Infrastructure Priorities in Cornwall

[whole diary]

[oooooo]

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^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision);
most had gates originally. 

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.

[Karl]

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.

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.

[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.

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

[Btline]

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

Wires blow over on the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (United Kingdom). 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.....

[Karl]

Evening Btline and all

Btline the wires come down on WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) or BMU used
on the Ballater branch!

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^▸ (East Coast Main Line) 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^▸ (United Kingdom). 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.....

[swlines]

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.

[Karl]

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^▸ (High Speed Train)
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^▸ (English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, now known as DB Schenker Rail (UK^▸ (United Kingdom))) 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.

[peterswest]

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

[peterswest]

" 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

[richard bickford]

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.

[eightf48544]

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.
 

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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)),
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.

[Lee]

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.

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

[Btline]

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.

[devon_metro]

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.

[swlines]

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.

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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) that can be hauled by diesel locos (390s for instance) and haul the last bit ... from Plymouth I'd say.