Tavistock to Bere Alston possible reopening: what infrastructure could be required and what service provision might operate?

[OxtedL]

My point being why build out the platform on the bay side as Mark shows in his diagrams? Why not just fit steps/a ramp? - The branch line doesn't have to continue - just seems pointless building it out.

In post #50?

Even if it's meant literally, I'm not sure you need to take it to be so - I'd draw it like that myself if I wanted to signify building over the trackbed behind the buffer stops.

It is essentially the same net impact - although I sense perhaps you are advocating building it as a proper island and then adding access arrangements that can be theoretically removed in case anyone in the future decides Gunnislake to Tavistock is an important flow that needs to be run concurrently with Tavistock to Plymouth? That may be future-proofing in a little too much detail a little unnecessarily?

We can probably get away with just not building anything on the former trackbed.
EDIT:By that last sentence I mean not building anything permanent (ie no buildings) above where the track went to be. I doubt you'd build a new building here anyway, so I think we're safe.

 

[Tomnick]

Referring to previous posts, if the signalling arrangements were such that a Plymouth - Gunnislake through service could continue to operate alongside the proposed Tavistock service (with one or both being shut inside on the extremities beyond Bere Alston), the existing layout - in terms of the current single platform at least - would surely continue to be sufficient?

 

[MarkyT]

Referring to previous posts, if the signalling arrangements were such that a Plymouth - Gunnislake through service could continue to operate alongside the proposed Tavistock service (with one or both being shut inside on the extremities beyond Bere Alston), the existing layout - in terms of the current single platform at least - would surely continue to be sufficient?

I have to agree, I think a little more investment in signalling could result in less civils expenditure and the possibility of a better service, especially on the Gunnislake branch.

I'm surprised tokens or train staffs with a ground frame are being retained. Cheap and simple yes but antiquated, and slow for certain manoeuvres. I would recommend a modern cost effective colour light solution with axle counters, using elements from the modular signalling toolbox. One problem with classification of each branch beyond Bere Alston as TCB (track circuit block) is the requirement to have a signal for reversing at each terminal. That can be avoided by classifying each branch as OTW (one train working) which can be acheived without a token in the same way as the section beyond Penryn on the Falmouth branch, recently resignalled. However a remote signalling site would be required at Bere Alson itself with a reliable communications node and power. Power isn't really an issue today, a domestic class supply can be obtained locally and backed up with a UPS. Comms could be more difficult though. Clearly I'd wish to avoid laying cables from St Budeaux to Bere Alston, so I'd be looking at a data solution using a hired 'private wire' or broadband connection, but would have to insist on a very high level of reliability, so perhaps duplicated via different suppliers, if available. Safety of signalling over public networks can be taken care of now by modern encryption techniques, but reliability remains an issue, as at the slightest problem or degradation the safety features drop out the connection and that fails safe and results in signals at red. Another thought, in the effort to roll out better broadband to rural areas perhaps the railway could partner a comms company in laying new fibre cables out to the Bere Alston and Tavistock area along the rail route, which could then contain dedicated fibres for signalling and other railway use (e.g passenger information systems, telephones etc). Such infrastructure could become very important if further track reinstatement ever takes place towards Okehampton.

 

[34104]

Is the station building, on the current platform, privately owned?I'm assuming it is, and so the occupants would surely be in favour of taking the current platform out of use.

Re timetabling, I can't see how the train crew of Gunnislake set are not going to be idle at one end or the other for long spells.

I can't imagine the timetable being tailored too heavily to reduce idle time on those resources, and this is why the idea of micro-franchising seems to be mentioned a lot (on online materials I've found).

The station house is privately owned and occupied.Some of the old offices were converted into an apartment and it was occupied for a while but has been empty for some time.The offices/apartment still appear to be owned by the Dartmoor railway-i do remember them purchasing the property several years ago,maybe for some long term purpose which certainly has not so far been evident.There is still a sign on the old waiting room door saying that any enquiries should be addressed to the DR but i also seem to remember that ownership of the Dartmoor Railway changed,difficult to say what the current situation is.Perhaps the occupants of the station house would be glad to see the island platform brought back into use,i have spoken to the owner and he said that some problems had been encountered from time to time with youths on the current platform.That was the reason my grandparents finally left the station house in the mid nineties [my grandfather was station master from 1945-1966 and remained in the station house thereafter]-someone very kindly threw a brick through the window of their lounge which faced the station while they were having their tea one evening and they departed the house for one less secluded and isolated in the village,quite a sad ending for them at the station.Some idiots about,i'm afraid.

 

[Tomnick]

I have to agree, I think a little more investment in signalling could result in less civils expenditure and the possibility of a better service, especially on the Gunnislake branch.

...

Indeed - whether that's achieved by continuing to work with tokens and ground frames (which would be relatively cheap, but would almost certainly require both Gunnislake and Tavistock trains to stop twice at Bere Alston with a decent time penalty) or by TCB as far as Bere Alston and OTW sections without train staff beyond (clearly much better operationally, but rather more costly initially), it sounds far better than the option of severing the through Gunnislake service yet still requiring signalling alterations and a lot of civils work.

 

[edwin_m]

As well as avoiding the cost and hassle of a comms link, the proposed system probably avoids any sort of change to the interlocking at Plymouth, which would be needed for a TCB/axlecounter system. The only time overhead is a certain amount of faffing at Bere Alston for the first and last trains of the day, and the need for every journey to collect and deposit the train staff at St Budeaux (where I seem to recall it lives in a locked box on the platform). The rest of the time neither train needs to do any token exchange at Bere Alston.

Perhaps when Plymouth is re-signaled we will see something more sophisticated at Bere Alston including the option of running the Gunnislake train independently. The existing kit is pretty ancient but I don't know if renewal is planned.

 

[MarkyT]

As well as avoiding the cost and hassle of a comms link, the proposed system probably avoids any sort of change to the interlocking at Plymouth, which would be needed for a TCB/axlecounter system. The only time overhead is a certain amount of faffing at Bere Alston for the first and last trains of the day, and the need for every journey to collect and deposit the train staff at St Budeaux (where I seem to recall it lives in a locked box on the platform). The rest of the time neither train needs to do any token exchange at Bere Alston.

Perhaps when Plymouth is re-signaled we will see something more sophisticated at Bere Alston including the option of running the Gunnislake train independently. The existing kit is pretty ancient but I don't know if renewal is planned.

I think you overplay the complications of signalling changes at the Plymouth end, but yes the current proposal avoids any at all. You're right the current proposal is little hassle for the Tavistock train and dealing with the staff at St Budeaux is not particularly time consuming. I'm sure future passenger figures from Tavistock will eventually dwarf existing Gunnislake numbers, so concentrating the through services there makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps a Parry People Mover might be better on the Gunnislake shuttle - it need never leave the line normally and could receive day to day maintenance locally like the Stourbridge one.

 

[Tomnick]

I wouldn't have thought that NSTR would require too much alteration to the interlocking at the Plymouth end, with most of the changes being at Bere Alston (requiring little more than a means of remotely releasing the token at a couple of instruments there?). I'm not really convinced by the wisdom of having an OTW section with an intermediate connection either - even if the plan is to always work the Gunnislake portion there and back (at either end of the service) as a portion off the Tavistock trains, it'll be inconvenient if the last Tavistock is cancelled for some reason, leaving the staff at the Plymouth end and the Gunnislake unit stuck at Bere Alston!

 

[drinnicksiding]

I'm not really convinced by the wisdom of having an OTW section with an intermediate connection either - even if the plan is to always work the Gunnislake portion there and back (at either end of the service) as a portion off the Tavistock trains, it'll be inconvenient if the last Tavistock is cancelled for some reason, leaving the staff at the Plymouth end and the Gunnislake unit stuck at Bere Alston!

Thats a pretty good argument for having through services to Gunnislake. In reality three will be cancellations, and passengers could be stranded at Bere Alston if the connection cannot be made. FGW will often state that due to poor roads (ie why the line still exists) that road replacement transport is not provided.

Also, the timetabling of a Gunnislake shuttle also looks unattractive - 5 mins connection, 40 mins return journey incl runaround, another 5 mins to connect. Therefore the Tavistock train would have to sit at the terminus for 25 ish minutes assuming line speeds are unchanged. The alternative is to run Tavistock services more regularly than 1tp2h - but if St Budeaux to Bere Alston is OTW, then the Gunnislake set will be idle for long periods - a waste of rolling stock!

The aim of both lines, is surely to provide a good service, or what's the point in incurring costs to preserve a Gunnislake stub if it's going to be rubbish

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Why not have a separate panel (interlocked with the existing panel) at Plymouth for the Gunnislake branch?
With signalling at Bere Alston - it might be possible to save a little on points/ track, as well as greater flexibility in running the service. Trains taking turns running down to Plymouth etc.
If the Tavistock train failed at Tavistock, the Gunnislake train could run to Plymouth etc.
Time costs money, some money may be saved initially with using the Victorian system, but better schedules etc could make better use of drivers' time, rolling stock and better cater for passengers needs.

Don't think Parry People Movers are suitable for Gunnislake!

 

[TEW]

I'm not sure a Parry People Mover would actually have enough power to make it up to Gunnislake.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I'm not sure a Parry People Mover would actually have enough power to make it up to Gunnislake.

Pacers had problems with adhesion, as well as damaging the track/ wheels - sharp curves - could be an uncomfortable ride on a PPM. Need a lot more power too, and possibly electromagnetic emergency brakes?

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure a Parry People Mover would actually have enough power to make it up to Gunnislake.

I was thinking that! It requires a bit of oomph to get all the way up there and indeed it seems that most units just coast all the way down with maybe a dab of power when pulling away just to get the train moving. I'm far from convinced a PPM could manage and haven't they gone bust anyway?

 

[civ-eng-jim]

PPM have been considered - The manufacturer state it can do 1 in 15 gradients. The drop down from Bere Alston to Calstock could be beneficial for getting the PPM up the other side towards Gunnislake so very possible.

 

[drinnicksiding]

PPMs used in Stourbridge are used to shuttle people a very short distance, with mostly standing capacity, and it's more like the tube in the sense that they are very ten minutes.

I fail to see how these would be suitable for a deeply graded 20-minute each way journey, with 1tp2h

 

[Ash Bridge]

Apologies for the new thread but the old one is now locked, so Mods please feel free to move this if necessary.

As things seem to have gone rather quiet on this proposal of late I thought to have a search for any news or updates and came across an article on the Facebook page of the "Drake Line" posted in September of this year stating that the housing developer 'Kilbride' had now vanished off the scene with the effect that the proposed 750 home development scheme at Tavistock is now looking unlikely to materialise, does anyone know anything more about this? Sorry but haven't got a clue how to provide a link to this.

 

[FenMan]

Here you go:-
https://www.facebook.com/PlymouthToTavistockRailwayTheDrakeLine/posts/1044235135690358

Plymouth to Tavistock Railway - The Drake Line
30 September ·

Firstly, thanks everyone for your interest in this scheme. We have been catching up on the latest developments and while the good news is that a superb assessment has been done on the viability of the project, the bad news (depending how you look at it) is that it would appear Kilbride - the housing developer interested in using building profits to fund the line - has disappeared from the scene. So no 750 house scheme for Tavistock - which many people will regard as a relief.

However, if you look at all the passenger figures for branch lines in Devon & Cornwall, they have increased significantly over the last decade - one by 284%! (See Devon & Cornwall Rail Partnership). So we definitely must not give up on this project (which is what all the authorities seem to be doing). The clear message is that to get our railway we must persuade the Rail Minister that it is not only viable (which has been proven) but also necessary; and that, clearly, the longer it is left, the more expensive it will become (as is the case with HS2). Even so, reinstating our short stretch of line (only six miles or so) will cost no more than a very short piece of motorway.

So please give a 'like' or comment if you agree that we should take this a step further and try to procure government funding.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Here you go:-
https://www.facebook.com/PlymouthToTavistockRailwayTheDrakeLine/posts/1044235135690358

Many thanks for that FenMan.

Would it be safe to assume that should the housing development not take place and if by some miracle the line reinstatement still goes ahead then the only logical location now for the new station is the original site?

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Would it be safe to assume that should the housing development not take place and if by some miracle the line reinstatement still goes ahead then the only logical location now for the new station is the original site?

The proposal is to terminate on the South West edge of the town.

To bring the line to the old station would involve a lot of additional cost and upheaval. There was once a bridge over Callington road which would have to be reinstated, a house, at the same location, would have to be demolished and Council offices on the old alignment further towards the town centre.

Responsibility for the housing development hasn't been in Killbride's hands for a while now. Bovis Homes are the developer.

 

[Bald Rick]

It was only ever going to happen if it was mostly paid for by the housing developer.

AIUI though, Kilbride weren't the developer, they were 'just' the promoter who would get the housing developer, local authorities and rail companies all lined up. It did rely on there being a reliable estimate of costs, which I'm afraid to say many of us on the previous thread had rather grave doubts about.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

It was only ever going to happen if it was mostly paid for by the housing developer.

If that's the case, it'll never get done! At £30M+ that would be a contribution of £40k per each of the 750 proposed homes.

 

[richw]

It will never happen, without developers stumping up. At a conference I attended in September it was said by the network rail representative it would need a population growth of 20000 in the catchment of the line to justify network rail spending on the project. 2011 census Tavistock had a population of 12000, so effectively trebling the population!

 

[yorksrob]

Whenever the economy looks shaky, there are always plans to boost it through infrastructure spending. Osborne signed off a slew of road projects last time, perhaps its time to spend on some small rail projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Council offices on the old alignment further towards the town centre.

Aren't these offices north of the old Tavistock North station, in which case they would only be an obstacle for a Tavistock - Okehampton reinstatement.

Anyhow, if they're anything like the Councils up here, they'll be trying to shrink their office estate.

 

[HowardGWR]

Whenever the economy looks shaky, there are always plans to boost it through infrastructure spending. Osborne signed off a slew of road projects last time, perhaps its time to spend on some small rail projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Aren't these offices north of the old Tavistock North station, in which case they would only be an obstacle for a Tavistock - Okehampton reinstatement.

Anyhow, if they're anything like the Councils up here, they'll be trying to shrink their office estate.

Indeed, that's true but there is a line of social housing built on the alignment, just north (I always think of it as east) of the viaduct, before you reach the old station. Here, there is not much parking provision, except the Council's. I have always assumed that if the Okehampton line is to be restored, that the Council offices (the crappy ones, see Google Earth) will have to go to create parking for the station.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, that's true but there is a line of social housing built on the alignment, just north (I always think of it as east) of the viaduct, before you reach the old station. Here, there is not much parking provision, except the Council's. I have always assumed that if the Okehampton line is to be restored, that the Council offices (the crappy ones, see Google Earth) will have to go to create parking for the station.

Hmm. They look quite nice houses as well.

You could potentially have a platform on the viaduct as it was built for double track. I see your point about parking though. Other than the offices, there don't seem to be any other potential locations near the town centre.

 

[Cowley]

It is looking quite unlikely at the moment and I think there are plans going through for more sea defence work down at Dawlish/Teignmouth which is obviously the way they want to go rather than spending money on the Okehampton - Tavistock route.
I can't see the money turning up to put this stretch back really.
It may be just another opportunity lost...

 

[yorksrob]

It is looking quite unlikely at the moment and I think there are plans going through for more sea defence work down at Dawlish/Teignmouth which is obviously the way they want to go rather than spending money on the Okehampton - Tavistock route.
I can't see the money turning up to put this stretch back really.
It maybe just another opportunity lost...

Very sad but who can say.

However, hopefully there is still more of a will to reinstate Bere Alston to Tavistock though.

 

[Busaholic]

It is looking quite unlikely at the moment and I think there are plans going through for more sea defence work down at Dawlish/Teignmouth which is obviously the way they want to go rather than spending money on the Okehampton - Tavistock route.
I can't see the money turning up to put this stretch back really.
It may be just another opportunity lost...

King Canute is the lifetime president of Network Rail

 

[Cowley]

King Canute is the lifetime president of Network Rail

Not sure if that's how you spell it Mr Holic

Note to self - mustn't put rude anti Network rail comments on Railforums whilst in pub.

 

[Busaholic]

Not sure if that's how you spell it Mr Holic

Note to self - mustn't put rude anti Network rail comments on Railforums whilst in pub.

The modern fashion is Cnut or Knut or something, but then I still call Mumbai Bombay