Work on Okehampton Line: progress updates

[pompeyfan]

If I had any choice in it, I would suggest keeping the SWR services as is, and GWR running an Axminster - Okehampton service. This would allow SWR services to be sped up but would be dependent on the capacity enhancements on the WoE being provided.

I completely get the argument of running cross Exeter services, maybe turning back at Pinhoe, but SWR services are not the ones that should be used.

 

[21C101]

Why is it a huge problem? How many trains per hour run between these two points in the peak period?

Five per hour at the moment. Two Exmouth, one Barnstaple, One Waterloo and one Honiton.

Principal pinch point is Exeter St Davids itself due to restrictive track layout coming down from Central (exacerbated by terminating trains from Waterloo and a half hourly Exmouth to Paignton service reversing there). Sure, infrastructure modifications would fix it but they cost ££££.

If I had any choice in it, I would suggest keeping the SWR services as is, and GWR running an Axminster - Okehampton service. This would allow SWR services to be sped up but would be dependent on the capacity enhancements on the WoE being provided.

I completely get the argument of running cross Exeter services, maybe turning back at Pinhoe, but SWR services are not the ones that should be used.

Axminster isn't possible until a new dynamic loop is installed at Cranbrook. As and when that is done the Barnstaple to St James Park services will run through to Axminster.

Similarly, signalling alterations to split the block section (£££) are needed to enable Pinhoe turnbacks.

What they are apparenty doing is making a virtue out of a necessity.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Okehampton-Axminster (or Honiton) sounds attractive which would no doubt be part of the Devon Metro. This would allow SWT to run fast Exeter Ctl to Honiton and speed up that service. Does Cranbrook really need an hourly service to/from Waterloo? It's passengers along with Feniton,Whimple and Pinhoe can simply change at Honiton off a stopper.

 

[Hadders]

Undoubtably some will do that, but it is a lot more expensive to Paddington, much of the saved time is lost on getting across London on the tube and returning from Paddington you risk missing your connection if the train is late.

You would be surprised how many pax from Exeter already choose Waterloo.

I strongly suspect that through Okehampton to London fares will be 'Any Permitted' and priced accordingly rather than 'via Honiton' and slightly cheaper. Savvy passengers will of course split their tickets. I frequently travel between London and Exeter and if I can't obtain a reasonably priced Advance ticket from Paddington travel from Waterloo, especially useful with the route via Honiton being in the Network/Gold Card area.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Whilst I would love to see through trains between Okehampton and Waterloo once again, I think that should wait until the proposed improvements to the WoE line have been completed. These include additional passing loops and reinstatement of access into Platform 4 at St David's from Central. It is essential that the Okehampton service gets off to a good reliable start if it is to be a success. Once the line is fettled the running time from St. David's to Okehampton should be about 35 mins (no intermediate stops from Crediton are proposed) - so SWR would presumably require additional units to operate an extended WoE service. It is also a long run from Salisbury depot for the first 'up' service of the day, unless a unit lays over. Far better that GWR operate it in the interim, with its new Exeter depot.

It is essential that the Okehampton service serves Exeter Central with its excellent location in the city-centre. At the end in 1972 the WR (some would say deliberately) terminated all services in the 'Exe Valley' bay (Platform 2) at St. David's which drove custom down even further.

 

[21C101]

I strongly suspect that through Okehampton to London fares will be 'Any Permitted' and priced accordingly rather than 'via Honiton' and slightly cheaper. Savvy passengers will of course split their tickets. I frequently travel between London and Exeter and if I can't obtain a reasonably priced Advance ticket from Paddington travel from Waterloo, especially useful with the route via Honiton being in the Network/Gold Card area.

Ah so you are one of the people clogging up the train so I can't get a seat when I get on at Crewkerne

I strongly suspect that through Okehampton to London fares will be 'Any Permitted' and priced accordingly rather than 'via Honiton' and slightly cheaper. Savvy passengers will of course split their tickets. I frequently travel between London and Exeter and if I can't obtain a reasonably priced Advance ticket from Paddington travel from Waterloo, especially useful with the route via Honiton being in the Network/Gold Card area.

Faced with a change off a stopper, I expect most of those passengers would drive instead. In any case all West of England services are required by whoever it is that specifies these things to stop at Salisbury, Yeovil J, Crewkerne, Axminster, Honiton and Cranbrook and of course both Exeters.

 

[swt_passenger]

If I had any choice in it, I would suggest keeping the SWR services as is, and GWR running an Axminster - Okehampton service. This would allow SWR services to be sped up but would be dependent on the capacity enhancements on the WoE being provided.

I completely get the argument of running cross Exeter services, maybe turning back at Pinhoe, but SWR services are not the ones that should be used.

I think the whole point of Devon Metro is to provide a 2 tph service for most (if not all) stations between Exeter and Axminster. Which service it connects to on the other side of Exeter presumably now requires a choice to be made, but IIRC route studies generally had it as Barnstaple.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I think its a shame that more people on a Rail Forum cant be excited at the prospect of a relatively easy fix reopening. I for one am looking forward to it
I just hope traffic levels can get back to normal(ish) in time for it to be worth it

I will second that. Reopened railway> closed railway in my book.

 

[30907]

Far better that GWR operate it in the interim, with its new Exeter depot.

It is essential that the Okehampton service serves Exeter Central with its excellent location in the city-centre. At the end in 1972 the WR (some would say deliberately) terminated all services in the 'Exe Valley' bay (Platform 2) at St. David's which drove custom down even further.

I am inclined to agree, but there may be a timetabling issue: operating a 2-hourly service with one unit over the single line from Crediton through the 2 available platforms at St Davids (where nearly everything terminates or reverses) and the 2 at Central, one of which is reversible, would be a considerable challenge.
I've just had a go using RTT and I reckon there's one path an hour that works with a tight turnround at Central - so I can see the attraction of using the SW unit which otherwise has to shunt to depot for its layover.

 

[fgwrich]

Whilst I would love to see through trains between Okehampton and Waterloo once again, I think that should wait until the proposed improvements to the WoE line have been completed. These include additional passing loops and reinstatement of access into Platform 4 at St David's from Central. It is essential that the Okehampton service gets off to a good reliable start if it is to be a success. Once the line is fettled the running time from St. David's to Okehampton should be about 35 mins (no intermediate stops from Crediton are proposed) - so SWR would presumably require additional units to operate an extended WoE service. It is also a long run from Salisbury depot for the first 'up' service of the day, unless a unit lays over. Far better that GWR operate it in the interim, with its new Exeter depot.

It is essential that the Okehampton service serves Exeter Central with its excellent location in the city-centre. At the end in 1972 the WR (some would say deliberately) terminated all services in the 'Exe Valley' bay (Platform 2) at St. David's which drove custom down even further.

While I don't disagree with this, it's a chicken and the egg scenario. If SWR Has the stock available now which could permit Okehampton to be started up as soon as possible, I don't have a problem in allowing them to do this - don't forget that they do presently have unit's stabled in the "New Yard" overnight too. I believe that another of the stumbling blocks for the GWR operation of the Devon Metro is a shortage of available units.

In an ideal world, we would have Network Rail & the DfT authorising the upgrade (and the "best case scenario" upgrade / option C in the consultation at that) of the Pinhoe - Yeovil section of there WoE coinciding with the Okehampton re-instatement, though that would still also leave GWR looking for additional units.

 

[21C101]

This will be advance work, for which a separate advance authority will have been granted. Indeed it may well be part of the development funding, to ascertain exactly how much it will cost to run a full service. Yo7 don’t want to ask for £x, then find several bridges need rebuilding and it’s now £2x. So, yes, ‘they’ would go to this much trouble without a final investment decision.

That makes sense, but two trainloads of CWR deposited on the Okehampton line beyond the NR boundary last week, with more to follow soon, dosen't make sense as "advanced" works.

With Dartmoor railway going into administration the line would have reverted to Aggregate Industries the freeholder. I have seen nothing to indicate NR purchasing it off them, which makes it even odder for NR to be forking out a large sum for track renewals on it.

There has been a garbled rumour that the quarry is to be reopened to supply ballast for HS2. This is clearly false as HS2 will be slab track.

What is known is that Aggregate Industries are making the track slabs for HS2. For this a concrete works will be built near Merehead Quarry and use stone from said quarry.

From here I speculate. Mereheads output being used for HS2 gives AI a problem of how to supply their usual Merehead customers for several years.

It may therefore be that AI will reopen their mothballed quarry at Meldon for a few years and it may be that AI are getting *their* railway line from Crediton to the Quarry relayed for stone trains as a result.

Photographs have been supplied showing a bridge cleared of ivy to allow it to be inspected. This bridge is west of Okehampton and this work would not be needed for a restored passenger service to Okehampton.

Relaying for stone trains solves the goveenments capital problem of the relaying that was going to be needed for passenger trains.

If stone trains run at night then the existing train staff signalling need not be upgraded.

SWR and GWR working together provides the train service.

The government as a result get a high profile reopening and new "Intercity" service from Waterloo to Okehampton with negligable cost (effectively HS2 will have indirectly paid the capital cost of rebuilding the line to an adequate standard for daily passenger services, and I suspect a hefty consequent line speed increase with it).

Aggregate Industries get track access fees which help pay for the track upgrade for the stone trains.

Result everyone happy.

I would expect GSM-R to need to be extended on to the line, unless some way round that can be found (would a "temporary" Speller Amendment trial reopening be able to defer it's provision?).

If the above is true, with a political hat on it will also make it very difficult to credibly claim that HS2 dosen't benefit the south west.

Frankly it dosen't get better than this if your name is Michael Green..........

 

[Irascible]

If the above is true, with a political hat on it will also make it very difficult to credibly claim that HS2 dosen't benefit the south west.

Frankly it dosen't get better than this if your name is Michael Green..........

That is *really* reaching, heh - and it's the building rather than operation of HS2 that'd be the benefit, so you could equally say that you could have just not spent the cash on HS2 & still had Okehampton ( and more cash! )

Have not really been following but it seems there's several groups of 158s about to be made redundant from their currnent operations, are there likely any at all spare for Devon? can't really need that many extras, even if we've been short of stock for an awful long time.

 

[davetheguard]

That makes sense, but two trainloads of CWR deposited on the Okehampton line beyond the NR boundary last week, with more to follow soon, dosen't make sense as "advanced" works.

With Dartmoor railway going into administration the line would have reverted to Aggregate Industries the freeholder. I have seen nothing to indicate NR purchasing it off them, which makes it even odder for NR to be forking out a large sum for track renewals on it.

There has been a garbled rumour that the quarry is to be reopened to supply ballast for HS2. This is clearly false as HS2 will be slab track.

What is known is that Aggregate Industries are making the track slabs for HS2. For this a concrete works will be built near Merehead Quarry and use stone from said quarry.

From here I speculate. Mereheads output being used for HS2 gives AI a problem of how to supply their usual Merehead customers for several years.

It may therefore be that AI will reopen their mothballed quarry at Meldon for a few years and it may be that AI are getting *their* railway line from Crediton to the Quarry relayed for stone trains as a result.

Photographs have been supplied showing a bridge cleared of ivy to allow it to be inspected. This bridge is west of Okehampton and this work would not be needed for a restored passenger service to Okehampton.

Relaying for stone trains solves the goveenments capital problem of the relaying that was going to be needed for passenger trains.

If stone trains run at night then the existing train staff signalling need not be upgraded.

SWR and GWR working together provides the train service.

The government as a result get a high profile reopening and new "Intercity" service from Waterloo to Okehampton with negligable cost (effectively HS2 will have indirectly paid the capital cost of rebuilding the line to an adequate standard for daily passenger services, and I suspect a hefty consequent line speed increase with it).

Aggregate Industries get track access fees which help pay for the track upgrade for the stone trains.

Result everyone happy.

I would expect GSM-R to need to be extended on to the line, unless some way round that can be found (would a "temporary" Speller Amendment trial reopening be able to defer it's provision?).

If the above is true, with a political hat on it will also make it very difficult to credibly claim that HS2 dosen't benefit the south west.

Frankly it dosen't get better than this if your name is Michael Green..........

This is an absolutely intriguing and fascinating piece about how things could pan out. I'll wait and see with baited breath for some sort of official announcement. Anyone know when we could expect an official decision? Are the DfT & the Treasury scraping with one another even as we speak.....

 

[21C101]

This is an absolutely intriguing and fascinating piece about how things could pan out. I'll wait and see with baited breath for some sort of official announcement. Anyone know when we could expect an official decision? Are the DfT & the Treasury scraping with one another even as we speak.....

The treasury committed to funding the Okehampton reopening (and Blyth and Tyne) in last weeks autumn statement.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

In the matter of the LWR strings, I'm not saying that this is what has happened, but it is not unknown for a LWR train to unload somewhere out of the way to 'clear the deck' to allow loading of a different rail section. (I remember strings of rail dumped in sidings at Woking for that very reason. They stayed there for years, getting in our way.)
Pat

 

[Amlag]

What Irchester says makes sense .

It is essential for Okehampton trains to serve Exeter CENTRAL to maximise their appeal and thus success. Word is spreading locally that the first phase of the reopening will unsatisfactorily see trains turning round at St Davids to enable a two hrly frequency with one unit, with the operational/pathing constraints between ST D and Ctl playing a big part in the currently envisaged St D turnrounds.

It is no coincidence that the hrly Waterloo trains arrive at St D at almost entirely 43mins past each hour and depart from St D at almost entirely at 25 mins past each hour AND that paths already exist or can be made to exist with just a minute or two adjustments.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The December edition of 'Modern Railways' (just received) notes that with 'Project Speed' principles, NR have achieved a £32.8 million cost and 24-month time saving on the Okehampton project (!). One wonders what over-inflated estimates have been supplied for other proposed re-openings in the past. Clearly it is not a patch and mend job, but involves substantial relaying. It is difficult to get to the bottom of the exact financial arrangements - presumably NR are on contract to AI who will be grant-aided by the DfT? The last time I was in Okehampton before Lockdown 2.0, I also noted Skanska Rail, presumably sub-contracted by NR, hacking back the vegetation and doing the structural surveys. On the question of capacity in Exeter, I note a comment in the 'other place' that the Exmouth Jcn remodelling will enable St. James Park terminators to run to Pinhoe instead on the Down Waterloo - I wonder if this will assist in solving the problem?

 

[21C101]

Worth repeating Southern Ones post below with his subsequent confirmation of the source as @appgonswr on twitter.

The name is an abbreviation of All Party Parliamentary Group on South Western railway who's chair is Chris Loder MP

Their tweet was on 10th November on the occasion, as describer in an earlier tweet that day as "This morning at the APPG we are hearing from @threeriversrail, @TransWiltsCIC and @SW_Help, looking at the economic opportunities of new rail lines"

The tweet with the slide below stated "Great to hear an update for our final presentation from Mark Hopwood of
@SW_Help"

Ie the slide was presented by Mark Hopwood who is managing director of the South Western Railway. Taken together with the announcement by the Chancellor in last weeks autumn statement and the evidence of work on the ground this is indeed a serious development.

Link to @appgonswr on twitter.

APPG on South Western Railway (@appgonswr) on Twitter

View attachment 85741Seen this on Twitter a couple of days ago

 

[Amlag]

The unfolding information of involvement of Mark Hopwood and Chris Loder in efforts to extend some
Waterloo/Exeter line services to Okehampton is the second best railway news I have heard for a long time and seems to make absolute sense.

 

[Trainbuff]

The unfolding information of involvement of Mark Hopwood and Chris Loder in efforts to extend some
Waterloo/Exeter line services to Okehampton is the second best railway news I have heard for a long time and seems to make absolute sense.

Indeed. If this is true 2 problems are solved. Central served, albeit with not every train and through trains to London

 

[northernbelle]

Whilst I would love to see through trains between Okehampton and Waterloo once again, I think that should wait until the proposed improvements to the WoE line have been completed. These include additional passing loops and reinstatement of access into Platform 4 at St David's from Central. It is essential that the Okehampton service gets off to a good reliable start if it is to be a success. Once the line is fettled the running time from St. David's to Okehampton should be about 35 mins (no intermediate stops from Crediton are proposed) - so SWR would presumably require additional units to operate an extended WoE service. It is also a long run from Salisbury depot for the first 'up' service of the day, unless a unit lays over. Far better that GWR operate it in the interim, with its new Exeter depot.

It is essential that the Okehampton service serves Exeter Central with its excellent location in the city-centre. At the end in 1972 the WR (some would say deliberately) terminated all services in the 'Exe Valley' bay (Platform 2) at St. David's which drove custom down even further.

Worth repeating Southern Ones post below with his subsequent confirmation of the source as @appgonswr on twitter.

The name is an abbreviation of All Party Parliamentary Group on South Western railway who's chair is Chris Loder MP

Their tweet was on 10th November on the occasion, as describer in an earlier tweet that day as "This morning at the APPG we are hearing from @threeriversrail, @TransWiltsCIC and @SW_Help, looking at the economic opportunities of new rail lines"

The tweet with the slide below stated "Great to hear an update for our final presentation from Mark Hopwood of
@SW_Help"

Ie the slide was presented by Mark Hopwood who is managing director of the South Western Railway. Taken together with the announcement by the Chancellor in last weeks autumn statement and the evidence of work on the ground this is indeed a serious development.

Link to @appgonswr on twitter.

APPG on South Western Railway (@appgonswr) on Twitter

There's no question that GWR will be running the 2-hourly Okehampton service when it restarts in 2021. The objective is for it to become hourly when more 'Turbo' units are freed up by 769s entering service at Reading and permitting a cascade.

There might be a case for Okehampton being served by the Waterloo rolling stock, but if I lived in or near Okehampton, these are my journey options to London:
- 'Direct' service to Waterloo: 4hrs 15m
- Train to Exeter St Davids, change to Paddington service: 3hrs 5 approx.
- Drive to Tiverton Parkway, catch Paddington service: 2hrs 45m to 3hrs approx

So in terms of providing a direct link to London, it isn't the better option and I'd be changing trains anyway. Connectivity to the east side of Exeter and Devon would be advantageous though, but there's no saying that couldn't be fulfilled by an extension of GWR's services.

 

[21C101]

There's no question that GWR will be running the 2-hourly Okehampton service when it restarts in 2021. The objective is for it to become hourly when more 'Turbo' units are freed up by 769s entering service at Reading and permitting a cascade.

There might be a case for Okehampton being served by the Waterloo rolling stock, but if I lived in or near Okehampton, these are my journey options to London:
- 'Direct' service to Waterloo: 4hrs 15m
- Train to Exeter St Davids, change to Paddington service: 3hrs 5 approx.
- Drive to Tiverton Parkway, catch Paddington service: 2hrs 45m to 3hrs approx

So in terms of providing a direct link to London, it isn't the better option and I'd be changing trains anyway. Connectivity to the east side of Exeter and Devon would be advantageous though, but there's no saying that couldn't be fulfilled by an extension of GWR's services.

The primary reason for extending the Waterloo trains to Okehampton is because it is the only way that Okehampton trains can run to Exeter Central using the existing infrastructure.

It also stops Platform 1 at St Davids being clogged up by terminating trains to and from Waterloo which is a major operational headache now that the half hourly Exmouth to Paigntons all reverse there and a further hourly train runs to Barnstaple. (there had already been talk of extending Waterloo trains to Crediton a while back for precisely that reason).

The slide makes clear the trains would be operated by SWR to Exeter and GWR onto Okehampton.

Through London services are just an "accidental" benefit although don't underestimate the lure of a through train, even if it is an hour slower.

* Much of that hour saved is wasted on the tube as Waterloo is so much better placed. (to this day the only way you can get from Exeter to the City of London by 9AM by rail is via Waterloo and The Drain)

* Many bail out at Clapham Junction and go on to places like Gatwick.

* An hour quicker journey from Paddington carries the risk of it arriving 10 minutes late, the connection being missed and a £50 taxi fare to Okehampton.

*Waterloo is less than half the fare from Exeter (if jointly operated though it will stop SWR agressively marketing SWR only discounted advanced tickets)

* The 159 seats are comfortable, not rock hard, and line up with the windows (that is pushing it a bit but ergonomics do influence consumer choice, ask any car manufacturer).

That said, there is nothing stopping GWR extending a morning up and evening down Paddington to Exeter semifast to give a fast peak hour Journey from Oke to Padd as Exeter - Oke will be their patch.

 

[northernbelle]

The primary reason for extending the Waterloo trains to Okehampton is because it is the only way that Okehampton trains can run to Exeter Central using the existing infrastructure.

It also stops Platform 1 at St Davids being clogged up by terminating trains to and from Waterloo which is a major operational headache now that the half hourly Exmouth to Paigntons all reverse there and a further hourly train runs to Barnstaple. (there had already been talk of extending Waterloo trains to Crediton a while back for precisely that reason).

The slide makes clear the trains would be operated by SWR to Exeter and GWR onto Okehampton.

Through London services are just an "accidental" benefit although don't underestimate the lure of a through train, even if it is an hour slower.

* Much of that hour saved is wasted on the tube as Waterloo is so much better placed. (to this day the only way you can get from Exeter to the City of London by 9AM by rail is via Waterloo and The Drain)

* Many bail out at Clapham Junction and go on to places like Gatwick.

* An hour quicker journey from Paddington carries the risk of it arriving 10 minutes late, the connection being missed and a £50 taxi fare to Okehampton.

*Waterloo is less than half the fare from Exeter.

* The 159 seats are comfortable, not rock hard, and line up with the windows

It's not the only way. There are additional paths available through Exeter Central using the existing timetable, but it requires the service to extend out to beyond Exmouth Junction on the Waterloo line. It does not need through running all the way from Waterloo to Okehampton. SWR have operated a 1636 and 1746 additional from Exeter St Davids to Axminster using this line capacity.

A previous iteration of the 'Devon Metro' plan was to extend GWR services to Axminster - there's nothing stopping additional Okehampton services using these paths, even if only to terminate at Pinhoe and go back again.

Once Crossrail is opened, it'll be possible to get to the City of London before 9am by leaving Exeter about half an hour later than the current 0510 Waterloo service. With the likely change in working habits anyway, I'm not sure this is a primary factor in how the Okehampton service is likely to be developed.

 

[21C101]

It's not the only way. There are additional paths available through Exeter Central using the existing timetable, but it requires the service to extend out to beyond Exmouth Junction on the Waterloo line. It does not need through running all the way from Waterloo to Okehampton. SWR have operated a 1636 and 1746 additional from Exeter St Davids to Axminster using this line capacity.

A previous iteration of the 'Devon Metro' plan was to extend GWR services to Axminster - there's nothing stopping additional Okehampton services using these paths, even if only to terminate at Pinhoe and go back again.

Once Crossrail is opened, it'll be possible to get to the City of London before 9am by leaving Exeter about half an hour later than the current 0510 Waterloo service. With the likely change in working habits anyway, I'm not sure this is a primary factor in how the Okehampton service is likely to be developed.

We've been through this already. Running Okehampton services to turn round on the single line beyond Pinhoe imposes unacceptable constraints, as the single line is then blocked east of Feniton while it turns round.

Sure, you could add an intermediate block section half a mile east of the single line junction to solve it, but that costs time and £££, and the whole point of the Okehampton project is to get it up and running asap without spending large capital sums that take years to implement.

As and when then line to Axminster is upgraded for 2 trains per hour, then the hourly Barnstaple to St James Park trains will be extended to Axminster, but that is 5-10 years and a large capital sum from HM treasury away, if done at all.

The point of the city of London by 9AM comment was not to imply hordes of people travel that way, but to illustrate that much or all of the hour faster journey to Paddington can be cancelled out by having to get across London from Padd, depending where your actual destination is.

 

[northernbelle]

We've been through this already. Running Okehampton services to turn round on the single line beyond Pinhoe imposes unacceptable constraints, as the single line is then blocked east of Feniton while it turns round.

Sure, you could ad an intermediate block section half a mile east of the single line junction to solve it, but that costs time and £££, and the whole point of the Okehampton project is to get it up and running asap without spending large capital sums that take years to implement.

As and when then line to Axminster is upgraded for 2 trains per hour, then the hourly Barnstaple to St James Park trains will be extended to Axminster, but that is 5-10 years and a large capital sum from HM treasury away, if done at all.

The point of the city of London by 9AM comment was not to imply hordes of people travel that way, but to illustrate that much or all of the hour faster journey to Paddington can be cancelled out by having to get across London from Padd, depending where your actual destination is.

There's a difference between the capacity to run 2tph between Exeter and Axminster and being able to run 1tph between the two plus 1tph reversing into the section east of Pinhoe (a movement likely to take 5-7 mins).

If you look at the occupation of the single line, Pinhoe to Honiton is currently occupied as follows (approximately):

• 16 and 33 minutes past the hour (down trains)
• 35 and 53 minutes past the hour (up trains

That currently leaves the single line free between approx 55 and 15 past each hour which is plenty for a train to enter the section at Pinhoe and reverse.

The Barnstaple paths currently depart Exeter St Davids at xx41 heading towards Exeter Central - if the Okehampton services were to take these paths then they would fit very neatly, with the Barnstaples moving to the opposite half hour throughout.

 

[30907]

The Barnstaple paths currently depart Exeter St Davids at xx41 heading towards Exeter Central - if the Okehampton services were to take these paths then they would fit very neatly, with the Barnstaples moving to the opposite half hour throughout.

Or you put the Okehamptons on the opposite half hour from the start.

Both are excellent solutions provided you can get Crediton-Okehampton and back within the hour, which is challenging - 10min faster than recent Sunday times (yes, that includes a Sampford Courtenay stop, but isn't there a plan for an Okehampton Parkway?).

 

[21C101]

There's a difference between the capacity to run 2tph between Exeter and Axminster and being able to run 1tph between the two plus 1tph reversing into the section east of Pinhoe (a movement likely to take 5-7 mins).

If you look at the occupation of the single line, Pinhoe to Honiton is currently occupied as follows (approximately):

• 16 and 33 minutes past the hour (down trains)
• 35 and 53 minutes past the hour (up trains

That currently leaves the single line free between approx 55 and 15 past each hour which is plenty for a train to enter the section at Pinhoe and reverse.

The Barnstaple paths currently depart Exeter St Davids at xx41 heading towards Exeter Central - if the Okehampton services were to take these paths then they would fit very neatly, with the Barnstaples moving to the opposite half hour throughout.

Providing nothing else needs to use the only other available path per hour between Pinhoe and Honiton.

Providing nothing goes wrong which is entirely possible when turning round a train.

And providing neither the train turning round nor the Waterloo trains are running out of course.

Otherwise you get an unholy mess.

Which is why the Barnstaple services go out of service at St James park and turn round at Exmouth junction and don't continue in service to Pinhoe and turn round on the single line, as originally requested but refused a while back; which was all disussed in detail a bit further back on this or one of the other recent Okehampton threads.

 

[Irascible]

* The 159 seats are comfortable, not rock hard, and line up with the windows (that is pushing it a bit but ergonomics do influence consumer choice, ask any car manufacturer).

That said, there is nothing stopping GWR extending a morning up and evening down Paddington to Exeter semifast to give a fast peak hour Journey from Oke to Padd as Exeter - Oke will be their patch.

Quicker journey for me to drive to Taunton ( or Exeter! ) & get on GW, but I'll take the comfort of the WoE service any day. I know for sure I'm not alone in actuvely choosing the slower route even from Exeter.

Exeter & Okehampton ( or even my part of east Devon ) are rather different catchment areas though.

 

[northernbelle]

Or you put the Okehamptons on the opposite half hour from the start.

Both are excellent solutions provided you can get Crediton-Okehampton and back within the hour, which is challenging - 10min faster than recent Sunday times (yes, that includes a Sampford Courtenay stop, but isn't there a plan for an Okehampton Parkway?).

The out and back journey time will be about an hour - I think including an intermediate call. Suspect some line speed improvements resulting from the track upgrades about to take place will help that happen.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Okehampton Parkway is a much longer term project and certainly would not be part of any 2021 reopening. The situation was simplified with the Dartmoor Rly going into administration - it was planned at one stage to have an interchange there and the Exeter service not serving the original Okehampton station. Sampford Courtenay station is nowhere near said village (or anywhere else for that matter) and in my view not worth reopening if it causes timing problems.