Barnstaple ('Tarka') Line - services, facilities, events and incidents (merged posts)

[whole diary]

[REVUpminster]

Barnstaple trains terminate at Exeter Central now because that is where the staff is and then run empty to reverse at Exmouth (Morrisons) Siding.
If a guard had to remove a drunk, or worse a child, at St James Park and left them there anything could happen. Also an incident at Central and it would be possible to run round a stopped train.

[grahame]

If a guard had to remove a drunk, or worse a child, at St James Park and left them there anything could happen.

Couldn't the same be said for Falmouth Dock, Gunnislake, Bedwyn and Shalford?

[REVUpminster]

If a guard had to remove a drunk, or worse a child, at St James Park and left them there anything could happen.

Couldn't the same be said for Falmouth Dock, Gunnislake, Bedwyn and Shalford?

At termini the passenger could stay on the train and the guard could call the police to meet the train on it's return run. If BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) rules are the same as London Underground that passengers can only be carried past colour light signals and not shunt signals then the train would be stuck at St James until assistance arrived. I don't know BR rules in the instance of taking passengers into a siding.

[IndustryInsider]

Drunks get kicked off trains at all sorts of locations, and of course are just as likely to be waiting at an unstaffed station to try to board a train.  A lone child will be a rare occurrence, and in the event of that rare occurrence would it be possible to do the 'shunt' move by going onto the Exmouth branch behind EJ20 signal, therefore sticking to mainline signalling so the child could stay on the train?  I don't know the signalling system there well enough to know whether that could happen.

[grahame]

If a guard had to remove a drunk, or worse a child, at St James Park and left them there anything could happen.

Couldn't the same be said for Falmouth Dock, Gunnislake, Bedwyn and Shalford?

At termini the passenger could stay on the train and the guard could call the police to meet the train on it's return run. If BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) rules are the same as London Underground that passengers can only be carried past colour light signals and not shunt signals then the train would be stuck at St James until assistance arrived. I don't know BR rules in the instance of taking passengers into a siding.

Drunks get kicked off trains at all sorts of locations, and of course are just as likely to be waiting at an unstaffed station to try to board a train.  A lone child will be a rare occurrence, and in the event of that rare occurrence would it be possible to do the 'shunt' move by going onto the Exmouth branch behind EJ20 signal, therefore sticking to mainline signalling so the child could stay on the train?  I don't know the signalling system there well enough to know whether that could happen.

So ... no real problem even in the very unusual case of lone child at St James Park.  As I read you two gentlemen, "problem" (has it ever been?) remains at Bedwyn, where you have one less member of staff (driver only).  Not sure about Shalford - how does the shunt there work??

[Umberleigh]

Had the pleasure of a 3 car 158 on the 09.21 Exeter Central to Barnstaple yesterday. (158 956). Was first time in a 158 on that line since a 2 car 158 about a decade ago. Have to say it’s was a very pleasant, smooth and quiet journey, especially compared to the return journey by Pacer.

So are these the units we will be seeing on the Barney? A fellow passenger said they had been on a ‘new train’ the morning before, so maybe a unit already rostered on this line?

[RichardB]

Yes, Umberleigh, those are the ones.  That's the future. 

[Apedlar12]

So are these the units we will be seeing on the Barney? A fellow passenger said they had been on a ‘new train’ the morning before, so maybe a unit already rostered on this line?

Yes, should be 3x 3 car 158s in the foreseeable future on the Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) Line and yes 158957 was on that same diagram the day before, both Tuesday and Wednesday 158956/957 look to have been filling in for 2x 150/2s but was back to normal today...

[Cava]

Why have Barnstaple got these trains instead of Portsmouth to Cardiff, who have now got less comfortable trains more suited to shorter distances? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

[Timmer]

Why have Barnstaple got these trains instead of Portsmouth to Cardiff, who have now got less comfortable trains more suited to shorter distances? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

A very good question Cava with the answer you will get from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/Dft is increased capacity. I believe the original plan was to refurb the 165/166 fleet from 2+3 to 2+2 but that has been overruled by the Dft.

[Cava]

Thanks Timmer, but why did Barnstaple of all places get our trains? It is only a local line after all.

I know it isn't their fault, and I would probably think it was great to get trains way above what I need, but why should we suffer as a result? It just gets to me, all this isn't it wonderful for Barnstaple while we sit cramped up in trains that are a load of rubbish!

[a-driver]

Thanks Timmer, but why did Barnstaple of all places get our trains? It is only a local line after all.

I know it isn't their fault, and I would probably think it was great to get trains way above what I need, but why should we suffer as a result? It just gets to me, all this isn't it wonderful for Barnstaple while we sit cramped up in trains that are a load of rubbish!

Might have something to do with clearances, a Turbo being slightly wider than a Cl. 158. 

[phile]

Thanks Timmer, but why did Barnstaple of all places get our trains? It is only a local line after all.

I know it isn't their fault, and I would probably think it was great to get trains way above what I need, but why should we suffer as a result? It just gets to me, all this isn't it wonderful for Barnstaple while we sit cramped up in trains that are a load of rubbish!

Might have something to do with clearances, a Turbo being slightly wider than a Cl. 158. 

Just because the DFT^▸ (Department for Transport) know better than railwaymen/women.

[grahame]

Let me put a couple more points which may help address why the Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) line trains are going to be 158s.

GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) has 43 carriages of class 158 in the franchise and the Cardiff - Portsmouth service of hourly trains has an 8 hour cycle.  At 3 cars per train, that was 24 carriages spoken for ... and two more for the Brightons and you've spoken for 30 carriages ... couple of other trains running with 158s (remember there are 13 x 3 car and 2 x 2 car) and by the time you take a couple of sets out at a time (overhaul etc)  you've used the full fleet.

Increase the 8 trains in the cycle to 5 carriages, and immediately you've used 40 out of 43.  Even if you send something else to Brighton and on rigorously remove the extra diagrams, you ain't got enough.  So how about bringing some more into the franchise?    You know how much we like the 158s - well, tough, so does everyone else and the cries of "you ain't having mine" ring out from Thurso to Norwich and Fishguard ...

What else, then?   There are 46 carriages of class 150 in the franchise - 20 x 2 car plus 2 x 3 car. I suppose all the Cardiff - Portsmouths could be 158 + 150, but the 150 units are top speed 75 mph not 90 mph, so you'll effect performance, and the 150 carriages will probably be less popular - and they're also mighty useful on stop / start lines where lots of people are getting in and out every few minutes - Devon Metro except for Barnstaple, Falmouth, St. Ives spring to mind, as well as Bristol suburbs / Bristol Metro.

You can't couple up a 2 car 165 to a 3 car 158 ... so there's another possibility gone.

Castle and Classics cannot run via Hamble, so they's out

Courgettes probably aren't cleared via Hamble either, and running new 125 mph trains on a service that's not pointing towards London would be infra dig anywhere south of the Watford Gap.

So, though there are questions on their suitability, the Cardiff to Portsmouth run's got the trains cascades from London to Reading electrification - the hand-me-downs, the rescues.  We do love our rescue dog, so perhaps we will learn to love them.   Even though better suited to shorter runs and, to be fair, lots of journeys on Cardiff - Portsmouth ARE shorter ones.  Wide mid-carriage doors help the people who pile in and out at intermediate stations  - Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Westbury, Salisbury, Southampton.

So - where do the 158s go?   They're ideal for Cardiff - Taunton - Beyond.   They're ideal for the Cornish main line, and the regional extensions of that.  They're also ideal for the Barnstaple line, as the majority of its traffic is end to end - you don't have major flows of people on and off at Morchard Road, or crowds at Copplestone so although some services stop a lot, there's no need for provision for heavy intermediate loading and unloading.

The point about gauging of the 165 / 166 has also been made ... and there is sense in keeping trains that can be coupled to each other on the same set of lines, keeping maintenance of particular types in particular depots.

I can see why there are 9 carriages of 158 (out of 43) on the Barny and, yes, I would love to see them routinely on the Weymouth run - which DOES have the metrics for which they are very suitable and 3+2 is not (long, long journeys by many people to / from Weymouth).

Long post ... some application of guesswork and logic therein, but as you shake out the figures you start to see "why". Please don't shoot the messenger - the Cardiff / Portsmouth should be running with a fleet of 12 x 4 car 172s - but that order was cancelled in favour of GWR electrification, which has brought us the turbos.

[Umberleigh]

Thank you everyone for the replies.

Somewhat ironic given the comments on here re 158s and Cardiff that the station staff and guard had to explain to passengers on nboard and on the platform that my train was NOT they late running Cardiff train...