What's the difference between having something not signalled, and having it signaled for shunt movements but not passenger ones? Also, I've no idea about signaling, but I thought that trackwork-wise the intact bay at Whitland was accessible from the main line. However having checked a map I have on my hard drive I think you are right that it isn't.
Mainly signalling, I think. Perhaps someone 'in the know' could comment on this....
The most visible difference is that when a passenger train approaches Carmarthen station it has a main aspect (i.e. coloured light, in this case would be yellow as coming to the end of the line) with the indicator saying UP or DP (up/down platform). If it's going into sidings, including a non-passenger bay etc, it'll be shown a subsidiary aspect (white lights) indicating a shunt move. Behind the scenes, there'd probably be a rule saying passenger trains not passed into the platform, and perhaps an issue of track not being maintained to required standard? Facing point locks are relevant, but the CMN bay comes off the running and they're the only points so they would presumably have
FPL▸ anyway.
Also there's probably only a shunt signal for starting from the platform. I don't think I've ever noticed a proper signal in the bay.
Actually a passenger train would have white lights to be called on into an occupied platform, as often happens at Carmarthen... So that makes it a grey area, but generally a passenger line will be signalled with a main aspect.
I believe this is why Platform 0 at Cardiff never takes arrivals - it was originally a non-passenger line AFAIR, and allowing loaded arrivals would require the entrance signals to be set up for the move; it's easier just to put in a starting signal for departing moves.
Whitland's bay connects directly to the start of the branch. This is curving away form the main line at that point, so quite a lot of modification, perhaps in the form of a scissor-like arrangement across the branch turnout, would be needed to connect it to the main line. The connections to the sidings etc on the up side were rationalised/severed a few years ago. If you search Google Images for Whitland signal box, there are some good photos of the frame and diagram somewhere, which give a good idea of the layout and signalling.
The up arrival that then runs
ECS▸ to CLR can possibly cross over the points onto the down line, but the reversing signal in the up platform is a ground disc, and so the train can't be loaded. It also looks like that end of the points has no facing point lock; there is one on the other side of the crossover, as trains from Tenby will hit them from that end. The train in the evening could run ECS from the platform to the east end, then reverse over the crossover there, back over the level crossing and into the down platform.
Do loco run-rounds not affect token working? Do you think that beyond the platform would be outside the token section then?
If I have time I'll have a scout for photos or check the sectional appendix (one 'appeared' on the internet a few years ago) to see if they shed any light. I suppose loco run-arounds are fine as the loco and coaches are both 'in section' at a location set up for the purpose. I suspect the token may be required to operate the run-around points.
The evening working may be of some use, but those morning down trains look particularly useless. To be fair I expected it to happen, but given the 'promise' of 5 extra trains it's not a great situation. I wonder how the waste of fuel and track access charges compares to the cost of transporting the driver, along with the issue of security of a train being held at a remove location for the night. I would suggest, however, that Fishguard is more secure than Pembroke Dock etc, being located within the port.
It is as you mention a very different timetable to Milford and esspecially Pembroke which have pretty much a two-hourly service, in Pembroke's case without peek extras. Is an almost hourly morning peek service for Fishguard really worth the loss of lesuire travelers due to the huge gaps in the off-peak schedule?
Pembroke does of course have a special timetable for its (well, Tenby's) actual peak, summer Saturdays, in order to accommodate
FGW▸ . I've often thought it would be good for Milford and Pembroke to have trains better timed for commuting at least to Carmarthen in both directions, but it wouldn't be easy to resource, especially with the standard pattern timetable, and I wonder what the genuine need is. If the Fishguard service demonstrates a strong commuter flow to CMN or even small flows to
SWA» , perhaps the users in South Pembs will in turn be asking for 'fill-in' peak services.
One last thing, can you really get from Fishguard to Whitland in 23mins or does the 6:53 departure from Fishguard on the proposed timetable contain another error?
Doesn't look right. As it's 10 minutes below the current journey time, it looks like a simple typo.
Perhaps the first Pembroke service will operate as far as Swansea and be a 150/153?
I'd assume so, but what happens to it then? All other services are accounted for, and if an extra Sprinter is available, it would be odd that the entire Fishguard timetable seems to be based on using existing units.
Also what happens to the 1514 CDF» -SWA service if that diagram is to go on a 15.30 CDF-FGH service? Perhaps the WAG» express 175 will form the 1514 and the 1710 Swanlines.
Not sure what you're getting at: isn't the plan for the current 15.14 itself to become the 15.30?