place at Bere Alston would be good so that a Gunnislake shuttle could provide connections for both directions in one hit. Dynamic loops would be good to allow for delays, and probably easier at Bere Alston. A dynamic loop at Tavistock would mean dualling some new bridges no doubt.

Nor was Gerry Daniels when he was area manager. He liberated the stretch from Wilton to Templecombe from the clutches of Western Region in the early '80s and got the loop built (as well as getting Templecombe reopened for £9,000 thanks to voluntary labour from the Locals). However the fiends at Western Region (cow dung be upon them) had sold the down platform at Tisbury off as part of their scorched earth policy and the owners apparently wouldn't sell it back, so there was sadly no choice.

Last time I passed it looked like whatever business was there is not in operation anymore so if Tisbury - Salisbury is doubled as part of Salisbury Resignalling just perhaps it might get put back.

Good to know. Would make sense given the recent blueprint. Although I welcome the investment, I thought the Templecombe redesign was a little short-sighted. Although, I'm guessing the old platform could be demolished if needed.

 

[yorksrob]

Is the proposed new station at Tavistock on the old alignment? if not, they may need to resite it for through running anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where is Salmon Pool LC, for my benefit.

Can someone come up with the answer to this query.

 

[21C101]

Can someone come up with the answer to this query.

Something about it here.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse.../t/tarka rail association project officer.pdf

 

[plymothian]

Can someone come up with the answer to this query.

Salmon Pool is the AOCL between Crediton and Yeoford at 180m 09ch. It crosses both the UD North Devon and UD Okehampton and has a local instruction that only 1 train at a time is allowed to cross it and a 25/15mph speed limit.

 

[21C101]

Is the proposed new station at Tavistock on the old alignment? if not, they may need to resite it for through running anyway.

No it is at the south end of the town. The old one was far nearer the town centre, about 300 metres. Unfortunately it was also about 100 metres above the town centre vertically with limited car parking space.

This and this give you an idea of the hill you had to climb. And heres the view across the town from the station entrance

So I'm guessing that the Kilbride station will stay even if they open northwards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although I welcome the investment, I thought the Templecombe redesign was a little short-sighted. Although, I'm guessing the old platform could be demolished if needed.

I was very dissapointed that the second platform at Templecombe was not reinstated with two tracks. The only comfort is that the new platform is a "temporary" platform that will be removed as and when double track is reinstated.

 

[yorksrob]

No it is at the south end of the town. The old one was far nearer the town centre, about 300 metres. Unfortunately it was also about 100 metres above the town centre vertically with limited car parking space.

This and this give you an idea of the hill you had to climb. And heres the view across the town from the station entrance

So I'm guessing that the Kilbride station will stay even if they open northwards.

The old station does suffer from awkward geography. Given that it's handy for the town centre, I wonder whether it would be to much of a strain on timings to have both stations?

 

[Ash Bridge]

No it is at the south end of the town. The old one was far nearer the town centre, about 300 metres. Unfortunately it was also about 100 metres above the town centre vertically with limited car parking space.

This and this give you an idea of the hill you had to climb. And heres the view across the town from the station entrance.

Regarding the small housing development named Quant Park that is visible on the Google street view,are these the properties that breach the former trackbed? The main station buildings look very impressive, do the former platforms still remain also?

 

[MarkyT]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/sectional appendix/western sectional appendix.pdf

Western Route Sectional Appendix Module WR2
LOCAL INSTRUCTIONS
(page 621)

GW606 - COWLEY BRIDGE JN TO BARNSTAPLE

Salmon Pool LC (AOCL)

Two single lines of railway pass over this level crossing. To ensure that only one train is on the crossing at a time the following arrangements apply in addition to those instructions relating to Automatic Open Crossings, Locally Monitored (AOCL) in Rule Book, Module TW8, Section 4 : -

Red and white flashing lights are provided for each line in each direction of travel.

In addition, a "Wait" sign is provided for each line in each direction of travel.

When only one train is approaching the crossing, and under normal circumstances, the appropriate red flashing light will be extinguished and a white flashing light will be exhibited as authority for the train to proceed. At the same time the signs at the other three approaches to the crossing will exhibit the instruction "Wait".

If two trains approach the crossing, the white flashing light will be exhibited only for the first to reach the track circuit controls, as its authority to proceed. The red flashing lights will continue to be exhibited at the other three approaches to the crossing and at the same time the signs will exhibit the instruction "Wait". The second train must be brought to a stand at the relevant "Wait" sign.

When the first train has cleared the crossing the fourth "Wait" sign and red flashing light will be displayed and, after a further interval, the appropriate white flashing light will be exhibited for the second train to proceed. Should this white flashing light not appear after the train has been stopped at the "Wait" sign for three minutes, then it must be assumed that a failure has occurred and the instructions in the following paragraph must be observed.

If neither a "Wait" sign nor a white flashing light is exhibited as a train approaches, the driver should first bring the train toa stand at the "Wait" sign. If the red flashing light continues to be displayed, the driver must bring the train to a stand at the crossing and no further movement must be made over the crossing until the Driver is satisfied that it is safe to do so.

In these circumstances, the warning horn must be sounded before the train proceeds over the crossing. The Driver must report the failure by the first available means.

Dated: 06/07/13

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The old station does suffer from awkward geography. Given that it's handy for the town centre, I wonder whether it would be to much of a strain on timings to have both stations?

I would hope both, so:

1. the new site as a 'parkway' and handy for the new housing developments
2. the old site or thereabouts for town centre and connections with local bus routes that already serve the centre and perhaps connected to the town by a modern automated funicular lift!

 

[34104]

Regarding the small housing development named Quant Park that is visible on the Google street view,are these the properties that breach the former trackbed? The main station buildings look very impressive, do the former platforms still remain also?

The down platform exists still but is sheltered from the footpath which goes through the station by a wooden fence. The up platform has gone,although some parts of the buildings which stood at the Lydford end are still there.Crazy decision to allow this development, which is indeed Quant Park.

 

[Ash Bridge]

The down platform exists still but is sheltered from the footpath which goes through the station by a wooden fence. The up platform has gone,although some parts of the buildings which stood at the Lydford end are still there.Crazy decision to allow this development, which is indeed Quant Park.

Thanks for the info, was a bit difficult resolving some of of the detail on the satellite view. Yes agreed just a bit shortsighted along with the council offices too, looks like a CP order necessary if (when) reopening goes ahead.