No, just a thread, thought I'd ask for opinions!

Just before the Ocean Bowl site, the area is quite flat, where there were a number of sidings in the past, area is all overgrown now though. It would be straight forward to site a modern platform there, with car parking.

The problem we experience on trains at Falmouth Town is the gap between the train and the platform which does pose problems/difficulty to elderly and disabled passengers and is time consuming with passengers with luggage.

Could be funded by developers, who could build further student accommodation on the site of the Docks station as a trade off.

Many new freight flows for have been rumoured over the years, most never being more than rumours unfortunately. It's strange that Network Rail are going ahead with the lifting of the yard, given that if Scotland does vote to break away from the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), then everthing nuclear from Faslane would be coming south, with Falmouth being one of the sites for storage, mentioned by some sources, as Devonport wouldn't have the capacity to do so.

Maybe by lifting the yard, more finance would be available to create a new yard if this happened with the cash coming from government instead of NR^» (Network Rail - home page)!

On another note, should consideration be given to closing both Falmouth Town and Docks stations, with a new all purpose one being built on the flat between both existing stations....... thoughts anyone!

It was shown last weekend that through local intervention (Station Manager) request from Traincrew regarding the music festival at Looe, that TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s do listen and will if possible amend stock workings, hence the provision of a 150 over the 3 days. So thanks to Control for subsequently getting it sorted.

With so many festivals being organised these days, surely local Councils have a responsibility to inform rail companies that a licence application for a festival has been granted at what times and locations. This would enable the planning for additional units (etc) to be made.




 

The problem maintaining a regular service, particularly during the summer would be the turn round time for HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s on the Padd's. Even with the slight increase in line speeds for HST's, what would be deemed as a reasonable turn round time at Newquay? Units would be able to maintain a two hourly timetable though.

In the summer there is a reasonable number of passengers travelling west on the 10.13 from Newquay, but the number has dwindled over the past few years. Having to wait at Par for half an hour for a connection for stations to Penzance doesn't help though, but we still get a few dedicated visitors who don't seem to mind the extended journey west, beats travelling by bus they say.

There are now utterings that Goonbarrow Jct Signalbox is going to close, maybe by next summer, subject to the necessary permissions. Line to Newquay will be under St.Blazey control, with groundframe at Rocks.

With no passing loop at Goonbarrow, it will be interesting to see what frequency summer timetabled services will run, or indeed is this the time that XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) will withdraw services to Newquay as has been rumoured for quite sometime so that GW^▸ (Great Western) services would be the only service provider.   

Rumours have been circulating for sometime regarding the closure of Goonbarrow Jct Signalbox. It has been said that Goonbarrow would be controlled from St.Blazey. But then the issue of replacing the semaphores with new colour light signals etc and the subsequent cost would make this doubtful in the near future. Under ETRMS it would be possible.

Also my point originally raised was the timing of the 21.26 Newquay to Par, missing out on a west bound connection by 3 minutes at Par, therefore passengers would have to wait for over an hour for the last service for stations to Penzance.

It has been the poor timetabling of this service over the years which has led to the lack of passengers for stations westwards. With a little bit more thought, surely timings could have been amended so there was a connection at Par, thus perhaps encouraging passenger usage, or is that to much to expect.

Many thanks for all the comments though, there has been some interesting suggestions.

At Truro, the Falmouth unit could run into Platform 3, then run out over the viaduct and attach to the rear of the unit from Par. This move has been done before to run round defective cab equipment on 153's.

If the unit did run in from Par, as a passenger service, the Penzance crew off the Falmouth after the attachment would work the train forward, the Par crew returning to depot by taxi, as is currently the case.

The use of taxi's for crew's is a fairly common practise at most depots, where it isn't possible to roster crews on regular services.

Thanks for that however units can be coupled/uncoupled with passengers on.

I agree that a later service would be beneficial especially as there is no service into Cornwall after 22.31, so you can't have a night in Plymouth at the theatre and want to travel by train back into Cornwall.

Yes the service runs DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)), but it is possible to roster a Guard for the train then it could operate as a passenger service.

I agree that the Newquay line has seen significant improvement over the past few years, however the with the first departure Mon-Fri being at 10.13, the withdrawal of the earlier service was in my opinion and as well as many of my colleagues been ill judged. I have been asked many times by visitors from locations west of Truro and from Newquay regarding days out in those respective areas who were put off from travelling by train because of timings of services. Notably arriving at Par at 11.03, passengers still have almost half an hour to wait for a Penzance service for example.

No one denies that a bus is faster to St.Austell or Truro from Newquay but surely we should be encouraging use of the rail service.

Thank you for the replies so far.

When the 16.06 x Padd arrives at Par (hopefully on time), the Newquay unit doesn't depart for another 6 minutes, allowing passengers to cross over, on average the unit sits in the platform for 3 minutes or longer waiting for departure time. This service usually arrives in Newquay by 21.15 due to the running time allowed between Quintrell Downs and Newquay, then has a long layover time (even at booked times, especially for this time of night, as around three minutes is the norm during the day) before departing at 21.26.

I'm not suggesting that Par is a mass populated area, although it does have a wide catchment zone, basically the point I'm making is that any visitors from stations west of Par who want to travel to Newquay, realistically have to return on the 19.25 from Newquay as otherwise they have (presently) an inconvenient wait at Par.

I agree with Smokey that the wrong line was closed in 1963 and hope that at some stage the proposed cross county service (Falmouth to Newquay) will start. Also the suggestions of amending the stops from the 16.06 to the 15.06 x Padd sounds a viable option, as does running the train through to Penzance.

Interesting points, thank you.   

I have been trying to get an answer from Industry insiders for quite sometime (years), to no avail, as to why the last service from Newquay to Par is timed to arrive at 22.13, 3 minutes after the 22.10 departure for Penzance. This then leaves any potential passengers approximately an hour and twenty minutes wait for west bound stations, for the last down service. In addition to this the last departure from Plymouth (Mon -Thur) can be held for an hour waiting the connection from Paddington, so this has the potential for being a 2 hour 20 minute wait. This hardly seems conducive in providing a meaningful timetabled service, which has resulted in little patronage on the last service back to Par.

Whilst other lines seem to have had the support of the Devon & Cornwall Rail Partnership and to a certain degree Focal^▸ (Friends of the Atlantic Coast Line [Newquay]) has achieved some improvements to services on the Newquay branch, unfortunately it does seem to suffer with the whims of rail companies and an ineffective transport policy (my opinion) of Cornwall Council.

In addition to this the first service was lost last year (again) with the unit being utilised to run an extra service from Exeter to Plymouth. Whilst the withdrawal of this service was due to (allegedly) poor loadings,  (the return working always carried more passengers than the first couple of services on the Looe branch do now for instance, the new service from Exeter arrives at Plymouth too early for the commuters and generally has more Traincrew travelling on it to Plymouth than passengers. Then departs Plymouth usually with no more than 10 passengers towards Par, in front of 08.20 Ply-Pnz.

I would be interested to hear other opinions whether others agree or not, that the Newquay branch has suffered from neglect, to a certain degree in it's service provision.

As a member of Traincrew, we did indeed worked a 158 on Fridays through to Falmouth Docks from Plymouth, with the unit returning back to Par, then on to St.Blazey for cleaning and prep for the next day. Usually the 158 would run as the 06.10 Par to Penzance, then 07.xx Penzance to Portsmouth, can't remember the exact timings though.

Also I'm aware of one occasion that a 158 did make Newquay, there was a problem with units and the 158 was sent out vice a 150. It wasn't until it arrived back at Par, when it was realised that they were barred from the branch. Needless to say this was several years ago.

I totally agree with other comments regarding the loss of 158 units on West services, particularly those from Bristol to Penzance. A 150/1 for a 4 hour journey isn't the most desirable unit, particularly as there isn't any tables and the old 3+2 mis-fitting seating. A 150/2 is only moderately better though, shame the Dft thought Northern should benefit more with the 158's than FGW^▸ (First Great Western).