Work on Okehampton Line: progress updates

[Charlie Smythe]

this is for the Exeter to Okehampton passenger service

Good, that’s what we want to hear. Will if make the May timetable change, or will is it more likely to be December?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Good, that’s what we want to hear. Will if make the May timetable change, or will is it more likely to be December?

I suspect due to Covid it’s a slightly moveable feast at the moment whether May can be achieved. I don’t think it’s as binary as May or December though could be in between.

 

[Bald Rick]

Good, that’s what we want to hear. Will if make the May timetable change, or will is it more likely to be December?

Certainly not May.

 

[RPI]

Re the discussion earlier in the thread about services extending to Pinhoe, Exeter guards have been route learning to Pinhoe over the past few weeks, I think its still planned to be the Barnstaple services that run to Pinhoe rather than the Okehampton services.

 

[REVUpminster]

I thought the Pinhoe route learning was to allow the siding to be renewed at Exmouth Junction (Morrisons) and may reinstate the second siding currently out of use.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I thought the Pinhoe route learning was to allow the siding to be renewed at Exmouth Junction (Morrisons) and may reinstate the second siding currently out of use.

Why can’t they install a reversing siding east of the Pinhoe turnout to allow trains to run to Pinhoe as part of the standard time table. This would allow trains to reverse at Pinhoe and would negate the need wrong line running or for any slow speed shunting over the crossing.

If the sidings at Exmouth Junction are replaced are they planning on cutting back the vegetation there to extend the siding to their full length. It would allow long trains to stable there if such a thing was required.

 

[DaveHarries]

Re the discussion earlier in the thread about services extending to Pinhoe, Exeter guards have been route learning to Pinhoe over the past few weeks, I think its still planned to be the Barnstaple services that run to Pinhoe rather than the Okehampton services.

Why can’t they install a reversing siding east of the Pinhoe turnout to allow trains to run to Pinhoe as part of the standard time table. This would allow trains to reverse at Pinhoe and would negate the need wrong line running or for any slow speed shunting over the crossing.

If the sidings at Exmouth Junction are replaced are they planning on cutting back the vegetation there to extend the siding to their full length. It would allow long trains to stable there if such a thing was required.

There is indeed space at Pinhoe for a reversing siding to the east but I would have thought that revising the signalling at Pinhoe to make one of the platforms bi-directional would be better as it would require less closing of the level crossing. Pity there isn't space for a bay platform though.

Dave

 

[Charlie Smythe]

There is indeed space at Pinhoe for a reversing siding to the east but I would have thought that revising the signalling at Pinhoe to make one of the platforms bi-directional would be better as it would require less closing of the level crossing. Pity there isn't space for a bay platform though.

Dave

I agree with you there, constant movements over the crossing is an issue. Red Cow crossing has this issue and it's getting to the point where the barrier are down more than up and it's causing traffic issues.

If Pinhoe is not an option, why not build a bay platform at the second station at Cranbrook once it's built and run to there instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2021 ==

How is this going to work with the DR collapsing? The Dartmoor Railway went down the pan a few months back so has NR bought the land or are they renting it off of Aggregate Industries?

 

[fgwrich]

I agree with you there, constant movements over the crossing is an issue. Red Cow crossing has this issue and it's getting to the point where the barrier are down more than up and it's causing traffic issues.

If Pinhoe is not an option, why not build a bay platform at the second station at Cranbrook once it's built and run to there instead.

Rather than that, let's just get work on the Eastern section of the Devon Metro constructed and run them through to Honiton as intended - there is space to either turn back there or utilise a former tamper / track plant siding there.

Back on topic, out of interest, do we know where most of the work has taken place along the route?

 

[Ashley Hill]

If Pinhoe is not an option, why not build a bay platform at the second station at Cranbrook once it's built and run to there instead.

Single line occupancy would be the problem here. It's also impossible to redouble immediately outside Pinhoe due to the single track portal M5 overbridge. A turnback at Pinhoe will be expensive due to new pointwork and signals. Reinstating the second siding at Exmouth Jct would seem an easy option but it is a handpoint and the exit from these sidings is controlled by one main aspect signal with no 2 siding clipped OOU. In modern thinking id imagine motorised points and separate signals would be preferred therefore = £££

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Rather than that, let's just get work on the Eastern section of the Devon Metro constructed and run them through to Honiton as intended - there is space to either turn back there or utilise a former tamper / track plant siding there.

Back on topic, out of interest, do we know where most of the work has taken place along the route?

Honiton? I thought the long term plan was Axminster?

If they do go to Honiton, that sidings no longer exists but theres no reason why It couldn't be put back.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2021 ==

Single line occupancy would be the problem here. It's also impossible to redouble immediately outside Pinhoe due to the single track portal M5 overbridge. A turnback at Pinhoe will be expensive due to new pointwork and signals. Reinstating the second siding at Exmouth Jct would seem an easy option but it is a handpoint and the exit from these sidings is controlled by one main aspect signal with no 2 siding clipped OOU. In modern thinking id imagine motorised points and separate signals would be preferred therefore = £££

Forgive me if I am wrong, but could it not be signalled in such a way where a train could sit in the new bay at Cranbrook/or the Pinhoe turn back siding while other trains pass by on the mainline?

If not, why not reinstate the loop at Feniton and bring the second platform back, that would solve some issues.

 

[REVUpminster]

I'm hoping they move the crossover from Crediton to the junction so there can be a long stretch of double track. Okehampton might be the target but Crediton with it's developments near the station is the prize. A secondary prize could be Yeoford which has a lot of new housing but no shops, no roads. There could be shoppers travelling from Yeoford to Crediton for Tesco's superstore.

 

[Ashley Hill]

I'm hoping they move the crossover from Crediton to the junction so there can be a long stretch of double track. Okehampton might be the target but Crediton with it's developments near the station is the prize. A secondary prize could be Yeoford which has a lot of new housing but no shops, no roads. There could be shoppers travelling from Yeoford to Crediton for Tesco's superstore.

Indeed,returning Coleford to a proper junction and reinstating Yeoford downside would be money well spent!

 

[30907]

Indeed,returning Coleford to a proper junction and reinstating Yeoford downside would be money well spent!

It would make an hourly service possible, or at least easier to manage - so I can see it happening medium term (along with doubling back towards Cowley Br), but not immediately.

 

[RPI]

I thought the Pinhoe route learning was to allow the siding to be renewed at Exmouth Junction (Morrisons) and may reinstate the second siding currently out of use.

No, the work at Exmouth Junction is done, there was talk that either the Okehampton services or the Barny services would be extended to Pinhoe, hence the original relevance to this thread, however, it is the Barny services from May that will run through to Pinhoe hence the current route learning. It will indeed involve going onto the single line past the signal and then back into the down platform.
The way the trains are timed shouldn't cause huge performance issues as theyre timed to follow 15 minutes behind the up trains arriving into Pinhoe around xx54, the down trains depart Honiton usually at xx16 so that allows around 20 minutes to complete the shunt. Anyway, now it's all but confirmed that it's the Barny services then I'm in danger of dragging the thread of topic.

 

[northernbelle]

Honiton? I thought the long term plan was Axminster?

Yes, the longer term aspiration was Axminster - whether that aspiration is still valid remains to be seen.

Back to Okehampton, another train of concrete sleepers arrived last night. I gather that actual track work is yet to begin with all the trains to Okehampton in recent weeks being deliveries. There is, however, an awful lot of background work going on such as design and planning.

 

[REVUpminster]

I thought Okehampton service was going into platform 2 in Exeter St David's in the short term but if the second siding is reinstated at Exmouth Junction then they go there. All trains if possible should stop at Exeter Central although station could do with another exit at street level from platform 3 to Queen Street.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, the longer term aspiration was Axminster - whether that aspiration is still valid remains to be seen.

A service to Honiton (maybe 2 hourly?) was possible without infrastructure changes, but Axminster needed more double track somewhere - Whimple. It’s described in one of the route study or franchise consultation documents - I can’t pin it down at the moment...

 

[Brush 4]

Yes, getting the service running has to be the top priority. Further improvements can follow later, such as Okehampton Parkway, redoubling, reopening old platforms etc. Demanding everything is done first just increases costs and delays the whole thing for years. The now discredited gold plating was always a counter-productive idea.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I am just waiting for the day that Exeter Central is rebuilt as it is currently very poorly laid out.

What needs to happen is both platform ripped up and moved inwards to give you four through platforms. There would just be enough room for two island platforms and then a track either wide to give you the double track mainline in the middle and then the two relief lines either side of each platform. Imagine Exeter St David’s with just platforms 3, 4, 5, 6. Two island platforms and 4 through platforms. There is enough room at Exeter Central for it to happen.

The current bay platform would have to go as would the site of the old one, however it would be worth it and would increase capacity at Exeter Central considerably.

 

[Bald Rick]

however it would be worth it

How do you know?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

How do you know?

Exeter Central is a massive waste of space as is. The centre roads are of course no longer there are there’s not reason why they couldn’t re arrange the platforms to increase capacity.

If the WoE is to become a serious diversionary route then the capacity needs to be there. Four through platforms would allow this.

 

[221129]

No point doing Central if you aren't doing loads of other improvements as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exeter Central is a massive waste of space as is. The centre roads are of course no longer there are there’s not reason why they couldn’t re arrange the platforms to increase capacity.

If the WoE is to become a serious diversionary route then the capacity needs to be there. Four through platforms would allow this.

Sorry, that doesn’t answer the question. I’ll rephrase it in two ways:

1) How do you know that doing what you propose would be “worth it”?

2) what benefit would you get and how much would it cost?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Obviously not. If it ever happened it would be part of a larger masterplan to make sure all upgrades worked together.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2021 ==

Sorry, that doesn’t answer the question. I’ll rephrase it in two ways:

1) How do you know that doing what you propose would be “worth it”?

2) what benefit would you get and how much would it cost?

I don’t know what it would cost, but that’s because I don’t work for NR.
It would be worth it because it would prevent trains being held in Exeter St David’s for ages becusee there isn’t a path through central thanks to a stopped train.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be worth it because...

I’m being snarky, I know, but you can’t determine that something is ‘worth it’ unless you know how much it will cost.

Rebuilding Exter Central could, conceivably, cost £100m. Doing that to save the odd delay at St David’s doesn’t sound like it would be worth it to me.

 

[Brush 4]

There are plans to increase capacity for W of E diversions via Yeovil Pen Mill. More redoubling in a nutshell. I'll post a link if I can find it. Can't remember the name of the project. Rebuilding Exeter Central would just add to costs, delaying everything else. At least 1 through road reinstated would help flexibility obviously but, whether it is essential, only those on here in the trade would know.

 

[BayPaul]

I’m being snarky, I know, but you can’t determine that something is ‘worth it’ unless you know how much it will cost.

Rebuilding Exter Central could, conceivably, cost £100m. Doing that to save the odd delay at St David’s doesn’t sound like it would be worth it to me.

I read that as 'it would be worth losing the current bay platform facing the wrong direction in order to get through platforms' - as in worth the loss of a bay platform. That seems beyond a doubt. Whether its worth the money is, as you say, quite another thing. I wonder if a cheaper solution, given the huge length of the platforms, would be to reinstate a through line, with a cross over, to allow platform 3 to be operated as an independent A and B section, which would allow trains from the west to terminate without blocking through lines. Obviously this would only make sense if there was capacity (and desire) to fit even more trains through St Davids, but it sounds a lot cheaper than most of the other rebuilding options

 

[Devonman2014]

Yes, the longer term aspiration was Axminster - whether that aspiration is still valid remains to be seen.

Back to Okehampton, another train of concrete sleepers arrived last night. I gather that actual track work is yet to begin with all the trains to Okehampton in recent weeks being deliveries. There is, however, an awful lot of background work going on such as design and planning.

Been a lot of clearance of trees, scrubland and surveys of embankments and tree lined boundaries.
Considerable surveying of fencing requirements as well as delivery of CWR along the whole route.

Seems to me they are getting ready to crack on with all the works quite soon.

 

[Irascible]

I read that as 'it would be worth losing the current bay platform facing the wrong direction in order to get through platforms' - as in worth the loss of a bay platform. That seems beyond a doubt. Whether its worth the money is, as you say, quite another thing. I wonder if a cheaper solution, given the huge length of the platforms, would be to reinstate a through line, with a cross over, to allow platform 3 to be operated as an independent A and B section, which would allow trains from the west to terminate without blocking through lines. Obviously this would only make sense if there was capacity (and desire) to fit even more trains through St Davids, but it sounds a lot cheaper than most of the other rebuilding options

Or perhaps spend elsewhere to turn services around further down the line where they can be useful before they even get back to Central. If the GWR route is full up at the east end then WoE trains might start getting longer, too.