Work on Okehampton Line: progress updates

[paul1609]

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 London travel times depend on where your final destination is at the Eastern end of the journey. There is only 1 tph that does the journey from Exeter To Paddington in 2hrs 14. Your through journey time to London utilising that assumes almost a cross platform interchange.
If the final destination of your journey is East or South of Central London the convience of Clapham Junction or Waterloo/Waterloo East as interchanges will almost certainly outweigh the time saving to Paddington London Parkway especially when taking in to account the price.
If your Tiverton argument was applied to rail generally all through services west of Exeter would have been adandoned years ago. Its certainly quicker to drive there from anywhere in Plymouth or Cornwall.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would when said out of use railway is owned by a third party who can get their own contractors to build it without having to pay for all NRs overheads.

They can do that regardless of whether the railway is open or not.

 

[Brush 4]

From the Dartmoor Rly website......

Seen at the railway - Dartmoor Railway Association, Okehampton, Devon

Comings and goings on Okehampton's railway - - Dartmoor Railway Association, Okehampton, Devon

www.dartmoor-railway-sa.org

​

Update 30/11/20​

Some recent developments at the railway:

Specialist engineers have been much in evidence, surveying the track alignment, drainage, and bridge structures, to identify the remedial work which is required to bring the railway up to scratch.

They get around the railway on a Quattro road rail vehicle. It has six road wheels with balloon tyres, and four rail wheels. A flat bed trailer is attached at one end, and a six seat trailer at the other. Unlike many of its Wickham ancestors, it doesn’t have any weather protection for the passengers. Those old gangers were wimps.

A representative of the Dartmoor National Park Authority has visited and is keen to improve the information display in the platform 2 carpark, and for the platform 3 booking office and/or shop to provide Moor visitors with travel advice for the Granite Way and north Moor.

With the assistance of the Devon and Cornwall Rail Partnership’s Richard Burningham, plans are being made for comprehensive new signage for the station and its environs, including appropriate replica heritage material for platform 2.

Officials have surveyed the station site’s accessibility for bus services, checking the layout and turning area.

It has emerged that the signal box is likely to be considered an integral part of the station estate, possibly creating further opportunities for
DRSA.

In order to keep costs down, this is the unit proposed for the service. Thick gloves, coat and a woolly hat are recommended..............

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It would when said out of use railway is owned by a third party who can get their own contractors to build it without having to pay for all NRs overheads.


See posts at beginning of the thread regarding trainloads of CWR and piles of sleepers being delivered.


That's a fair point. I don't know about expensive, but you would only want to take three cars down there for stock utilisation reasons.

They may have something up their sleeve like droppping the second three cars at Yeovil (which they want to do anyway to enable pretty well everything to run as six car to Yeovil rather than many of the trains three car west of Salisbury - regardless of Okehampton).

They need permissive working at YVJ to join trains there but I gather that is primarily a paperwork rather than capital matter.

Demand into Exeter (and performance reasons of not wishing to split twice en route at Salisbury and Yeovil) means that the vast majority of services are now 5/6 cars through to Exeter so you’d be taking a big train through to Okehampton.

 

[nlogax]

In order to keep costs down, this is the unit proposed for the service. Thick gloves, coat and a woolly hat are recommended..............

Haha, lovely

 

[21C101]

pompeyfan said:
I’m pretty certain Yeovil junction is already permissive working, there is several detachments and attachments taking place under Covid timetable.

If it is now possible to join trains in passenger service that is very recent, as it requires permissive working to be authorised by the ORR. Splitting has always been possible.

pompeyfan said:
could you also clarify something too, earlier you said the unit would be able to do the round trip within the hour but you also stated on a previous page that the unit would have 40 minutes turnaround at Okehampton. Surely either the unit has a decent turn around and there’s another 6 cars out in the 1L circuit or it has a tight turnaround and potentially not only smashes the Barnstable single line, but the other 4 sections of single line.

I never said anything about an hourly service to Okehampton or doing the round trip in an hour. Others have been bigging that up. Frankly I think hourly to Oke is for the birds other than in the really long term future if it really takes off as a parkway.

All the info out there suggests, if it happens, it will be one every two or three hours, 5-8 return trips a day.

Hence the train can layover at Oke for ~30-40 mins instead of Exeter for 40 mins and goes back to London an hour later. Yes you need a single 159/158 to do that, two if you form it from a 5/6 car train.

The existing arrival and departure times for Waterloo at Exeter St Davids align almost perfectly with the line free time between Crediton and Cowley Bridge.

Roughly speaking, Crediton to Cowley Bridge is occupied by Barnstaple trains from 20-39 mins past the hour.

With an assumed 35 minute journey time to Okehampton, the Waterloo train arrives at St Davids at XX:43 as now, can go straight onto Crediton at XX45 and arrive at Okehampton at approx xx20. It then sits there for approx half an hour before setting off back to Waterloo at approx xx48 (possibly a minute or two earlier to clear Cowley Bridge before the next down Barnstaple), arrives at XX23 and forms the XX25 to Waterloo. It does not cross with anything at Crediton in either direction.

As Amlag pointed out on message #91 of this thread "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 [to Okehampton] already exist or can be made to exist with just a minute or two adjustments."

Bye the bye I doubt that all the Okehampton trains would go to Waterloo. I would expect a couple might be formed from extensions of the peak hour Exeter to Honiton shuttles and others would likely start or terminate at Exeter.

pompeyfan said:
You’re certainly persistent on trying to ensure it’s an SWR service to okehampton even though others have tried to explain why GWR makes more sense.



considering SWR are currently struggling as it is with diesel availability, good luck finding an extra 6 by May

It was the MD of SWR presenting a slide to MPs on 10th November suggesting extending SWR services to Okehampton, which was subsequently published by said group of MPs, which started this off, I only joined this group so I could get access to a decent copy of the slide and ask what the source was. I doub't the MD of SWR would have presented it if it was impracticable or hadn't been thought through or they hadn't previously discussed it with GWR (both owned by First)

It would need a single extra two or three car unit, at most two three car units at certain parts of the day, not six units. Also I suspect it being open by May 2021 is highly unlikely. I would have thought Dec 2021 at the earliest, possibly May 2022.

I'm sure similar chaff would have been thrown up by some several years ago,had we had a similar discussion about extending SWR trains to Yeovil Pen Mill, via both Sherborne and Bruton.

It is also quite possible, as the slide alludes to joint GWR/SWR cooperation, that some of the services will indeed be worked from Okehamton to Exeter by GWR using a GWR unit, but that at certain times of the day GWR need the unit elsewhere or would have to terminate it at St Davids for pathing reasons, and SWR can spare a 3 car unit to extend a Waterloo service out and back to Okehampton to cover it. We will find out soon enough.

They can do that regardless of whether the railway is open or not.

Indeed, but if its a third party and the railway is out of use, it becomes a bog standard building site where any contractor competent in building it and CDM compliant can do it, or even competent volunteers, with 24/7 free access to the site.

Once it is a working railway all sorts of shift limiting constraints, extra personnel needed and rail certification of staff is needed which has a dramatic effect on the cost.

Which is why the Bluebell Railway's new Station at East Grinstead, very similar in size and platform layout to the proposed Okehampton Parkway, cost about £250,000.

 

[RPI]

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.

There is a block signal at Feniton for the level crossing, so to turn back at Pinhoe only occupies the section between Pinhoe and Feniton from what I can work out

 

[21C101]

There is a block signal at Feniton for the level crossing, so to turn back at Pinhoe only occupies the section between Pinhoe and Feniton from what I can work out

Correct, there is an intermediate block at Feniton, but a westbound train would not be able to proceed beyond Feniton until a turning back train had cleared the single line at Pinhoe.

Hence the Barnstaple Exeters had to turn round at Exmouth Jct sidings and couldn't serve Pinhoe as they originally wished. (they also lay over for a lengthy period as the turnround time at Barnstaple is short, which is better done in a siding)

An intermediate block section half a mile to a mile from the single line junction would sort it (alas £££).

 

[swt_passenger]

Is there any benefit in providing an up direction route over the Exmouth Junction crossover into Pinhoe’s down platform?

 

[Gloster]

There is a block signal at Feniton for the level crossing, so to turn back at Pinhoe only occupies the section between Pinhoe and Feniton from what I can work out

Correct, there is an intermediate block at Feniton, but a westbound train would not be able to proceed beyond Feniton until a turning back train had cleared the single line at Pinhoe.

Hence the Barnstaple Exeters had to turn round at Exmouth Jct sidings and couldn't serve Pinhoe as they originally wished.

An intermediate block section half a mile to a mile from the single line junction would sort it (alas £££).

Is it permitted for a train to enter the section at Pinhoe, even just to reverse, when there is a westbound train between Honiton and Feniton? There may be stop signals at Feniton, but you have two trains facing each other, albeit miles apart, on a single-line.

 

[RPI]

Correct, there is an intermediate block at Feniton, but a westbound train would not be able to proceed beyond Feniton until a turning back train had cleared the single line at Pinhoe.

Hence the Barnstaple Exeters had to turn round at Exmouth Jct sidings and couldn't serve Pinhoe as they originally wished.

An intermediate block section half a mile to a mile from the single line junction would sort it (alas £££).

Whilst the original paths were refused, a 5Qxx path from St James Park to St James Park via Pinhoe was approved for nearly every train and exists in the WTT now, these paths could be used as and when (route knowledge the biggest obstacle) I have heard that from May some Barny-St James services will continue to Pinhoe.

 

[21C101]

Is there any benefit in providing an up direction route over the Exmouth Junction crossover into Pinhoe’s down platform?

That would solve a lot of problems if the platform is in good condition (only fly in the ointment being Devon CC want to build a park and ride at Pinhoe.

 

[RPI]

Is it permitted for a train to enter the section at Pinhoe, even just to reverse, when there is a westbound train between Honiton and Feniton? There may be stop signals at Feniton, but you have two trains facing each other, albeit miles apart, on a single-line.

That I dont know I'm afraid although there is a huge overlap between the signal on the up at Feniton and on the down.

 

[21C101]

Whilst the original paths were refused, a 5Qxx path from St James Park to St James Park via Pinhoe was approved for nearly every train and exists in the WTT now, these paths could be used as and when (route knowledge the biggest obstacle) I have heard that from May some Barny-St James services will continue to Pinhoe.

The discussion on this in one of the other recent Oke threads suggested that it was for contingency use if they couldn't access the turnback siding at Exmouth Jct for some reason.

No doubt they haven't given up on the idea, given Devon CC want to build a park and ride at Pinhoe.

 

[RPI]

The discussion on this in one of the other recent Oke threads suggested that it was for contingency use if they couldn't access the turnback siding at Exmouth Jct for some reason.

No doubt they haven't given up on the idea, given Devon CC want to build a park and ride at Pinhoe.

Either way the 5Qxx paths are there and can be used as required so they obviously fit in between the 1Lxx paths

 

[davetheguard]

The arrangement with the crossing and box at Crediton seems to be quite time consuming (well it does when you’re late for work and the gates come down as you get there anyway ), I suppose that wouldn’t have taken any time when it was double line right through.

For anyone who doesn't know the location, trains stop twice. On a down journey, first at Crediton station, then again beside the signal box to collect the token (to Barnstaple) or staff (to Okehampton).

There used to be a similar situation at Evesham on the Cotswold Line. I think that was initially resolved by putting a token instrument in a hut on the down platform at Evesham. Since then, the line past the box has been doubled. Off topic, I'm not sure if a token is still required for the section to Norton Junction, or if it is now tokenless block or something.

Perhaps NR could "do an Evesham" at Crediton; the train crew already collect the token from the instrument at Eggesford on the way to Barnstaple.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, but if its a third party and the railway is out of use, it becomes a bog standard building site where any contractor competent in building it and CDM compliant can do it, or even competent volunteers, with 24/7 free access to the site.

They can still do that with a live railway, they just have to be behind a correctly positioned fence. Lots of precedent. As I said earlier, the only bit that gets more expensive is on the rail side of the fence, and that should only be the platform, and only then part of it. Even then this can be done with volunteer labour etc, so long as there are appropriate safety arrangements in place.

 

[MarkyT]

For anyone who doesn't know the location, trains stop twice. On a down journey, first at Crediton station, then again beside the signal box to collect the token (to Barnstaple) or staff (to Okehampton).

There used to be a similar situation at Evesham on the Cotswold Line. I think that was initially resolved by putting a token instrument in a hut on the down platform at Evesham. Since then, the line past the box has been doubled. Off topic, I'm not sure if a token is still required for the section to Norton Junction, or if it is now tokenless block or something.

Perhaps NR could "do an Evesham" at Crediton; the train crew already collect the token from the instrument at Eggesford on the way to Barnstaple.

This kind of arrangement applied to a layout like Crediton requires separate 'directional' instruments on each platform and is only suitable for an electric token system having multiple keys or tablets, not a single one train staff, unless trains call at the same platform track for transfer or crew can access a common repository for the token on (say) an island platform between directional tracks. Even with electric tokens, all the keys or tablets quickly migrate from one instrument to the other in normal operation and need to be balanced periodically. A special 'balancer' contraption, with a magazine that can attach to the side of suitably equipped instruments, is usually provided in these circumstances to allow employees to transfer multiple tokens securely:

Tyer and Company

History and information about Tyer and Company

www.tyerandco.uk

 

[Gloster]

How common it was I do not know, but a somewhat simpler system was used by one S&T gang. The padlock holding the top cover of the instrument was unlocked, an even number of tokens was removed by manually lifting the lock, and then the cover replaced and relocked. The tokens were placed in a home-made framework produced from scrap wood and bonding wire, and the top fixed on. After the necessary entries had been made, the tokens were taken to the other instrument. Although probably banned nowadays, and probably a bit borderline even then, it was all quite safe as it was being done by experienced staff who knew exactly what they had to do.

 

[30907]

This kind of arrangement applied to a layout like Crediton requires separate 'directional' instruments on each platform and is only suitable for an electric token system having multiple keys or tablets, not a single one train staff, unless trains call at the same platform track for transfer or crew can access a common repository for the token on (say) an island platform between directional tracks. Even with electric tokens, all the keys or tablets quickly migrate from one instrument to the other in normal operation and need to be balanced periodically. A special 'balancer' contraption, with a magazine that can attach to the side of suitably equipped instruments, is usually provided in these circumstances to allow employees to transfer multiple tokens securely:

Tyer and Company

History and information about Tyer and Company

www.tyerandco.uk

Is there a redundant instrument somewhere that could be relocated? I imagine a No Signaller instrument at Okehampton would also be useful to allow a stone train to be shut inside.
That said, with 15mph crossovers, how much time would be saved? 1/2minute?

 

[21C101]

They can still do that with a live railway, they just have to be behind a correctly positioned fence. Lots of precedent. As I said earlier, the only bit that gets more expensive is on the rail side of the fence, and that should only be the platform, and only then part of it. Even then this can be done with volunteer labour etc, so long as there are appropriate safety arrangements in place.

There isn't going to be much more than a platform at Okehampton Parkway from what I can make out.

 

[RPI]

This kind of arrangement applied to a layout like Crediton requires separate 'directional' instruments on each platform and is only suitable for an electric token system having multiple keys or tablets, not a single one train staff, unless trains call at the same platform track for transfer or crew can access a common repository for the token on (say) an island platform between directional tracks. Even with electric tokens, all the keys or tablets quickly migrate from one instrument to the other in normal operation and need to be balanced periodically. A special 'balancer' contraption, with a magazine that can attach to the side of suitably equipped instruments, is usually provided in these circumstances to allow employees to transfer multiple tokens securely:

Tyer and Company

History and information about Tyer and Company

www.tyerandco.uk

This is what happens at Eggesford, instrment on each platform in a hut and stop boards

 

[21C101]

Either way the 5Qxx paths are there and can be used as required so they obviously fit in between the 1Lxx paths

With everything running normally and on time (and no additional workings to Honiton) the arrangement works fine if used occasionally for a good reason.

Its another matter doing it every hour every day and having to do it because you have advertised it as calling at Pinhoe. Then the risk to service performance becomes unacceptable.

This post explains that the Barnstaple trains recently did go on to Pinhoe (ECS) and reverse. Reason, because the sidings at Exmouth Junction were closed. Which is probably why the Q paths are there.

Was there ever a service from Waterloo to Exeter that did not call at places like Salisbury?

The sidings were closed which is why they used Pinhoe. The Barnstaples appear to be turning back at Exmouth Junction this afternoon.

www.railforums.co.uk

-----------

Re recent posts, I would guess that any signalling alterations would involve closing Crediton Box, putting in a junction at Coleford (with turnouts a bit faster than 15mph) to operate the two single lines as one double and controlling it from Didcot Roc, with axle counter track circuit block to Eggesford (and ditto to Barnstaple if the Tarka campaigners get platform 2 at Barnstaple reinstated).

That seems to be a long way off and it appears the game being played here is to provide a new service in the quickest feasible time without spending any (or very little) money.

 

[RPI]

With everything running normally and on time (and no additional workings to Honiton) the arrangement works fine if used occasionally for a good reason.

Its another matter doing it every hour every day and having to do it because you have advertised it as calling at Pinhoe. Then the risk to service performance becomes unacceptable.

This post explains that the Barnstaple trains recently did go on to Pinhoe (ECS) and reverse. Reason, because the sidings at Exmouth Junction were closed. Which is probably why the Q paths are there.

Was there ever a service from Waterloo to Exeter that did not call at places like Salisbury?

The sidings were closed which is why they used Pinhoe. The Barnstaples appear to be turning back at Exmouth Junction this afternoon.

www.railforums.co.uk

-----------

Re recent posts, I would guess that any signalling alterations would involve closing Crediton Box, putting in a junction at Coleford (with turnouts a bit faster than 15mph) to operate the two single lines as one double and controlling it from Didcot Roc, with axle counter track circuit block to Eggesford (and ditto to Barnstaple if the Tarka campaigners get platform 2 at Barnstaple reinstated).

That seems to be a long way off and it appears the game being played here is to provide a new service in the quickest feasible time without spending any (or very little) money.

The paths were put in from last December for the reasons I'd previously posted, im not aware that they have actually been used ever as there aren't many Exeter West drivers that sign the route past Exmouth Junction, only some HSS and possibly a handful of "GWR" drivers (the new grade to eventually replace HSS and West)

 

[Bald Rick]

There isn't going to be much more than a platform at Okehampton Parkway from what I can make out.

One hopes there is a car park!

 

[21C101]

The paths were put in from last December for the reasons I'd previously posted, im not aware that they have actually been used ever as there aren't many Exeter West drivers that sign the route past Exmouth Junction, only some HSS and possibly a handful of "GWR" drivers (the new grade to eventually replace HSS and West)

It is a pity that Exmouth Junction wasnt recontrolled to Basingstoke with the rest of the line a while back as I suspect the newer signalling would be a lot quicker and cheaper to do modify to do minor modifications like an extra intermediate block section (or something like a bay at Cranbrook to turn such trains round at).

 

[northernbelle]

Either way the 5Qxx paths are there and can be used as required so they obviously fit in between the 1Lxx paths

Indeed - which is why many of GWR's Okehampton services should be able serve Exeter Central from the outset.

I imagine the proposed timetable will become known subject to the usual timetable bid lead times - so if the paths have to be in for the May 2021 change, it'll become clearer during February 2021.

 

[MarkyT]

Is there a redundant instrument somewhere that could be relocated? I imagine a No Signaller instrument at Okehampton would also be useful to allow a stone train to be shut inside.
That said, with 15mph crossovers, how much time would be saved? 1/2minute?

I would not convert to token working. The existing OT(S) is perfectly good enough for simple passenger service to continue in the short term, but if there's to be anything else working routinely beyond Okehampton, then an alternative solution would be more appropriate to save time at Crediton and avoid staff and ticket procedures or road transfer of the staff for 'lock-ins' of additional movements beyond Okehampton station. The gold standard solution would be TCB with axle counters and a fully signalled connection to the sidings beyond the station, but my alternative suggestion would be a modified tokenless block regime that can normally be treated as one train without train staff, allowing the regular passenger trains to reverse in-section at Okehampton station without a platform starting signal being required as under TCB. Other trains could escape the section towards Meldon via Okehampton GF just as now, with a remote release provided from Crediton, interlocked with the tokenless block using two short local track circuits and a treadle through the platform and points to sequence a train out of the section in conjunction with a crew operated 'train arrived complete' confirmation switch. A similar method is employed on the Cwmbargoed To Ystrad Mynach South Jn freight branch in South Wales. The Sectional Appendix refers to this as "Tokenless Block ‘Remote’".

It is a pity that Exmouth Junction wasnt recontrolled to Basingstoke with the rest of the line a while back as I suspect the newer signalling would be a lot quicker and cheaper to do modify to do minor modifications like an extra intermediate block section (or something like a bay at Cranbrook to turn such trains round at).

No no no! I don't think that would be very good operationally at all. If Exmouth Jn control is to migrate anywhere, it should be into Exeter PSB, to better manage traffic through the busy Exeter Central corridor. A bay at Cranbrook could be a preliminary stage in constructing a longer loop for future extension of local stopping services further east. I suspect the problem at Feniton is that the signals protecting the crossing are not overlap clear of each other so a movement towards one locks out a movement towards the other. They are useful for trains in the same direction following each other, so an up local reversing east of Pinhoe could closely follow a Waterloo soon after that had departed Feniton, but I think the risk of failure during reversal on the single line makes this a highly undesirable routine move.

 

[Pinza-C55]

Is there a redundant instrument somewhere that could be relocated? I imagine a No Signaller instrument at Okehampton would also be useful to allow a stone train to be shut inside.
That said, with 15mph crossovers, how much time would be saved? 1/2minute?

There are a number of Tyers Key Token instruments being released at the moment by conversion of York - Harrogate to a radio based system.

 

[Gloster]

There are a number of Tyers Key Token instruments being released at the moment by conversion of York - Harrogate to a radio based system.

Not that many instruments are being released, as I think it is only two sections involved, although there may be some auxiliary instruments. Would the head of the S&T in the Area/District/Region (or whatever they call the territory now) want to keep the redundant instruments for spares for any other in his or her fiefdom?