Yes, it was pedestrianised during 2022 but local shops were up in arms about it. I was in Paignton at the time and all the shops had banners up about it protesting about it as it was negatively affecting their trade. Then the council tried one way traffic for a time, but went back to full two way traffic. Basically, there is zero local desire for pedestrianisation.
And that weird blue junction where Torbay Road meets Queens Road.
By a previous Lib Dem/Ind admin, following support from the broader town population in a consultation. It was reversed very quickly by incoming Tories, the very first thing they did, after business owners started complaining vociferously that they could no longer park their personal cars immediately outside their front doors, sorry I mean that their customers (the vast majority on foot) couldn't access their stores. The problem with closing Torbay Road and the level crossing to traffic is there are few suitable alternative roads crossing the railway through the town.
Interesting, thanks. I was shocked at how sad and decrepit Paignton is these days - an underpass and pedestrianisation would be a good regeneration project. The whole Torbay area is so ludicrously car dependent - what should be a pleasant, scenic walk from Torquay to Paignton is a fume-filled nightmare. Ideal territory for a tram system - but that is a topic for another thread!
An underpass would be an atrocious addition to the town! Even the nicest ones are gloomy, damp, graffiti covered and smell of urine. The walk from Paignton high st to the beach is already unattractive, an underpass would finish ripping the heart out of this town.
The logic is the train is only just over a train length from it's stop board, while I don't know off the top of my head what the maximum speed approxing the SB would be, it's going to be slow anyway.
There are several adjacent buildings on both sides of the tracks that could be demolished as part of a wider redevelopment of the area. The gradient sounds like more of an issue, but probably not impossible to solve (e.g. By changing the profile of the track over the embankment and lowering the park underpass a little.
In the UK maybe, but the Dutch do it well, and I recently saw the one in Konstanz which is also wide, spacious, well lit and thus well used.
Hmmmm
Even that crossing is a very significant visual barrier to a key route through the town. And there really isn't room for anything remotely that size. The current level crossing is far, far better.
I can't agree that underpasses are by their very nature unpleasant. Much of the poor experience in the UK is from questionable design and execution, and that in many feral sub intersection rabbit warrens, foot traffic has become negligable, so people can get away with doing things they couldn't in busier, more overlooked environments. The best antidote to antisocial behaviour is plenty of people milling around. This is one of the busiest areas possible, and has a wide approach that could include much of the current road width. Regular cleaning and effective security monitoring should be possible.
A Sheringham solution. It's quite narrow to the north of the road. It would likely need to be part of a comprehensive redevelopment either side of the railway, and it would likely encroach on Victoria Park, which might prove controversial. That a rail connection is still needed across the road for access to sidings and the DSR complicates matters. Unless the platforms were moved a long way north (starting say ~200m north perhaps) the booms might still need to be down for a down approach. The existing station could do with some work, but isn't really 'run down' in my view. An entire new two-platform station would be a considerable expense, difficult to justify when the existing one is functional, but at least platform lengths and standage could be better optimised for current traffic under new construction. With 270m+ platforms and 200m overlap, the starting signals could be nearly at Lower Polsham Road, already well into the gradient towards Preston, having climbed ~5m from the crossing. I can't really support the idea of moving the station further from the town centre, the beach, the steam railway and the bus station. If grade separation was impossible, I think the crossing could be better managed with a shorter road closed time before a down arrival, and other measures to reduce the number of empty shunting movements at the north end and allow up departures from either platform.
Fully agree, though a concern I had at the time was the extent to which free blue badge parking would be restricted in the area. There is a lot of that in meter parking along Torbay Road today and the original full proposal just removed all of it without replacement. The annoying thing is that non-street council-owned carparks nearby don't offer the same concession, which disincentivises using them compared to street meter parking.
Oh definitely. By far the best solution.
Which is why an extra set of points is needed to allow departures from both platforms. Surely it can't be impossible to make that small alteration to the signalling?
I suggest Sands Road should become either remote controlled by the signaller with CCTV or more automated with obstacle detection and local monitoring to reduce the time taken and staff requirements for a south end shunt movement. There's a new type of crossing known as the Automatic Full Barrier Crossing Locally monitored (AFBCL) that could be ideal, but as currently designed it needs a four-barrier installation, unlike Sands Rd, a one-way narrow thoroughfare with only two booms. Perhaps a half barrier ABCL might be suitable. Likely initiated in the down direction by a simple platform plunger operated by the guard, one on each NR platform and one for the DSR dual control. The noise issue is something that will likely have to wait until the coming of battery/hybrid trains. In the meantime, engines might be shut down in the sidings whenever possible, though the throaty roar when restarting is also annoying.
I agree I live in a small town and occasionally have to drive down a small road in an industrial village with a level crossing with speed limits of 20 heading east and 30 heading west. The barrier is down 5 minutes and causes a build up of busses passenger and industrial traffic
Conceptually simple but still expensive. For best value, the time to do it would be when existing track and signalling are planned to be replaced, then the new layout design has more flexibility. The signalling is approaching 40 years old so should be in the window for assessment for renewal by now. Don't know about the junction pointwork.
The assumptions are likely based on worst-case rail incident scenarios such as a runaway train losing control, descending the gradient, much less likely with modern rolling stock. There's no doubt also an element of starting to get the barriers down as early as possible so you've time to deal with any 'problem customers' and retry until successful without potentially causing delay.
The bridge to replace Sands Road crossing was successfully built before WW2. It carries Roundham Road and joins Dartmouth Road (A379) at a mini-roundabout. Along the rail alignment, it is about 160m from the crossing it was intended to replace. BR tried to close the crossing post-war, perhaps on several occasions. The proprietor of the corner shop at the Dartmouth Rd junction was the most vociferous objector in the last attempt at resignalling in the 1980s, kicking up a media storm claiming closure would destroy his business as they would be cut off from the quickest route to the beach.
Gonna be honest. Its a mining route that connects Kirkby Lane end JN to Ironville JN. Its used a minimum of once daily. Its poorly maintained and it was gonna be reopened but there is no gradient or nothing. Its weirdly long activation from east West but not West east
Exeter PSB is not likely to be replaced for some time to come. There is no money for it and there are other, older areas of signalling that have a higher priority. How long before Exeter PSB is replaced will depend on many factors, one of which may be the roll out of ETCS/ERTMS.
Equipment in the far west was generally considered to be very well maintained and cared for, which tends to keep it going reliably for longer. That's partly down to the quality of talent the railway is able to attract to an area attractive to live in. Management are often able to select the best from far more candidates than apply for more urban and industrial areas for example. Long-term retention is also better.
