Great Western Coffee Shop

I'd be interested in reading what posters think are/should be the main priorities for infrastructure (development rather than maintenance/renewal) on the Plymouth-Cornwall routes (including branches) now that Probus-Burngullow has been redoubled and the Penryn loop is due for completion.
 

I think that the track between Bodmin and Liskeard needs to be doubled, I know it is a lot of work, but it would help significantly. Also an increase in linespeed would be nice.

Removing as many of the level crossings on the Newquay brnach as possible (its practical to close several) and increasing the linespeed.

Definitely agree with oooooo, as just over 20 miles in fifty minutes is not fast enough.

Newquay via Burngullow & St Dennis, mooted many moons ago but never came to fruition

Yep agree, need to look at any single track sections on the main line.

Extending short platformed stations where appropriate.

Increase line speed generally.

Reduce headways, by introducing some intermediate signals.

And of course reduce the stepping distance at Saltash on the up platform!

The FoCal project for a Newquay->St Dennis->St Austell->Par loop is an exciting one, I think. Then there's the park & ride idea at Moorswater, too.

Apart from the stretch between Liskeard & Bodmin, the other single line section at Long Rock-Ponsandane, singled back in 75, IIRC, should be redoubled.

One that might become interesting further ahead is reinstating platform 4 at Truro, thus establishing a bi-directional "loop" on platform 3.

 

Afternoon

Agree with doubling Penzance to just outside
Marazion (where the barrier crossing is), plus
the section in the Glynn Valley which is only
because of a week viaduct and could be done.
The crossings on the Newquay branch I would of
thought the majority of them would needed to be
kept, as they serve villages but some are that
small a half barrier would fit, so bring the
barriers back controlled by Circuit and CCTV;
most had gates originally.  Also redo the whole
branch with new track, which would eliminate TSR's
on banks and up the line speed especially for
HSTs.

Not forgetting the single section between "Royal
Albert Bridge Signal Box" (end of Tamar Bridge),
to near "St, Budeaux Ferry Road Station", which
is an approx 2 mile single section.  Although BR
has made it worse by removing one of the girder
bridge sections over the Gunnislake branch.

Regards

Karl.

I didn't realise that vast bits of this apart of the GWML were single track.

The whole line needs to be re-done with double track, electrified and with max line speeds (which would be even quicker with tilt).

3 hrs to Plymouth and then another 2 hours to Penzance is unacceptable.

As for the Newquay branch, electrification and redoubling might not be fully viable, so add several "dynamic" passing loops, and get line speed to 75+ mi/h wherever possible.

HSTs travelling at 25 mi/h on the branch is unacceptable.

Regards,

Btline

What planet are you on? Fully viable? Would be a complete waste of money. Speeding up to provide a viable hourly service or around 35 to 40 mins and with one passing loop would be a magnificent result.

Yes, I understand that. Perhaps this is unviable. But it would certainly not be a waste of money! No loco changes at Par springs to mind/no diesel under the wires. A more efficient local service also (assuming it would be kept and enhanced).

Electrification would be a total waste of money in Cornwall (and Devon for that matter). I would of thought that the doubling of the line over the viaducts at Largin would be the best track improvement in Cornwall at the moment.
 But the best option would be the re-signalling of Cornwall totally , there are far too many 10-15 minute runs in signal sections , therefore restricting amount of trains over the line.
 Back in 1999-2000 there was word that more signals would be put in between St.Germans-Liskeard on the down , Largin and Lostwithiel on both roads and between Camborne - truro on the up  , none of which has taken place. So what chance of anything being done at all eh ?

Pete

Saw the 1135 Padddington/Newquay HST at Exeter st Davids last Saturday with about 12 passengers in standard class and 4 passengers in 1st class.surely this service is only financially justified in the peak school summer holiday period.I am all for improving our rail links but those improvement have be financially realistic.75mph line speeds on the Newquay branch!Much of the main line between Plymouth and Newton Abott is still only 55/60mph.

Would anyone like to hazard a rough guess as to how much timings could be improved if the St Budeaux, Largin, Glynn Valley, Long Rock stretches were all re-doubled?

None really , as apart from the Albert Bridge , most are high(ish) speed sections. Only really benefit train running / puctuality I think.
Pete

Nope, get a map out.....

Mollinnis, pointless, road access to both sides from A391.
Tregoss, pointless, was diversionary route for A30 large vehicles that couldnt fit under Iron Bridge. New bypass open, crossing pretty much pointless.
Haloon, close the road!! Short diversionary route using the bridge under the line just other side of station.
Coswarth, no need, coped when was shut for weeks after unit hit tractor.
Chapel/Trencreek fit barriers.

Morning

I don't think we need a mass cull of all those
crossings with the exception of Mollinnis, plus
how come there have been so many accidents and
near misses in the past if there not used?

I would also doubt the road being closed at
Haloon, hasn't this been discussed and rejected
before?  By some near miricle oooooo has agreed that
Chaple/Trencreek should have barriers.

Lets keep future message's pleasent, I don't need
a map.

Regards

Karl.

Afternoon

Yes agree with that Pete, I have never been a fan
of overhead wiring anyway because of it blowing down
in gales which has happenend and coarses problems
whilst its been fixed and I also find it unsightly
as well.  Although in the future at least there
maybe some sort of Bio-Diesel vehicle, which has
been trialed on a c67 loco and a Voyager, with prehaps
battery powered vehicles as well; but stress this is
in the future.

I do think however that if the single section of
line in the Glynn Valley (viaducts), are repaired
and double tracked, I don't think there would be a
need of signals between Largin and Lostwithiel but
definately for Camborne to Truro, although it would be
a shame that all those semiphores would probably go
as well, which to be honest they do the job just as
well.

With regards to Truro rienstating the old PLT 4,
I think the plan (which funally enough was around
2000), was to make the line to PLT 3 a dead end next to
where the crossing is, this was to be the Falmouth line
platform and PLT 4 would be your up main which was a
stupid idea.  The best solution would be keep PLT 1 as
Falmouth bay, PLT 2 as down main, PLT 3 as up main and
PLT 4 as a bi-directional platform.

With regards to my message for single section to
St. Budeuax Ferry Road, I would doubt it would
go ahead unless the was scope for the track to
be rienstated, espeically with a huge cost of one
if not two new decks for the bridge where the
Gunnislake line does under.

Regards

Karl.

Overhead electrification is the only viable option to make the main line railways sustainable, fast and efficient.

Wires blow over on the ECML because it was done on the cheap and in a rush.

Bio-fuel is a no no no:
*it still produces CO₂ as 70+% of it is made of oil - so no solution to climate change;
*it pushes up food prices, as more land is given over to fuel;
*it causes food shortages.

Third rail is too slow (although could be put for short stretches e.g. Severn Tunnel, where overhead wires can't go).

The only other option is hydrogen fuelled trains (in co-ordination with nuclear power or tidal barrages to get clean power to electrolyse the water to make hydrogen). Put you might as well feed this power into electric wires and cut out the middle man!

Solar panels are not viable in the UK. Relying heavily on wind would cause problems if we suddenly had calm weather. People in Wales don't like having their valley flooded for HEP. UK does not have geothermal. Not many options, and time is running out.....

Evening Btline and all

Btline the wires come down on WCML mainline as
well, this happened to me at Hemel once!

Your coment on Hydrogen fuelled trains interested
me, is this striaght Hydrogen not mixed with
anything else?  It sounds a good idea and would
there be enough spare power to feed back into the
National Grid?  A simular thing has been done with
some watermills in private hands, they can produce
enough to feed them and spare to put back into the
grid with 'a deal' from their regional lecky board?
Although I would of thought Hydro power would be more
friendlier than Nuclear power?

What are your opinions about an alternative fuel made
with purely an example - vegtable fat?

I still think if a battery can be produced to be
powerful enough and to last a suitable time before
recharging I still think thats a runner, remember
the now preserved battery powered DMU or BMU used
on the Ballater branch!

Regards

Karl.

I've been asked to post this...

The top infrastctructure priority in Cornwall should be building a St Austell-Newquay line.  There is not really much point improving the current one as it is not used enough. It is no use at Par and has very bad connections. If it ran to St Austell it would connect better and they could make it a higher line speed.

I don't think electrification is viable at all, there is no need. It will not raise line speeds, major work will need to be done for that and electrification is just useless in extremities of the network.

And as to redoubling sections, you may want it to be all double track but it wont help. The only section that really causes any trouble is the Tamar Bridge. The others cause no problems at all so why double them, it will be a waste of money.

I really dont think there is any need for a 4th platform at Truro, I dont see the need. A third at St Austell would be better. A passing loop at Truro would be pretty useless, there wouldnt really be anything to pass there, all services take roughly the same amount of time.

Morning swlines and all

'I think' the idea with PLT 4 at Truro was purely
there to help eliminate problems with trains having
to wait outside Truro, espicially if they terminate
there due to engineering work, which lets face it
is always ongoing problem.  When you have a HST
set already in PLT 2 and 3 it can create problems
and this has happened before.  Also they were (and
still were looking fairly recently at a meeting I
attended last year), a Falmouth train extended to
St. Austell or Par which could not use PLT 1, it
would need to run on an alternative platform.  PLT 2
is bi-directional but there are times when these can
be both already accomodated.  It wouldn't take much
to rienstate it anyway except for track and signalling.

I would disagree with your source saying that the
viaducts in the Glynn Valley are fine as they are.
Although I haven't experienced it recently there
have been occasions where trains have to stop and
wait for another to come off the single section,
which can make the waiting service late not forgetting
a heavly loaded EWS freight could struggle over the
steepl graded Glynn Valley.  Again I was on a train
that had to wait for a EWS to clear the section.

But note the idea for Truro, I'm going on memory
here, there may have been more reasons!

Regards

Karl.

The cost of implementing improvements  between St Austell - Newquay would be massive, money would be far better spent on the Main Line, which is where most of passenger income comes from in Cornwall. As ive said on previous occasions , Network rail have spent millions upgrading the Par-Newquay line, especially between Ponts Mill and Goonbarrow , why throw all that away to spend more again? I think Network rail should improve speeds down to Cornwall ( and in Cornwall) first , then think about speeding up branch lines, but i'm afraid that due to the gradients / signalling / curvature of the line I doubt wether you would ever see speeds increase more than they are now. The knowledgeable of you on this forum will of seen certain speeds relaxed recently on the main line ( Redruth down / Largin up ) So they are trying to do things to benefit operations

Pete

" If it ran to St Austell it would connect better and they could make it a higher line speed."  Total fiction i'm afraid there. Have you seen the curvature / gradients between Burngullow / St Dennis ? you would be lucky to attain the same speed that is already present on the newly relaid section at Luxulyan valley :)
Pete

The mainline should be the priority.

Redouble, the low speed section to the east of the Royal Albert Bridge would be good. This is always quite slow because of the speed restriction on the bridge so could bring some benefit.

The Glynn Valley should be doubled. Whilst it may not slow current services on many occasions, it will if we want more services on the line. Currently the calculations for pathing are quite complex and must take into account traffic in both directions. This means that some services are unable to stop at certain stations to maintain their path through this area.

Line speed improvements, however small will reduce journey times or improve reliability.

I don't think Network Rail are going to replace all our signals, however adding some intermediates is definitely possible. They have admitted it themselves. Reducing head ways will increase the capacity.

And of course what of the most tricky bit of track of them all. Network Rail think they have another 50 years of life in the Royal Albert Bridge. That's of course with at least one more major refurbishment. Lets just hope they paint it for its 150th birthday.

This is fasinating topic and I see there is no shortage of suggestions as to what could be done but no clear consensus of what would be best.

May I suggest another approach and look at what train service you would really like in Cornwall and identify what prevents you getting that service.

May I also suggest that we look at 6tph in the peaks on the mainline. One fast Padd one fast XC,
One Newquay Exeter/Bristol one Falmouth/Exeter/Bristol. With a balancing down service in the evening. So the question becomes how many trains do you need in the opposite direction and would suggest 4tph. Giving a two way flow of at least 10tph. Now this may sound high but if we can't use our cars and people still want to travel this is the kind service level that could be required.

This would seem to make the Saltash - St. Budeaux over the bridge the main bottle neck. What is the maximum frequency you can get over the bridge with short signal sections and minimum single track? Once that's established then improvements to meet that frequency will become obvious.

Looking at the train service also brings to mind that with more trains possibly starting earlier and finishing later will mean more stock stored over night in Cornwall so more carriage sidings/servicing/fuelling facilities.

Electrification only becomes viable once the wires reach Plymouth from London and Birmingham. There is no reason why given the relatively low line speeds and train frequency that the catenary couldn't have at least a 50 year lifespan. Of course that's far too long a pay back time for the "bean counters" and "politicians".

Also given the switch back nature of the route regenerative braking  could significantly lower overall power compsumption. Given I believe C2C are making something like a 20% reduction on a much flatter route. After all it was done in the 1950s on the Woodhead route the empties to Yorkshire helped power the loaded trains up to Woodhead.

Some further ideas can be found in the link below.
http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=7748.msg12471#msg12471

I do not think it is possible to get a fuel with 100% Bio diesel. You always need some petrol in there (mostly petrol in fact - e.g. Virgin Voyager used at least 70% petrol).

A hydrogen engine would be able to use 100% hydrogen.

The only waste it would produce is water vapour.

The only problem is getting clean energy to turn water into hydrogen - but as I explained earler, the Severn Barrage could do this.

The trains would then be like electric trains. The hydrogen burnt in the power car would produce electricity which could be sent to motors to move the train. Waste water vapour would be let off as exhaust or could be used onboard in some way first.

------------

Electrification of the Cornish Main Line would not be a waste of money. With better track it would allow faster service.

No loco changes or engines under the wires.

I'm afraid it would. Usage numbers aren't high enough to warrant it.

Quite agree, it wouldn't be a waste of money should London be near St. Erth, but guess what? It isn't!!

It's a total waste of money. Just get an EMU that can be hauled by diesel locos (390s for instance) and haul the last bit ... from Plymouth I'd say.

Whats unpleasant about suggesting you get a map out??? If you get a map out and have a look Haloon Crossing can easily be bypassed by taking the road that goes under the line the other side of St.Columb Road station with hardly any difference in time/mileage for the road user. Halloon Crossing is DANGEROUS motorists approach at speed as its a long straight road. Removing it would be SAFER and allow higher linespeed.

Hi, Karl and oooooo!

As I'm looking at this from way outside your local area, I must say that I didn't find an online map particularly helpful in trying to work out what the issue is at Halloon Crossing.  However, Google Earth is absolutely brilliant at this!

To anyone who isn't familiar with central Cornwall, try doing a Google Earth search for 'Halloon Crossing' - or look up 50^o 23' 55.30" N, 4^o 56' 41.50" W  ;)

I did, and I think I can see the problem: road traffic on a straight piece of road, leaving the 'A' road, will be travelling fairly fast, approaching a level crossing.  ::)

I see what you mean, oooooo, about re-routing the road under the track to the east of the station - but from what Karl mentioned previously, that has been considered and discounted in the past?

Wonder why? Cost of building an underpass for a route that has 4 trains a day for most of the year (admittedly hopefully to rise to 7 a day). That will be difficult to justify.

Don't get me wrong, I really do think that Newquay should have a better and faster service, but you can probably deliver more meaningful linespeed improvements for the cost of grade separating one LC.   

Some very thought-provoking posts on here. I tend to agree with Richard Bickford's bottom line that for now the main priority should be the main line and that re-doubling and signalling improvements would help to increase capacity and timing, not just for passenger services but also freight, which may become a growing consideration if fuel prices continue to rise.

That said, the branch lines also deserve attention I'd like to see the momentum created by the initiatives being taken on the Falmouth branch, with the loop, and the St Ives branch, with the new park & ride at St Erth, carried over onto the Looe and Newquay branches. For looe, the idea of a park and ride at Moorswater is an interesting one.

For Newquay, I'd like to see the investment made to establish a direct route to St Austell but, in my opinion, the ultimate goal should be a through service to Falmouth over a reopened St Dennis line with a triangular junction at Burngullow. North-South travel across Cornwall is not that well served by the road network and such a route would link three major growth towns plus Penryn and "China Clay Country", serving commuters, holiday-makers and students alike. The "china clay country" eco-town proposal, if executed along the lines of the Kilbride project for Tavistock, could finance a chunk of the cost of the track work necessary at St Dennis and along the frieght line. There would also be the need to reinstate that 4th platform at Truro.

As it stands, the Newquay branch route is an anachronism, having been built for a purpose which no longer exists. With the necessary vision and investment, however, it could be transformed to meet the 21st century public transport needs.

 

 
 

The underpass in question is already in place on another road. What am saying is close the road that uses the crossing and make all traffic use the one that passes under the bridge. Cost would be??? Errr, nothing?? Only problem perhaps is for high vehicles but there would be other alternative routes, and there cant be a large amount of high vehicles using that route anyway. It has cropped up in the past but am sure it was never pursued, there is no decent reason for not doing it and several to do it, coming Network Rail and Highways Bods, do it!!

Most of the crossings on theNewquay branch are pointless parralel routes, Haloon is a serious accident waiting to happen, if they won't close the crossing then at least put half barriers on it or even better CCTV and full barriers controlled by Goonbarrow box, they eventually put half barriers at Quintrell Downs after one to many twatting motorist thought they could beat the barriers....and didn't, Tregoss moor is TOTALLY pointless now, it is situated on a massive long straight for the railway which is about 3 miles long and if that crossing wasn't there then the line speed could be about 65 MPH all the way down there! (it's currently 45 until the crossing, 20 over the crossing and either 40 or 45 after) Molinnis could be closed overnight and noone would notice for about 10 years. Trencreek is busy and needs barriers. The issue with the crossings on the Newquay branch is to raise line speed more than anything!

As for redoubling Largin? wouldn't really be to much benefit as it's such a short section.

Replace all of the signalling with 4 aspect to reduce the stupidly huge sections and have a centralised panel at either Par or Truro.

More local services (units) so that HST's aren't stopping at every lamp post, HST's - PNZ-SER-TRU-SAU-PLY and units all stations.

Morning

Lets face it, aint going to happen!!!

Why take out several crossings when there is an
easier more efficient alternative.  Halloon (I
have already said in a previous message, put
barriers there (amongst others), with that and
speed bumbs near the crossing to slow traffic down.
With the others minus the odd one or two we have
already mentioned, don't forget that people who live
next to the railway line i.e in the old crossing
keepers cottages, are going to need access to their
properties and not taken away.  I have a friend who
lives in one of these old keepers houses and to take
away his access road, is going to be meet with anger.

HALF BARRIERS (I CAN WRITE IN FULL CAPS AS WELL), than to rip up roads left,
right and centre.  It doesn't matter if its half
barriers, as long there is a barrier in situ, it can
still run to a 60MPH schedule than spending millions
more digging up roads and replacing one with a bridge
i.e Haloon whih WAS rejected!

Anyway arn't most of the the TSR's on that branch
due to the condictions of the track and not the
crossings?

Also Glynn Valley does need double track especailly
when your on a train thats made 10min late due to
waiting for another to clear the single section?

Regards

Karl.

Well done. Now that you've displayed your complete mastery over the computer keyboard would you please refrain from pressing Return within paragraphs, and just let your text flow naturally? Ta!
(http://www.takeforum.com/forum/images/smiles/77horsey.gif)

"Anyway arn't most of the the TSR's on that branch
due to the condictions of the track and not the
crossings?"

At present , there is only one TSR between Luxulyan and Goonbarrow Box (20mph). The speed of the line is mainly due to line curvature / gradient / signalling /  preventative maintenence.


Pete

To be fair to Karl, he did mention having problems with paragraphs in earlier posts :


On full caps, my personal view is that they are ok if emphasising a point, but overuse of them can become a bit wearing.

Ternimal Junkie

I have to press Return for a number of reasons.

Firstly my screen is 14inch so other people who
do let their text flow natually, to read it I
have to scroll over each line of the paragraph
whilst trying to read it at the same time (as off
the screen), which is difficult.

Also as Bush InternetTV, an TV with a basic Internet
connection, it doesn't have a spell checker, no grammer
check, no nothing, so makes it easier for me to proff
read what I have typed to manually correct any errors
before sending; although an odd one will sneak in I
have nmissed.  Remember this hasn't got anywhere near
the capability of a PC!  The last time I let the text
flow a bit more in a message to the forum, it was all
over the place and was more difficult to read in my
opinion.  But I do try to make the best job of bad
machinery.

And my comment of full caps was to point out that
you don't need to use full caps to make a point, I
personally I find using full caps unneady and a bit
forcefull, its the first time I've used them in a
message to this group except for titles e.t.c.

I hope this has clarified things for you?!

Regards

Karl.

Ahh. Fairy snuff, as long as there's a reason.


From what I've heard it ain't much of a TV, either :P

Afternoon

And with regards to paragraphing in my previous
message has done just that, with the odd word then
drops down a line; its done it again!

To bring back into topic, a comment was made
regarding the reinstatement of the Burngallow to
St. Dennis Junction line and using that as a future
Newquay branch.  'I think' there is a problem with
this somewhere on the branch, Crugwallins?.  If my
memory serves me correct, there is some sort of
gantry which the line goes underneath and again
'if my memory' serves me correct, passenger trains
wern't allowed underneath this.  Also there isn't
space to put another line around this gantry or
overhead structure.  Can't recall presisely if
this is a building or gantry but thats the jist
of the problem.

Also I made comment regarding a battery operated
train which may be the way forward and mentioned
a BMU (Battery Mutiple Unit), was built by BR for
the Ballater branch.  I have found a link for the
BMU, I had hoped to find something a bit more of a
technical nature so facts and figures could be
looked at, but this is the best I could find so
far:

http://www.railcar.co.uk/hisOthers/BMUops.htm

Regards

Karl.

Afternoon

Ah I know why I could'nt get the techincal details
for the BMU, the search I did took me to page 3
instead of page 1.  Go into the site via the link
in my previous e-mail, then go to the top left of
the page and click on 'Battery Electric Unit' icon
(its very small!), thats the first page with the
techincal details!  Then click on the icons underneath
the above to continue through the pages about this BMU.
Would be helpful if they had a previous and next buttons
at the bottom of the page. So you will have to click
on each icon to continue the story!

But would be interested in what people think about a
modern version of this, as an alternative method
of power?

Regards

Karl.

I takes apx 60 seconds for a train to cross the single track section so seems a pointless exercise to re-double it.

The linespeed over the pointwork at the western end of the section for up trains has been raised within the last couple months aswell.

You loose more time in the Glynn Valley on the down road waiting for the train in front to clear Lostwithiel. Reducing signalling sections would be more worthwhile than spending money on redoubling a short stretch. Its not as if Cornwall is ever going to need a service every 5 minutes surely.

Evening

Well a lot of people seem to be saying the same
thing in past messages under this topic, reinstate
double track and I would agree with that, so would
have to beg to differ with you regarding the Glynn
Valley.

Regarding coment made about a 5min service, no
we don't need a service that frequent but we need
a faster, better service, one that isn't 'Dreckly'
than we have, hence the need to reinstate double
track throughout Cornwall including Marazion e.t.c.

The whole HST timetable needs a radical rethink,
especially as to where they stop, times they run
and also in my opinion too many terminate at
Plymouth West bound.

Double track throughout to minimise delays or
trains stuck behind eachover and more sectional
signalling should also be a priority.

However I have been told some good news.  Truro
PLT 2 is to gain a signal (not sure exactly where
its going to be sighted), this is to replace the
ground signal that currently controls movements
out of 2 to crossover and gain the up main by
Truro Signal Box.  This is apparently for the future
use of trains from Falmouth to St.Austell/Newquay
which will run into 2 instead of terminating in
PLT 1.  I believe the idea of taking people from
Falmouth to St. Austell for a connetion to the "Eden
Project" is a main reason for this.

Regards

Karl.
 

The new signal on platform 2 is the new cheap option.

Original plan was to install a crossover between Penweathers Jn and Highertown Tunnel to allow train off the Falmouth Branch to access the up main. As you say platform two will now be bi-directional to allow this.

Isn't there already a crossover to the west of Truro station that is used for the exit from Truro yard towards PNZ?

Yes! In fact a train can already be routed off the branch onto the up main.

Signal is to allow a train from Falmouth to run into the up platform and then go back to Falmouth from there.  Signal will replace existing shunt signal 26 at country end of Truro platform and will be a main arm reading to the DM only.

After travelling on the Newquay branch line last Friday. The journey time needs to be reduced as already stated in this topic. The train I was on was jampacked full, with bags blocking doorways on the right hand side of the train in the direction of travel.

If anyone wanted to board at Luxulyan they would have to enter in the staff area. These areas had passengers in as well. I think that FGW really need to consider having longer than a two carriage unit on Fridays on this branchline. A four carriage train would have still been packed as they sent coaches from Par in addition to the train. The journey needs to be sped up so that passengers have a more comfortable journey, and if there were half barriers this would help.

I n relation to the barrier at Molinnis, sometimes this road gets used as a diversion when the A391 is queued through Bugle. But the crossing could be closed as the road is not suitable for traffic use.

Evening

Yep, I was told that recently about Truro as well.
I'm not really sure that it is nessecary because
the two c153's should cross with eachover at Penryn,
so in thoery there should only be one train at Truro
and PLT 1 is adiquate enough; don't see any pluasable
reason to use PLT 2?  Could this protencailly coarse
congestion as well?  The idea I was led to believe at
partnership meetings is the one from Falmouth will come
into Penryn first, whilst the other waits in the loop
until the first has re/detrained and has proceded.

(It would of made sense if they were to run a service
to St. Austell/Par, but I beleive thats now on the
backburner).

The crossing at Millinous is used for a derversion,
the state of the road, well most people would not be
interested as long as there not stacked up at Bugle,
prehaps resurfice it?

As regards for Newquay train, I cought it as far as
Par today and it wasn't that bad, but passenger numbers
could be sparadic, same with Falmouth and some of
services out of Plymouth for Cornwall.  Some do need a
least a c153 added if not 2xc150s, but a spare unit that
could be left ready at Plymouth or Par as an additional
boost probably would fall on deaf ears?  Was there
anything happening on that day which could of made more
people use the train?  Prehaps they could do with some
monitoring to see if there are certain times where it
seems that one c153 or 150 is not enough?

Regards

Karl.

Morning

whilst we're discussing the Newquay branch, I have
to say that Par station has to be the most unwelcoming
station in Cornwall.  It is run down needs painting,
has silver barriers on the down platform (decetors why?),
Palacide fencing mixed with uncared for GWR original
spear tops, the booking office door was barely open
(does this and the toilet still shut at 2pm?), it most
be worse than Hayle and Menheniot stations.  The
footpath at the back of the down platform although free
of dogs mess on my visit, is uncared for and heavily
overgrown in some places (could this be a council issue?),
not a very welcoming sight for tourists either.

Regards

Karl.

The crossing at molinnis crosses a private road, so it is unlikely to be resurfaced.

It is only on Fridays during summer that the Newquay train is that full. I suppose as the train is scheduled to stop at intermediate stations which have short platforms. I don't know whether they are long enough for a three or four carriage train.

Evening

The Newquay branch used to accomodate three car
DMU's, so can't see a problem with a c150 and c153
coupled together.

If the road is 'private' then I guess people are
sneaking along it when they shouldn't be then?!
Or is it another unadopted one from the Council,
like my back lane is after someone fell over?

Regards

Karl.

Where did you make that up from???

Evening

Prehaps this line does need a good monitoring then,
to see when the peaks are (not the 44, 45 and 46!).

If oooooo could send to the group trains he knows
are always buisier than others and I'll pass the
information onto someone who may be to help or at
least get the ball rolling!

Regards

Karl.

In my experience of the Par-Newquay branch line during weekdays, Fridays are by far the busiest going to Newquay. I only travel one way on the line as other wise I would arrive at Plymouth after midday. It also makes a difference if a high speed train connects with the Newquay service. I am not saying that every train is full. I don't know what the trains are like at weekends as I live in an intermediate village and the train doesn't stop on Saturdays, and a limited service on Sundays.

Today the Newquay was a 3 car to accomodate the extra passengers for some Pirate FM concert in Newquay, good on FGW for strengthening it! 2 cars are inadequate for the Newquay branch but lets not forget that Wessex only usually had a single 153 diagrammed all year round until 2005! From what i've been told the 1041 left Newquay full and standing with a 3 car set!

Let's hope that with the current attention on the Falmouth branch, and more services on the Barnstaple line coming, Newquay is not far behind in attracting the investment to improve the service that it deserves..

Top priorty in Cornwall should be to Divert Newquay Services via St Dennis to St Austell.

Would be nice to see the Single sections of the Main Line Redoubled, but It won't happen between Penzance and Marazion, Long Rock Depot gets in the way.
 
Between Bodmin Parkway and Liskeard the Viaducts were Singled because of the Weight of Trains and since the 1980's have been narrowed, Many ^'s needed. Tavistock better option.
 
Royal Albert Bridge to St Budeaux Ferry Road would make sense but new bridge required over the Gunnislake branch.

Morning

Yep, Smokey, these points have already been covered in
previous messages in this title, some for and against from
other members.  I think you may just be able to sneak double
track behind "Long Rock Depot", I think its the carriage
washer plant that will be in the way the most.

With regards to St. Dennis to Burngallow line, I think there
is something that has pretty much stopped the use of trains
going back along the whole line, I was told something on the
lines of this by an BR employee, but a long time ago so can't
remember exact details.

Not sure if it would be possible, but I don't think anyones
looked at reinstating the "Trenance Valley Line" west of
St. Austell?  Is it possible to use the old trackbed, then
build a new extension onto it with a new station/s?  Is it
near to the Eden Project or could the old Retew/Meledor Mill
line (off St. Dennis Junction), be used for this as an option?

The two viaducts in the Glyn Valley have also weakend over the
years as well as the heavier trains, so would need redecking,
but hasn't been done already in Cornwall surely at Liskeard?
Why not again?!

The good thing about the missing bridge span near St. Budeaux,
is it isn't a large area to gap, so another good possibilty.

Regards

Karl.

FGW put redoubling of the Long Rock stretch on a "wish list" (for the cornwall county council transport plan, I think it was) and, like Karl, I think it could be done - even though the carriage washer plant may need moving. By the by, how Long Rock has shrunk since the days of steam & the hydraulics.

Don't know anything about the state of the Trenance valley branch trackbed and not sure if a St. Austell -> Trenance -> new bit -> old Carbean branch (to Gunheath) -> Goonbarrow junction-> Bugle -> Newquay route, even if possible, would cut journey times. 
 
I wonder if within the context of redeveloping a derelict industrial landscape (perhaps linking into the eco-town project if that ever happens) there may not be funds for a realignment of the existing Parkandillack line which eliminates some of the tightest curves towards Burngullow.

The building of motorway flyovers & viaducts seems to cause no qualms to the powers that be and yet for rail, the replacement of the bridge at St. Budeaux seems such a big issue. The transport world is upside down!

Regarding Long Rock depot and the fact that the carriage washer may be in the way of the second track makes me enter into the releams of conspiracy theory.  When you look at many of the rationalisation schemes of the late 70s 80s, post Beeching, it's almost as if they were done on the basis of let's make it as hard as possible to restore the previous capacity. Fanciful I know but is it just a coincidance that every time sometime suggests restoration of old capacity there seems to have been some obsticle placed in the way of just plain restoration thus increasing the costs prohibitively? Or have I read too many Kennedy and 9/11 websites?

One little example the 300 yds or so of single track entry to Weymouth station.

Andy's comment regarding motorway bridge construction is also spot on. Roads easy to build rail incrediably difficult, even canals seem easier to restore. Who'd even though teh Hudderfield narrow would ever reopen Why is it when we pioneered building railways and canals (by hand) is rail restoration so difficult?

Top priority (long long term) is straightening the mainline with new tunnnels and route to improve line speed, an make it a HS route, a la London - Channel Tunnel, all the way from Paddington to Bristol TM (and to Cardiff/Swansea) and down through Som and Devon to Penzance.

The Berks & Hants route via Westbury could be improved later.

Tinkering with this passing loop here and that new station there is all fine and dandy , but what we really need are goals for the next fifty years, not just the next five or ten years.

Do we still want a 19th century railway in the 22nd century? 'Cos that's what we will have, if we don't start planning now!

Evening

Well unfortunately in Cornwall I doubt whether there would
be any scope to introduce a complete new HS line, due to
topography plus the present line connects up pretty well
with 'most' places with little walking distance, so it
would have to be rebuilding lost bits such as at Long Rock.
I doubt whether the HS line will go any further than
Plymouth even if it was built.  But indeed a tinker here
and there to eliminate the margority of the problems will
benifit the erea and passengers.

And I would prefer 19th century railway stations anytime to
the modern glass, last 5 minutes, not weather prof, lovely
anti trespass grey liveried bus shelter!

What gets me is that people these days want to get from
A to B like yesterday.  Ok things could be a little more
punctual agreed.

Regards

Karl.

author=Tinminer link=topic=3009.msg24906#msg24906

Tinkering with this passing loop here and that new station
there is all fine and dandy , but what we really need are
goals for the next fifty years, not just the next five or
ten years.

Do we still want a 19th century railway in the 22nd century?
'Cos that's what we will have, if we don't start planning
now!