How could capacity be increased on the Looe Valley Line

[dciuk]

Having recently travelled between Liskeard and Looe on a 2 car class 150 which had standing room only, made me think is there any cost effective way in which additional capacity could be created. With the short platform at Looe, unless selective door opening was to be used which would not be ideal on a branch terminus where most passengers are travelling end to end there is little that can be done as much of the day the service already runs with tight turnarounds at each end.
Could the branch run with 2 units and pass at Coombe with one unit waiting in the platform while the other reverses at the ground frame? This would still probably only allow for a service approx every 45 minutes as the Looe side of Coombe Ground Frame is about twice the distance and time of the Liskeard side. Perhaps if combined with an increase in speed on some sections (what is it about this line that it has such a low maximum speed?) you could end up with 3 trains per 2 hours.
Perhaps an easier solution would be to use rolling stock with 3+2 seating, but the 150/1 units GWR used to have with this configuration have all now left the franchise. I am not even sure if they were route cleared for this line as I have only seen single class 153's and class 150/2 units on this line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't look like extending the platform at Looe would be spectacularly difficult.

 

[dciuk]

Doesn't look like extending the platform at Looe would be spectacularly difficult.

When on the platform there does not look to be much room to extend, but perhaps if some vegetation was cleared it would be a different story

 

[Bletchleyite]

When on the platform there does not look to be much room to extend, but perhaps if some vegetation was cleared it would be a different story

From a Google Maps aerial view it's only trees that are in the way, no buildings or roads etc.

 

[Basil Jet]

I've only done the line once, but it was far from busy. I don't think the CBR for an enhancement which would be superfluous for 11 months of the year would make sense.

 

[Starmill]

A four car version of the class 230 would probably be a suitable solution. Removing the toilet from the train and providing customer toilets at Looe instead would allow a small capacity increase.

However, I personally think that the 230s are a waste of space and unsuitable for the long term anyway. The best solution would be to procure a small dedicated branch fleet of battery units and provide some opportunity charging.

Capacity for St Ives is a higher priority than Looe, though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A four car version of the class 230 would probably be a suitable solution. Removing the toilet from the train and providing customer toilets at Looe instead would allow a small capacity increase.

However, I personally think that the 230s are a waste of space and unsuitable for the long term anyway. The best solution would be to procure a small dedicated branch fleet of battery units and provide some opportunity charging.

Capacity for St Ives is a higher priority than Looe, though.

230s in original layout (as per the Isle of Wight ones) would be ideal for giving everyone a seat when quiet but cramming people in when really busy.

I doubt it would be easy to rejig a 150 to that layout because of the number of under-seat equipment boxes (this I believe is the reason First North Western never tried to rearrange the seats on /2s and /1s to be the same) but if ordering new serious consideration should be given to that sort of S-stock-like layout with a mix of side facing, groups of 4 and lots of standing space. It would be ideal for Windsor, too.

 

[Starmill]

230s in original layout (as per the Isle of Wight ones) would be ideal for giving everyone a seat when quiet but cramming people in when really busy.

I doubt it would be easy to rejig a 150 to that layout because of the number of under-seat equipment boxes (this I believe is the reason First North Western never tried to rearrange the seats on /2s and /1s to be the same) but if ordering new serious consideration should be given to that sort of S-stock-like layout with a mix of side facing, groups of 4 and lots of standing space. It would be ideal for Windsor, too.

Agreed that the layout as per the 484s would be very suitable for lots of routes of 20 - 30 minutes max journey. A fixed four car would also allow one coach to have the 230-style table of four interior. However their reliability is such that I don't think they'd cope. And then there's a limited number of old D78 coaches available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed that the layout as per the 484s would be very suitable for lots of routes of 20 - 30 minutes max journey. A fixed four car would also allow one coach to have the 230-style table of four interior. However their reliability is such that I don't think they'd cope. And then there's a limited number of old D78 coaches available.

I'd indeed not build any more of them, sadly they are junk.

However, I'm quite sure Alstom could do a battery powered 3-car 345, which is basically the same thing. You could as you say do the end vehicles in Elizabeth Line style layout and the middle one as groups of 4 around tables aligned to the windows, perhaps including a toilet and wheelchair area.

Or if they can't/won't, I'm quite certain Herr Stadler would - in that case 4-car with batteries in the power module.

 

[John Luxton]

With the benefit of hindsight one of the biggest mistakes made when goods traffic was withdrawn was not to extend the line closer to the Looe River bridge. (For those that don't know Looe Goods Yard and Quay line lay beyond the station. It would have made the line much more passenger friendly and would have meant people getting closer to the town centre. There would have been space for a longer platform. A police station, petrol station and car parking now exists on this land.

Unfortunately the police station stands immediately beyond the buffer stops. A large rocky outcrop stops extension of the platform towards Liskeard.

This photo shows the situation: https://www.jhluxton.com/Railways-and-Tramways/British-Network-Railways/Looe-Valley-Line/i-jHPPnkw/A

Some serious civil engineering would be required to extend the platform and rock faces in that area are none too stable. There have been problems with collapses and one fatality in a house in last 10 years or so.

The easiest solution would be as someone has already suggested to allow trains to pass at Combe Junction with one train at the platform and another reversing between the junction and the platform.

Thus one could have an all stations service (including Coombe Junction) followed by a non stop service alternating. Obviously some signaling would need to be installed.

When I visited in late April there was hardly anyone on the train on the weekday, though it was busier but not full when I took a second trip on the Saturday.

It may be that for most of the year what is offered is more than adequate but gets stressed out for July / August?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could moving the platform to the other side of the line allow a longer one?

 

[Irascible]

With the benefit of hindsight one of the biggest mistakes made when goods traffic was withdrawn was not to extend the line closer to the Looe River bridge. (For those that don't know Looe Goods Yard and Quay line lay beyond the station. It would have made the line much more passenger friendly and would have meant people getting closer to the town centre. There would have been space for a longer platform. A police station, petrol station and car parking now exists on this land.

Unfortunately the police station stands immediately beyond the buffer stops. A large rocky outcrop stops extension of the platform towards Liskeard.

One might idly wonder if you could send the line round the back of the Police station & give up the current railway station area in return - resiting the filling station further on is probably less hassle. I suspect the tram-train option would be somewhat unpopular...

Can't imagine a BCA for either being remotely viable though.

 

[John Luxton]

Could moving the platform to the other side of the line allow a longer one?

Looking at Google Earth suggests it could be a solution - there is a signal cabinet and radio mast which would have to be moved.

 

[irish_rail]

Trouble is 99 percent of the time a 2 car 150 will suffice. Its just those weekends that happen to be gorgeous in May to September where the service struggles a little. Most of the time 2 cars is more than enough. I just can't see a justification for throwing money at this.

 

[6Gman]

If this is a six week a year problem wouldn't a hired bus be an easier and cheaper option?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it a 40m platform or a little longer, so you could perhaps use a 46m 2-car 165 instead of a 40m 2-car 150? Not much more capacity I'll give you, but it's a bit. 3+2 seating too.

 

[SeanG]

I would simply have a bus or two on standby for those sunny weekends where it would be required. Google Maps suggests a 20 minute drive (albeit it could be longer in the summer with busier roads etc) and so there would be 2 options
1) if it can be certain that the drive would take 20 mins/half an hour then the bus could be run at the same time as the train (in effect as a relief service)
2) if reliable timings cannot be guaranteed, then a shuttle could be employed, on a system whereby it calls at Looe and Liskeard only and then departs once boarding is completed

 

[MattRat]

What about the current Tyne and Wear MetroCars? Yes, Looe station would need toilets are those wouldn't be on the train anymore, and you'd need to electrify the route, but I think you could make them work, and when things get crowded, there's plenty of standing room.

 

[Gloster]

The Looe line may not be a financial basket case, but there is not likely to be a financial justification for resignalling and adding a second train. To cross trains at Coombe would require complete resignalling with track circuits and multiple signals. It would also be somewhat inflexible as I reckon that RAIB (or whoever it is now) would insist that the train from Liskeard ran into Coombe platform before the train from Looe passed the points. This is not just a case of bashing in a couple of markers then continuing as before. This would cost a lot of money, probably millions, to raise capacity to a level that will only be required for a small proportion of the year.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The Looe line may not be a financial basket case, but there is not likely to be a financial justification for resignalling and adding a second train. To cross trains at Coombe would require complete resignalling with track circuits and multiple signals. It would also be somewhat inflexible as I reckon that RAIB (or whoever it is now) would insist that the train from Liskeard ran into Coombe platform before the train from Looe passed the points. This is not just a case of bashing in a couple of markers then continuing as before. This would cost a lot of money, probably millions, to raise capacity to a level that will only be required for a small proportion of the year.

This is a branch line which , it was suggested by Wales and West many years ago , that it was hardly worth collecting the revenue for 9 months a year , so low was the patronage.

In terms of priority - to quote the author Brett Easton Ellis - the chances are "Less than zero" ......