Great Western Coffee Shop

Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, about 15 years ago, there was a local railway line that connected its county town to another town about 25 minutes away by train. From a sleepy backwater a few years previously, the service had grown until there was a train shuttling back and forth along the single track pretty much all day.  But still people wanted more trains, so the powers that be added a loop in about half way along, and now there are two trains shuttling back and forth, with a half hourly service.  And every train is now just as busy as the original ones were, even through there are twice as many of them!

The line in my story if from Truro to Falmouth, and I tell it because of lessons we could learn from our own section of line from Trowbridge to Chippenham. At present, we've only got one train every 2 hours, compared to half hourly to Falmouth - even though Falmouth is much much smaller than Chippenham (or even than Melksham which is an "extra" halfway along our line).  From Chippenham to Trowbridge, we could just about manage a train each way every hour - but our line needs to allow for freight (which has been totally lost at Falmouth), and our service extends at both ends to make trunk connections at Swindon (for London) and at Westbury (for the West Country and for the south coast).

Would a system like that used for the Falmouth line work for our TransWilts between Trowbridge and Chippenham?  I had an opportunity yesterday, holidaying in the West Country, to try it out. A bustling little service, with a loop in the middle at Penryn where the trains pass each other. Penryn Station is unusual (indeed unique for the UK?) in that it has one long platform rather than two opposite each other - that has certain advantages that could well be applied to Melksham.

So - how does Penryn work?

There's a very long platform, a single track as its southern and that splits out to a double track at its northern end.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_01.jpg)

The first train to arrive is the one from Falmouth to the south, and it rusn straight the single track southern platform before passing through the split in the line and stopping at the northern end.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_04.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_03.jpg)

The second train arrives from the north, headed from Truro to Falmouth and runs past the train that's already there on the line that misses the norther platform, before joining the single line again and stopping at the southern platform.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_06.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_02.jpg)

Both trains then leave when they've completed station duties, as by this time they're at the right end of the station not to get in each other's way.

I understand that a similar scheme is use in (old East) Germany, and indeed this arrangement at Penryn is thanks to EU development funding.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/penryn_05.jpg)

As Wiltshire isn't a development area, the same funding wouldn't be available to us, but on the ground it looks rather good.  The operation was far slicker than convenstional passing systems at Maiden Newton in Dorset, and at Eggesford in Devon where the procedures for passing trains linked with the signalling systems seem to take just as long if not longer.  And the Penryn system saves the need for a second platform, and saves the need for a footbridge or other crossover access.  Prices for wheelchair friendly footbridge for Melksham are quoted in millions, and if that footbridge has a lift there's a continued running and maintenace cost at an unstaffed station; probably something best avoided.  A conventional passing loop away from a station is an alternative solution for Melksham, but that means passengers on one of the train having to wait on that train while the other one's using the single platform, or for the other one to arrive and pass.

I was impressed by the Falmouth branch and Penryn set up, and would back following their example in Wiltshire to both increase the frequency of TransWilts services, and to have those services passing each other using a Penryn style loop.  Clearly, we would tune some things for local needs - I suspect a very long Melksham Station might have cafe, toilets, etc ... especially considering that our intermediate town is virtually the same size as Falmouth which is at the end of the Cornish one.  Mind you, we don't have quite the level of tourists that Falmouth has!

It's a great success story, though is it fair to say that much of the growth in traffic can be attributed to the Penryn Campus, (used by both Falmouth and Exeter Universities)  which has been developed over the last 15 years. Though chicken and egg come to mind in answering that question.

As for the application of such a loop at Melksham, I guess when point to consider is whether a passing loop needs to be long enough to accommodate a freight train (so up to 775m), or would purely be for passenger train use.   

Another option would be to double the line throughout but still only have a single bi-directional station platform with connecting crossovers at each end (similar to Malton in Yorkshire).  This would allow much greater line capacity whilst keeping station infrastructure costs to a minimum.

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/03/25/54/3255403_9a4ab187.jpg

I did think about Malton (Dunbar too) ... doubling throughout would cost a lot of money - comparable to Swindon to Kemble with (I suspect) the need for a new bridge over the Avon at Staverton.  But, yes, it would add a lot of capacity.   Ironcally, single with bidirectional loop(s) could - as I understand it - provide a lay-by facility for freight trains that need to be kept out of the way as they canter from the main line that people forgot was a main line (Portsmouth to Cardiff) to the main Bristol to London line.

If the signalling is going to be the same for a short or long loop ... may as well make it a long loop even if the regular crossings are passenger trains; the trackbed in double so you're not looking at a massive scheme change.

But there are those who know much more about these options that I do who are doing a study as to what would work for Wiltshire ... and I wait to see what they come up with!

The problem with a single line and dedicated passing loop is acurate train performance.  Once that goes out of the window the service falls apart very rapidly.  It works reasonably OK on the Falmouth line as it is isolated and has a dedicated train fleet but I'm not sure it would work so well on TRANSWILTS.

Once a line has a mixed usage with commuter, high speed and freight, then the ability to increase throughput at regular intervals is very limited.

The cheapest option may be to add extra platforms at several stations to hold commuter trains, as the lowest priority, and slowest.

Falmouth and penryn permanent residents plus temporary student numbers don't come close to Chippenham. Falmouth population is around 5000 greater than melshsm, probably a small number in the scheme of things.
Surely something should be justifiable.

Penryn complete with all works cost £7.8m
Despite the signage regarding the eu, Cornwall council and network rail put a considerable percentage towards the project, so don't discount the funding routes.
I haven't got the passenger increase to hand but understand it has more than justified the improvements.
We had 13 trains a day pre loop to Falmouth. I believe it's now 28!

Some of the growth is down to the Penryn Campus but mainly it is because local residents have taken to the train in ever greater numbers.   Put on a half hourly service, ideally at clockface times, promote it and (as long as the basics are right) bingo!

There had been a series of incremental improvements before that, particularly with Sunday services which until 2002 had been the same as Looe - Whitsun weekend Sunday then just July and August.   The line had seen growth from the first year we had figures for - 2001.   185,000 journeys were made on the line then.  That rose to 293,026 in 2008, the last year before the loop opened and by 2012, the figure for the year had risen to 613,058, more than twice the 2008 one.  664,227 journeys were made in 2016.

I have never heard who came up with the innovative design for Penryn.  It was someone at Network Rail but their name didn't emerge at the time and hasn't since.   As part of the publicity push before the improved service was introduced, I had a working model made of Penryn station and we put it on public display in Truro, Penryn and Falmouth.  A member of this board helped operate it.  The attached photo shows Roger Webster working the model in Falmouth.



 

Since initially going to half hourly it's also expanded from 2 153s to 2 2 carriage trains.

I know people who live in Falmouth who catch the train to Truro just because it's quicker than driving as Truro traffic is so bad. When I drove from Penryn to Truro it took an hour each way. I worked too far to walk if the weather was bad at Truro end, but did weekly tickets when the weather forecast was good. I knew I'd only have half hour to wait, as opposed to over an hour on the mainline.

When i was in redruth, there was a 90 min gap from 1720 to 1850 in service at peak evening from Truro!
Now in Liskeard there was a train at 1725, 1820 then Nothing till 8ish.

I'm now working in Plymouth with 0400 starts so train is out of the question

Thanks Richard - you've hit the nail on the head there with your own experience and comments.  The aim of replicating the Falmouth success on the main line is just why Cornwall Council have and are pushing so hard, backed by money they are contributing or have raised, for the half-hourly service across Cornwall from December next year.  I'm really looking forward to it.

In terms of the 2 153s to 2 x 2 carriage trains, GWR managed to come up with the extra Cl 150 just as the commuter trains were beginning to really struggle to cope with demand and it was starting to hit the pages of the local press - 2012, I remember.  Both Cornwall and we (DCRP) contributed to the cost of making this possible.   

Some of these main line gaps have really struck me this week ... Hayle based. 06:12 to 07:55 gap towards Plymouth (so I was on my way on Monday at 05-bl**dy-30 as I'm a 30 minute walk from the station and not the way back yesterday from Truro, 15:07 to 16:28 to 17:48.  The morning gap is Hayle specific, the afternoon one effects multiple stations ... and I can't help wondering if you will see growth there at the Falmouth line rate when the services increase in a Falmouth-style way.

Many services don't call at Hayle, I've often used st Erth and then a bus back when I've been down to Hayle by train.
Are you still in Hayle?

Indeed, as we have seen this week, there have been problems on the Severn Beach line with trains being delayed at Clifton Down waiting for the other unit to pass.

I do like the Falmouth line - some nice places in the town and the ferry to St Mawes.

From an infrastructure point of view Penryn is an interesting example.

(http://www.mbob.co.uk/rforum/penx.jpg)

Yes.

I'm not so sure either ... but where there's a requirement for capacity beyond what can currently be achieved, options - all options - need to be looked at.    "Dedicated" passing loops are already in use on both the Barnstaple and Exmouth branches, which feed in to the significant railway operations at Exeter where long distance trains can get in the way and aren't always on time ... and a northbound service running late will breed onto a similar lateness on a southbound train ... but then these are lines to destinations which have no other significant rail traffic, unlike TransWilts which is double ended and double trouble (or worse when you look at Westbury and Swindon platforming and interaction issues).


I may be reading you out of context here, SimonW,  but I would put short commuter trains in the middle of the stack in priority terms - yes, get the long distance longer passenger trains out of the way first, but PLEASE don't hold up a train with over 100 commuters on it (such as our 17:36 153) to give precedence to a train of stone from Merehead to Royal Wootton Bassett.  I appreciate that the stone may be on a "just in time" program, but scheduling the train to start a bit earlier and build in a bit of slack should be the fix - not delaying commuters!

"Penryn Station is unusual", yes, but the idea of a passing loop with one long platform is NOT "unique for the UK"; Dovey Junction has one too. Dovey Junction doesn't have a footbridge either, the only passenger access on and off the platform is by train or across a barrow crossing. The layout of Dovey Junction is something like this:

Pwllheli/Porthmadog/Barmouth <--------_______________
                                                                                      \_______________________________ ---------->  Machynlleth/Shrewsbury
                                                                    ||||PLATFORM||||PLATFORM||||                  /
Aberystwyth       <------------------------------____________________________________/
                                                                                           \_________________/

Sorry, I don't seem to be very good at drawing with keyboard characters, but hopefully you get the idea.

Another possible solution for the TransWilts can be found further east on the Cambrian line, at Welshpool. There is a 'dynamic loop' there, basically a very long passing loop. The idea is that trains don't have to wait for each other in order to pass. As it happens Welshpool station is on the double track section but the same principle could potentially be applied with a station on the single track and a long passing loop which allows trains to pass each other without either having to stop and wait for the other.

Sounds like the south Wales main line between Cardiff and Bridgend / Port Talbot. Only double track, so the freight and Maesteg stoppers have to share tracks with fast services and no loops at the stations either so the stopping passenger trains cannot be overtaken.

We could play semantics ... "Penryn Station is unusual (indeed unique for the UK?) in that it has one long platform rather than two opposite each other" and I could say that Dovey junction has two platforms on opposite sides of an island, with one extended ... but (to be honest) I had overlooked Dovey Junction as I used to use it quite a bit "once upon a time, a very long time ago" which is before the extension was put in.

Seems Dovey Junction was done in 2008, Penryn in 2009 - so surely they were in planning in parallel, knowing how excruciatingly slow it is to get this sort of thing done.


It makes the point excellently!


Indeed - there are a whole lot of options ... the background for this thread was the Penryn story and to learn from how it's been implemented rather than to turn it into another TransWilts thread  ;D

I think this kind of single platform with passing loop design is common in New Zealand. Not sure, but someone on here will know for sure!

Having travelled extensively in New Zealand by rail I cannot recall any station of this design.

I do recall one station in Auckland where the train "backed into" the platform but this has been eliminated in recent years with the modernisation and electrification of the Auckland suburban network.

Anyway, New Zealands railways have many track level platforms onto which passengers alight down four or five steps. If I can find it I will scan and post a photo of a remote station, Pukerangi, which has a passing loop and a single white painted wooden building but no discernable platform to speak of.

Okay!
(On the general topic of platform designs, some stations in Poland have platforms each side of several single tracks, each track having two platforms and each platform serving two tracks, so you have "platform-track-platform-track-platform" (etc) rather than "platform-track-track-platform". In the pre-WWI Russian division, I think. It allows passengers to get in and out either side of the train but I don't think it has any other advantages, except perhaps in the oldfashioned days of manual goods loading.)

I've seen that at airports and other high density short runs - also lifts - where people get out one side while the next lot get on at the other.  Also Munich Hauptbahnhof underground / suburban (February picture) and adjacent stations.  Would probably be useful at St Ives too.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/doubleplatform.jpg)

Still have a double-sider at Yeovil Pen Mill, and had them in my youth at Sevenoaks.

Sometimes called the 'Spanish Solution' or 'Barcelona Solution' where it was widespread on the metro stations, although there are examples built way before that including King William Street in 1895.

Stratford westbound Central line opens both sides, also Barking eastbound District Line.   On and off flows both ways.  On the other hand Tower Gateway DLR opens both sides, with theoretically off and on separate sides - according to the signage.

AIUI at most locations where modern 'heavy rail' EMU/DMU services call, only one side will ever be opened as that is the only means of normal operation for the vast majority of door control systems.

Places such as Greenford, Ascot, Guildford and the pre-modernisation Reading had two sided through platform trackss, or bays, but only one side was opened on power door stock.

Paul

Sevenoaks Graham? Which two platforms were they?

In those days they were known as 1 and 2 (where the suburban service from Charing Cross reversed) and 5 and 6 (where the suburban service from Holborn Viaduct reversed).  8 or 10 car on peak services from 1/2 - 2 x 4 EPB + 1 x 2 EPB, and 8 cars from platforms 5/6  2 x 4 EPB.   As the peak time approached, 4 car trains arrived from London, went out to the sidings to attach more carriages ready for their peak cycles.  And after the peak, they carried on our to drop off the extra 4 or 6 before the y continued into the daytime or evening.

There are two island platforms there, so ehere were 5 & 6?

There were 4 tracks. The westmost and eastmost tracks, which now only have faces to the island, also had faces on the outside.  So platforms 1&2 on the first track, 3 on the second track, 4 on the third track, and 5&6 on the fourth track.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/1011_SEV.jpg)

Sevenoaks Railway Station

The train about to depart (for London) is Diesel Multiple Unit 1011. These units were built at BR. Eastleigh Works specifically for the London to Hastings line and were narrower than normal - two seats on either side of a central corridor rather than a two/three split.

Copyright Andy Parrett and licensed for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence.
from http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4344808

Thanks, before my commuting days started in the late 70s.....never knew.

I seem to have led to the comprehensive derailment of this thread. That wasn't my intention!

It brings back memories for me ... so you commuted from Sevenoaks?   I commuted inbound (against the flow) from about 1965 to 1974 and learned a lot about commuting from watching in the comfort of near-empty trains.

Recalling this, I can add another use for double sides platforms ...  when 12 car (3 x 4 CEP or 2 x Hastings Diesels) dropped off they passengers in the down main (platform 4 island),  the Holborn Viaduct train parked up in platforms 5/6 was an excellent way across to the station exit on platform 6 - why bother with the footbridges (note the extra bridge provided in the old photo) when you could open doors on both sides of a train and simply pass through it!


 ;D no problem - topics can be split. 

Have to disagree most stations in New Zealand are of this design.  Christchurch, Dunedin, National Park and several others on the Main Trunk spring to mind. If I could work out how to attach pictures I have lots of photos of single track  NZ stations.

I first came across the Penryn style station in East Germany on the Rostock to Bad Dobran line over 10 years ago. I even have some video from the front of a DMU approaching the train already stopped  in other end of the platform, stropping and then pulling away and taking the facing point for the loop and passing the other train still in the platform. Penryn is different because the trains pass before reaching the platform and don't approach nose to nose. DB must have more faith in it's AWS (Indusi)

Thinking about it what about  Cambridge style solution for Melksham? Long loop, long platform and a scissor crossover half way along? With suitable signalling and length of loop and platform  you could have trains in the same direction passing with a train coming the other way.
Edited for typos:

Don't you just hate it when trains act like children! :P