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

[civ-eng-jim]

First train of the day will be a 4 (or 2+1) car train from Plymouth. Trains will split. Driver/guard of the Tavistock-bound section will hold the keys for the points and set the points for the Gunnislake train to reverse and be on its way. The points will then be set so the top turnout will allow a returning Gunnislake train to enter platform 1 and be locked in for the day. The Tavistock train will then head on to Tavistock and on return will stop at Platform 2 (So no need for both sides of the train to have its doors open) on route back to Plymouth, safe in the knowledge the Gunnislake train will be in a section of its own.

Platform 3 will therefore only see 2 services a day

 

[Rich McLean]

How will the control of the points and signalling work (bearing in mind there isnt any signalling at the moment) for the trains to detach in the morning/ attach in the evening?

Locally I imagine, with a ground frame with an additional token. Token in to operate the ground frame, shunt the Gunnislake portion onto the branch, operate the ground frame back to former position, take the token out. The additional token would then get kept with the crews operating the Tavi's (or kept at Plymouth) until the last service of the day where the reverse happens.

This will ensure that the unit is locked in. Local instructions would have to be issued for this.

EDIT: Beaten to it

 

[455driver]

Dont like the sound of that, I would prefer 2 tokens one for the St Budeaux to Tavi section and another for the Bere Alston to Gunnie section, the points could only be unlocked with both tokens in the frame.

All the ways I can think of doing it would fall foul of modern operating practices even though they worked well years ago.

 

[MarkyT]

I would prefer 2 tokens one for the St Budeaux to Tavi section and another for the Bere Alston to Gunnie section, the points could only be unlocked with both tokens in the frame.

I think that's how Bourne End ground frame works now for accessing the Marlow branch. The branch train and Marlow shuttle hold on to their respective tokens and work entirely separately from a signalling safety point of view through most the day except for an early morning and late evening procedure for getting the stock out and back.

The Liskeard - Looe branch also works with a token and a staff although that layout and system doesn't permit two independent train movements at the same time. A freight from Liskeard to Moorswater only takes a token for Liskeard - Coombe Jn, which it can return to a remote instrument at the sidings Ground frame once locked in. A passenger train to Looe takes both a Liskeard - Combe Jn token and the Coombe Jn - Looe staff, using a key attached to the latter to unlock the Ground Frame at Coombe Junction and change the points. With the passenger train retaining both the staff and a token at all times except when in the branch platform at Liskeard, no other freight movement can take place.

 

[edwin_m]

The proposed arrangement means that the Tavistock train doesn't need to have a long stop to exchange tokens every time it passes Bere Alston.

Do we know how passengers will access platforms 1/2? A step-free bridge seems something of an overkill for the small number of passengers likely to enter or leave the station rather than just changing trains. Will there be an access from the road on the far side or even a barrow crossing?

 

[The Planner]

Seems like a lot of cash for a platform that gets used twice a day, could platform 2 not be made longer? A token exchange is only ever given two minutes anyway so it wouldnt extend any dwell horrifically.

 

[MarkyT]

The proposed arrangement means that the Tavistock train doesn't need to have a long stop to exchange tokens every time it passes Bere Alston.

Good point that.

Do we know how passengers will access platforms 1/2? A step-free bridge seems something of an overkill for the small number of passengers likely to enter or leave the station rather than just changing trains. Will there be an access from the road on the far side or even a barrow crossing?

I can't see a foot crossing being practical. It would need automated red and green light warning arrangements, expensive and would result in the crossing being closed just at the critical moment when a train is approaching. Perhaps a new subway could be constructed with ramps much shorter than a bridge, only pedestrian clearance being required.

Another idea would be to place the new branch bay on the north side of the former up island (laying track over the unused second bridge over the road at the west end of the station) and also move the Tavistock through line over to the island as well. The existing platform would then come out of use entirely, although could be retained for possible provision of a passing loop or double track on the main line the future. All access to the station would then be via the west end road underbridge and better car parking might be possible in the former goods yard on that side, depending on land ownership etc.

 

[455driver]

All a bit expensive for a scheme which needs to be as cheap as possible to keep it viable.

 

[davetheguard]

Does anyone now what further permissions are required for this scheme to definitely proceed, and how far away are we, time wise, from final approval being announced (or not)?

 

[bluenoxid]

I'm going to put a suggestion forward because there seems to be a real burning desire to keep the station and traditional operating practices.

Why not move the station. It seems fairly remote compared to the town and it is not on a major road out of town. I know platforms and track cost money but it seems a fairly constrained site.

Apart from this being the established formation, is there a reason why the turnback cannot be removed and the station moved to the western side of town.

 

[455driver]

Read post 33!

 

[Tomnick]

Locally I imagine, with a ground frame with an additional token. Token in to operate the ground frame, shunt the Gunnislake portion onto the branch, operate the ground frame back to former position, take the token out. The additional token would then get kept with the crews operating the Tavi's (or kept at Plymouth) until the last service of the day where the reverse happens.

This will ensure that the unit is locked in. Local instructions would have to be issued for this.

Sounds rather dubious to me - one of the principles of working single lines is that you can only ever have one token out at once for a given section.

The Liskeard - Looe branch also works with a token and a staff although that layout and system doesn't permit two independent train movements at the same time. A freight from Liskeard to Moorswater only takes a token for Liskeard - Coombe Jn, which it can return to a remote instrument at the sidings Ground frame once locked in. A passenger train to Looe takes both a Liskeard - Combe Jn token and the Coombe Jn - Looe staff, using a key attached to the latter to unlock the Ground Frame at Coombe Junction and change the points. With the passenger train retaining both the staff and a token at all times except when in the branch platform at Liskeard, no other freight movement can take place.

Can the passenger train not be 'shut inside' the Coombe - Looe section, restoring the Liskeard - Coombe token to the instrument once clear of that section?

Dont like the sound of that, I would prefer 2 tokens one for the St Budeaux to Tavi section and another for the Bere Alston to Gunnie section, the points could only be unlocked with both tokens in the frame.

Sounds like the most sensible way of doing it! If the St Budeaux - Tavistock section was worked by token (NSTR?) rather than the current OTW, then it'd be possible for the Gunnislake unit to work onto the branch on its own at the start and end of service, rather than as a portion off the Tavistock train, and might even be able to run through to Plymouth on a couple of occasions (if there was a suitable margin when the St Budeaux - Tavistock section was otherwise empty).

 

[455driver]

IThe through route could be worked as 2 sections (NSTR would do it), St Bud-Bere A and Bere A-Tavi, approach speeds would be slow (15mph) so not a problem if there is only one token (the Gunnie one) to release the points.

It would work the same as the Barnstaple line with the added bit of the Gunnie section (which would work the same as the Lapford token used to, now thats going back a bit!

 

[MarkyT]

Can the passenger train not be 'shut inside' the Coombe - Looe section, restoring the Liskeard - Coombe token to the instrument once clear of that section?

No. There's no remote instrument at Coombe Jn and that would require a second stop to unlock the GF, restore the points then lock the GF again. Also coming back from Looe there's no marked stopping position on approach to Coombe, the points are merely assumed to have remained locked in the correct position. The arrangement obviously limits the opportunities for running freight to Moorswater but minimises passenger running time.

 

[TEW]

I'm pretty sure there already are two stops at Coombe. Coming from Looe the train stops short of the points and the guard leaves the train at that point to operate the ground frame. There is then a second stop once over the points. Coming from the Liskeard direction its the reverse with the first once already over the points and a second stop once on the Looe branch.

 

[MarkyT]

Illustration of alternative idea to use up side island for Tavistock through trains as well as Gunnislake branch shuttle.

http://www.townend.me/files/berealston.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

I'm pretty sure there already are two stops at Coombe. Coming from Looe the train stops short of the points and the guard leaves the train at that point to operate the ground frame. There is then a second stop once over the points. Coming from the Liskeard direction its the reverse with the first once already over the points and a second stop once on the Looe branch.

That was certainly the case when I watched it from the lineside in 2000 - with the lack of freight perhaps it has changed since?

 

[The Planner]

Illustration of alternative idea to use up side island for Tavistock through trains as well as Gunnislake branch shuttle.

http://www.townend.me/files/berealston.pdf

If the island can take a 4 car, then that is by far the best option IMO.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm pretty sure there already are two stops at Coombe. Coming from Looe the train stops short of the points and the guard leaves the train at that point to operate the ground frame. There is then a second stop once over the points. Coming from the Liskeard direction its the reverse with the first once already over the points and a second stop once on the Looe branch.

You're right and I was wrong.

Here's the local instruction from the Sectional Appendix -

GW640 - LISKEARD TO LOOE VIA COOMBE

COOMBE To LOOE

The "One Train Working" staff for the Coombe-Looe section must be held by the Driver of trains for Looe when proceeding between Liskeard and Coombe, in addition to the "No Signaller" token.

The points leading to the Coombe-Looe section are controlled by Coombe No.1 ground frame which can only be released by both the "One Train Working" staff and "No Signaller" token.The normal position of the ground frame is with the points set for movements between Liskeard and Coombe.

On arrival at Coombe of trains from Liskeard the Guard must obtain the staff and token from the Driver, reverse the ground frame points and authorise the Driver to proceed onto the Coombe-Looe section. The ground frame must then be replaced to the normal position, the token placed in the intermediate token instrument and the staff returned to the Driver.

Trains from Looe must be brought to a stand at the "Stop" board at Coombe No.1 ground frame. The Guard must obtain the "One Train Working" staff from the Driver and "No Signaller" token from the intermediate token instrument, reverse the ground frame points and authorise the Driver to pass the "Stop" board.
The “Stop” board on the approach from Looe is equipped with TPWS. The Guard must additionally check that the steady blue TPWS status light shows on arrival at the Ground Frame from Looe. After withdrawing the token and reversing the points, the Guard must ensure that the blue light flashes to indicate that TPWS has been correctly suppressed. lf the blue light does not show, or it does not flash when required, the TPWS equipment must be treated as failed. The Guard must report the defect to the Signaller and advise the Driver. The Driver must operate the Train Stop Override in the cab before passing the “Stop” board.

Failure of train and assistance required. The "One Train Working" staff must be conveyed by the quickest means available to Coombe for the operation of No.1 ground frame.
Dated: 05/08/06

 

[civ-eng-jim]

The proposed arrangement means that the Tavistock train doesn't need to have a long stop to exchange tokens every time it passes Bere Alston.

Do we know how passengers will access platforms 1/2? A step-free bridge seems something of an overkill for the small number of passengers likely to enter or leave the station rather than just changing trains. Will there be an access from the road on the far side or even a barrow crossing?

The main "entrance" to the Station will be to the North - A new carpark is proposed as per Mark T's neat sketch. Access under the track will utilise the existing underbridges - not ideal as they're narrow and no footpath really.

Network Rail wouldn't allow a new level crossing as it goes against their policy of shutting as many as possible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does anyone now what further permissions are required for this scheme to definitely proceed, and how far away are we, time wise, from final approval being announced (or not)?

Dave,

The design is about to be submitted at "Approval in Principle" stage. The design will be included in the Development Consent Order planning process which could take 18months. If successful, the detailed design will be carried out end of 2016.

 

[Tomnick]

Here's the local instruction from the Sectional Appendix -
...

Thanks for confirming that - I wasn't sure myself, but the margins to nip a freight between Liskeard and Coombe seemed a bit tight with the passenger standing in Liskeard station, compared to the length of time it occupies the Looe section.

Having looked at the timings in a bit more detail, it'd almost be possible to run a train all the way to Tavistock and back whilst the Gunnislake unit was between Bere Alston and Gunnislake, if the turnaround time at the latter was increased by a few minutes. Surely either that, or really splashing out and going for 455driver's last suggestion (NSTR St Budeaux - Bere Alston 'East', OTW Bere Alston 'East' to Tavistock and OTW Bere Alston 'West' to Gunnislake?) so that you can shut one inside towards Tavistock to run one to/from Gunnislake too, are preferable to using a unit for nothing more than a Bere Alston - Gunnislake shuttle all day - and removing the convenience of a through journey at the same time?

 

[ACE1888]

Some very interesting updates regarding how Bere Alston may/may not look

 

[drinnicksiding]

Dave,

The design is about to be submitted at "Approval in Principle" stage. The design will be included in the Development Consent Order planning process which could take 18months. If successful, the detailed design will be carried out end of 2016.

Again, in my opinion, building out the platform would be a perfect example of shortsightedness in development on existing trackbeds. Assuming remains a junction for Gunnislake, Bere Alston would surely be needed as a passing place if the line were to be extended to Meldon. Marky T's design is best, though instead of a bay, surely just extend a short section of the north platform out for access.

On that not, I'm unsure how moving the access to the north (assuming it's privately owned) is that cheap - given that several other options are ruled out simply on cost, per post 33.

There is also a mention, per civ-eng-Jim's design, that the train would not have to open both sides. Is there a reason why this needs to be avoided? It would save relocating the entrance to the north, except maybe a small footpath for the few passenger who will travel between Bere Alston/Gunnislake without changing for Plymouth

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Again, in my opinion, building out the platform would be a perfect example of shortsightedness in development on existing trackbeds. Assuming remains a junction for Gunnislake, Bere Alston would surely be needed as a passing place if the line were to be extended to Meldon. Marky T's design is best, though instead of a bay, surely just extend a short section of the north platform out for access.

On that not, I'm unsure how moving the access to the north (assuming it's privately owned) is that cheap - given that several other options are ruled out simply on cost, per post 33.

There is also a mention, per civ-eng-Jim's design, that the train would not have to open both sides. Is there a reason why this needs to be avoided? It would save relocating the entrance to the north, except maybe a small footpath for the few passenger who will travel between Bere Alston/Gunnislake without changing for Plymouth

I like MarkyT's design and it works well operationally for trains and passengers but bringing the other bridge span into use adds to Network Rail's asset liabilities and is an additional structure to assess, repair/make good and the track bed formation would have to be reinstated which could be on land in private ownership. ££££

In addition, the cross over between the Gunislake branch and the Plymouth/Tavistock line would require extensive demolition of a large proportion of the island platform (which is immediately adjacent the bridges) and the recently refurbished shelter. The platform would then have to be extended to the east end to be of compliant length. ££££

The station is on a 400m radius curve and the geometry is a bit nasty to fit a decent alignment in.

I don't think building out the platform into the track bed would kibosh any plans to reinstate a line there in the future. It's easily knocked down...not like the West Devon Council offices in Tavistock.

 

[MarkyT]

I like MarkyT's design and it works well operationally for trains and passengers but bringing the other bridge span into use adds to Network Rail's asset liabilities and is an additional structure to assess, repair/make good and the track bed formation would have to be reinstated which could be on land in private ownership. ££££

In addition, the cross over between the Gunislake branch and the Plymouth/Tavistock line would require extensive demolition of a large proportion of the island platform (which is immediately adjacent the bridges) and the recently refurbished shelter. The platform would then have to be extended to the east end to be of compliant length. ££££

See new version 2 which moves the crossover west of the bridge to avoid the platform demolition and extension. Still requires the other bridge span though.

http://www.townend.me/files/berealston.pdf

I don't think building out the platform into the track bed would kibosh any plans to reinstate a line there in the future. It's easily knocked down...not like the West Devon Council offices in Tavistock.

Agreed. The build out, probably modular concrete sections (appropriate for a former Southern route!), could be removed easily later, and its only 50m or so for 2 cars I assume.

 

[drinnicksiding]

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).

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't think building out the platform into the track bed would kibosh any plans to reinstate a line there in the future. It's easily knocked down...not like the West Devon Council offices in Tavistock.

Two hours with a wrecking ball from what i've seen of them.

 

[mr_jrt]

Why build a bay at all? The former arrangement:

...had the junction east of the platforms...having one west shouldn't be to great a hurdle, and you just have some buffers on the branch platform rather than continuing, surely?

 

[OxtedL]

An island platform necessitates a bridge, or new subway access, and is thus expensive.

A bay (of some kind, whichever side of the island you wish it to be) avoids this.

 

[mr_jrt]

An island platform necessitates a bridge, or new subway access, and is thus expensive.

A bay (of some kind, whichever side of the island you wish it to be) avoids this.

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.