Okehampton Railway re-opening

[Captain Kernow]

17 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Any diversion of the GWR route will (and should) lead to closure of the line through Dawlish and Teignmouth.

I think it would be best to kick that notion into touch straight away.

 

First of all, such a thing would never happen, because NR and DfT have invested too much money (and continue to do so) in the Dawlish route.

 

Secondly, the vast majority of Devon's population live in the south of the county and all the existing major stations are already busy.

 

The only circumstance where such a notion might be feasible, is if the old GWR 'Dawlish diversion' was to be built (between Exminster and Newton Abbot East, or variations on that theme). That scheme was to have seen a station for Dawlish and Teignmouth provided and Torbay could still be served as well.

 

However, it is a fact that the current railway alignment provides a barrier to sea inundation at Dawlish and that part of the infrastructure would still need to be maintained.

 

As Phil the Duck has also said, the GW route is faster and also avoids two reversals for London to Cornwall trains.

 

Okehampton to Tavistock will only ever happen if rail enhancement business case requirements are changed (eg. through political developments) to make a local rail service over the top of Dartmoor viable. Simon is right to 'never say never' but it's going to take a long time for such a scheme to become a reality.

 

[Captain Kernow]

43 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Thoughts .....

 

There are significant operational issues however one looks at this.  

 

Using a single unit locked onto the Gunny shuttle is wasteful in the extreme.  It would be idle for more than half the day on the current level of service.  Is there enough potential for an hourly shuttle?  That still includes a measure of idle time given the branch requires 20 minutes running time each way but a 10-minute turnback is not unreasonable and allows for service recovery in the event of a being held for a late-running connection.  Connections at Bere Alston would need to be reliable if branch traffic is not to be lost; it is already less than ideal to enforce a change of trains.  

 

Running the current alternate-hours service to Gunny alternately with a Tavistock service may not work given the likely running times.  It could be done but not at an even hourly spacing in one or both directions.  Which is more important?  

 

If Tavistock is to offer a credible alternative to private cars or buses the train service must be at least hourly.  Okehampton is a much smaller town and began with a single-train alternate-hours service but this is to become hourly.  More infrastructure is required to offer an hourly (or better) Tavistock service which will require at least one crossing loop and ideally a dynamic one of some length to avoid at least one train coming to a stand for a time.  Bere Alston is a potential location.  Tamerton Foliot might also be a candidate.  Both would be ideal but the cost may be prohibitive.  As well how many more trains can be pathed across St. Budeaux Junction given the more frequent service now operating into Cornwall?  

 

I don't control the purse-strings but it seems to me that the least-worst scenario might be to retain the Gunny service "as is" and superimpose an hourly Tavistock service which runs fast Plymouth (or Devonport if traffic justifies) to Bere Alston.  Intermediate traffic would be sparse at best in my opinion so Tavy trains skipping Bere Ferrers through to Dockyard (except possibly for a peak-time train or two) would inconvenience very few potential users.  

 

If there is any chance of the missing link around the moor ever being reinstated (for which I am not holding my breath) then work to reinstate Tavistock should allow at least passively for this to occur in terms of a future double-tracking and signalling provision.  

Rick's comments underline just how difficult it would be, to find a really low-cost solution to keeping both Gunnislake and Tavistock served with timetables that rail users would find attractive.

 

My 'creative suggestions' discussed at the time were purely aimed at getting a foot in the door. This is a tried and tested method when it comes to enhancements. Get a really basic scheme up and running and then enhance it as soon as circumstances permit. Here are two examples:

 

i) Penryn loop - the business case for this scheme on the Falmouth branch only justified a single Class 153 unit on each service, even though everyone knew that many services would be full and standing. I recall also that there weren't enough units to go around in those days. But it didn't take longer for 150s to be deployed on the branch, at least on busier services

 

ii) Taunton Middle Platform. I personally steered this scheme through from inception to business case approval at the Railtrack Western Route Investment Panel.

 

The business case was shaky enough to begin with and we could only afford a chairlift from the subway to the platform, to cater for disabled access. The chairlift as installed took an agonisingly long time to get up and down and could only take one person at a time, of course (we never tried one person sitting on another person's lap, none of the project team knew each other well enough).

 

It after only a very few years, however, funding became available to provide a proper passenger lift, but at least the 'foot in the door' policy ensured that the platform itself reopened for business.

 

[Captain Kernow]

33 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

I know it sounds a little weird, but maybe one of those guided Bus routes could replace the  Gunnislake stretch

You are entirely correct, Herr Doktor von Duck.

 

It does sound weird!

 

I appreciate it could be seen as a solution, but as a railway enthusiast, I would rather keep looking for options that give us a rail service on both routes!

 

[caradoc]

17 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Any diversion of the GWR route will (and should) lead to closure of the line through Dawlish and Teignmouth.

 

Which would deprive Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot, Totnes, Torquay and Paignton of their rail link, so will not happen. 

[Northmoor]

45 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

Which would deprive Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot, Totnes, Torquay and Paignton of their rail link, so will not happen. 

Actually, replacement of the GWR route by the LSWR route would do this; replacement by (a 21st Century version of) the proposed alternative GWR route via the Teign Valley, abandoned by WW2, would only deprive Dawlish and Teignmouth, which would be a considerably smaller sacrifice.  I completely agree it seems unacceptable but there are plenty of communities in the UK which are already aware that government policy is not to defend them from rising sea levels.  If they want to stay there the sea defences will have to be paid for and if Network Rail abandon the route it will be in the expectation that in future, the costs won't be their responsibility.

 

As others have said before (and so have I on the Dawlish thread), a double reversal at Exeter and Plymouth for most trains to Cornwall counts against the LSWR route.  Either solution - and NR have spend enormous sums committing themselves to the Dawlish route for the foreseeable - it overlooks what is a bigger risk to WofE services, which is flooding at Cowley Bridge Junction; this happens almost every year, despite the flood relief in Exeter itself and shows no sign of becoming less frequent.

[Reorte]

A no doubt unpopular opinion (and I don't like the sound of it myself), but would reinstating Tavistock from Bere Alston and losing Gunnislake be a less bad option if there's no decent and affordable way of serving both?

[Zomboid]

I suppose the obvious counter to that is that Gunnislake survived Beeching for a reason and Tavistock didn't. I don't know what that reason was or whether it's still valid, but I do know that road bridges over the rivers around there are few and far between.

 

It would be a backwards step for the top of the branch in some ways, but a far north style Plymouth - Tav - Gun - Tav - Ply service would solve some of the problem. And provide a direct link between Gunnislake/ Calstock and Tavistock in addition to the other benefits. Whether the running time been Bere Alston and Plymouth could be improved by enough to counter the extra time to run to & from Tavistock, I couldn't say - but I doubt you could get all of it back.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Zomboid

[Gwiwer]

16 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

a double reversal at Exeter and Plymouth for most trains to Cornwall counts against the LSWR route.

And not-insignificant double-runs between Cowley Bridge - Exeter and St. Budeaux - Plymouth.   The main line will stay as it is.  

 

Replacing the Gunnislake branch with a bus is unlikely to b a viable option.  Using the existing road network one has to cross the Tamar between Calstock and Bere Alston which is only available on the Gunnislake - Tavistock road.  A bus service already operates this way and is very lightly used; it only exists at all because of support by Cornwall Council despite it crossing into Devon for some of its route.  This is the Callington - Tavistock bus which is also the link for those in Callington to access Tavistock; they have a better route to Plymouth on the bus via Saltash so there is no traffic potential here for a reinstated rail link.  

 

A likely journey time by bus from Calstock - Tavistock then allowing for a connection onto the train might be 90 minutes; currently the train manages just over a half-hour without a wait, the thought that maybe a connection might be missed or without factoring in the likely significant distance between a bus stop and station in Tavistock.  Unless of course the bus were to be diverted via the station at a time penalty to all on board and - as the timetable exists today - preventing the current one-bus hourly service from being maintained.  It's tight now and could not accommodate a five-minute diversion in each direction.  

 

Lifting the rails and using the Gunnislake branch as a busway might be a possibility but with the same considerations as heavy-rail use namely the effective use of the resource.  A bus could manage the trip in perhaps a few minutes less than the train not being subject to quite the same stringent speed restrictions; it could probably make the round-trip in a half-hour.  At best an hourly service might be viable leading to a lot of idle time.  Busway vehicles can be used elsewhere in most cases but that requires the provision of a small dedicated fleet of them to ensure that a vehicle arriving from another route was compatible with the busway.  

 

A further option might be something like the Parry People-mover (class 139 on the Stourbridge Town shuttle) but I have my doubts about them coping with the gradients especially in the wet.  

 

As we can see there are many obstacles to the provision of a cost-effective and attractive service in the area.  Gunnislake only survived as a rail link at all because of the difficulty of providing effective bus replacements through steep narrow lanes and by indirect routes forced by the topography of the Tamar Valley.  Bere Ferrers is notoriously difficult to serve despite being only a couple of miles from suburban Plymouth as the crow flies.  There is no road route across the Tavy at all; Tavistock is the lowest crossing point.  Trains trundle across the viaduct quite happily cutting many miles and at least 90 minutes off a road journey between there and Plymouth.  

[Zomboid]

2 hours ago, Gwiwer said:

As well how many more trains can be pathed across St. Budeaux Junction given the more frequent service now operating into Cornwall

From the aerial photography, that would be one of the simpler junctions in the world to grade separate, with the flyover portion already existing.

 

If the LSWR route ends up being a fairly busy suburban style route to Tavistock it might even be worth the electrons I'm using to share that thought.

[Rivercider]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose the obvious counter to that is that Gunnislake survived Beeching for a reason and Tavistock didn't. I don't know what that reason was or whether it's still valid, but I do know that road bridges over the rivers around there are few and far between.

 

I

A couple of years ago me and Mrs Rivercider had a short hotel break at Tavistock, one of our intended days out was to Cotehele NT. Unfortunately during the previous week a lorry had struck the bridge parapet on the A390 bridge over the Tamar, closing the bridge. The diversion by road is a loooong way round, so we drove to Bere Alston and took the short train journey to Calstock and walked from there to Cotehele (a great day out all round).

 

cheers  

[Oldddudders]

Dawlish and Teignmouth thrive because they are on the railway, and Dawlish Warren even more so. There would be a huge outcry if that link were lost. Politically inexpedient due to shouting from many parts of the UK.

[Not Jeremy]

Apart from the witterings of dear old "Northmoor" here, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that the LSW route would ever replace the coastal route.

 

That is certainly not the intention of the website that I flagged up or any of the groups to which it is linked.

 

It would be in "addition to", a pretty simple concept I think.

 

Why anyone would think otherwise is beyond comprehension.

[Rivercider]

24 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Dawlish and Teignmouth thrive because they are on the railway, and Dawlish Warren even more so. There would be a huge outcry if that link were lost. Politically inexpedient due to shouting from many parts of the UK.

I believe the principle reason the GWR were looking at the diversionary route in the 1930s was to increase route capacity to the west. On summer Saturdays in particular there were serious delays as trains called at Dawlish and Teignmouth where longer trains had to draw forward in order for all coaches to be platformed. Although there had been no serious blockage of the coastal route since the 1870s there had been recent problems in 1923 (cliff fall), 1930 and 1936, which provided a second reason for the diversionary route.

Some of the plans for the diversionary route options have draft station sites shown for Dawlish and Teignmouth, neither convenient for either town, but the re was never any intention for the GWR to close the coastal route,

 

cheers  

[The Stationmaster]

20 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

We came to the same conclusion, Mike and the low-cost answer was to separate the units at Bere Alston off the first train of the morning from Plymouth and effectively lock the Gunnislake one in all day, using a re-instated bay platform (the main Tavistock line was to have been slewed to the old Up Main formation) and re-attach the units for the last train of the day back to Plymouth.

 

That would have admittedly given rise to some awkward connectional issues at Bere Alston and would have required creative use of the Rules & Regulations with regards to the shunting movements.

 

Such arrangements would have had to have been replaced by something more substantial (signalling infrstructure-wise) at the earliest opportunity, probably allowing the Gunnislake service to operate as a separate entity. But that would have all been very expensive.

 

Maybe far simpler in some respects at Bere Alston to reinstate part of the old branch loop platform face and then do a cross-platform interchange with a Tavistock train on the former Up Main side of the same platform even if that means reproducing what exists on the old Down side in terms of parking spaces etc.  The big problem that remains is getting decent connections off the twig as I already noted if the Tavistock trains turns round on the shortest possible time.    Solving the splitting/joining movements at Bere Alston is a minor problem although it might nowadays require some 'electronic support'. (wholly localised and fairly simple) to keep happy the safety people who are frightened of doing things in more traditional ways.   No more than a problem to be solved and not too difficult a one.

 

The insoluble with any low cost addition of a link to Tavistock is always going to be the time difference between the two routes beyond Bere Alston and even substituting 'bus for rail won't solve that.  Separating the two services, and keeping  independent through trains to Gunnislake would massively increase the infrastructure cost and that could perhaps jeopardise the entire reopening project.   Minimum spend will allow an hourly service to Tavistock with no Gunnislake trains running pn the Plymouth side of Bere Alston,  But as soon as a through train from Gunnislake runs towards St Budeaux -  even coupled to a train From Tavistock - you bust the hourly interval to/from Tavistock.

 

And although I've only been in involved in assessing a few such re-openings it rapidly became apparent with all of them that once you go beyond the minimum infrastructure (= minimum capital cost) the supporters start to melt away.  Even proposals to future proof Ebbw Vale by allowing for various of the ideas being talked about being taken into account when doing initial work purely to avoid abortive expenditure  (e.g moving  a single to double connection a few hundred yards) resulted in people being aghast at the extra it would cost for a few hundred yards of plain line.  Bunging in millions for even an NSKT(R) crossing loop would in my experience kill a re-opening project that could be done without it.  (That's one reason why L don't think the 'north of the Moor' diversionary route will ever get off the ground.  It's dead easy for anybody to think of or suggest chucking someone else's money ar a reopening proposal but that isn't in my experience what the promoters want - their aim is to get the thing done, not to gold plate it).

 

A 'bus connection along the twig, even using the railway viaduct as a busway, is I suspect no real answer as journey times will still be pretty slow and won't get out & back in the required c.20 minutes.  and there is of course no alternative to using the railway viaduct as a busway because the whole reason Gunnislake has retained a rail link is because of the lack of any road crossings of the Tamar between Saltash and Gunnislake itself.  In fact Gunnislake (but not Calstock) might  even be better served by a connecting 'bus service from a railhead in Tavistock rather than from Bere Alston as the roads are better.  

 

Incidentally in many respects it isn't directly comparable with the situation at Bourne End because there isn't an equivalent situation there of a train having to continue to/from a 'Tavistock' with all the running time differences that involves.  The Bourne End second platform only makes any sort of sense it if is used for separate originating/terminating trains on the section to Maidenhead and they are no longer necessary because they can't now become a through service to/from Paddington owing to line capacity problems and the trains having a worse performance than EMUs. Or putting it another,  much blunter,  way - Crossrail killed the through trains to London off the Thames Valley branches.

 

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose the obvious counter to that is that Gunnislake survived Beeching for a reason and Tavistock didn't. I don't know what that reason was or whether it's still valid, but I do know that road bridges over the rivers around there are few and far between.

 

It would be a backwards step for the top of the branch in some ways, but a far north style Plymouth - Tav - Gun - Tav - Ply service would solve some of the problem. And provide a direct link between Gunnislake/ Calstock and Tavistock in addition to the other benefits. Whether the running time been Bere Alston and Plymouth could be improved by enough to counter the extra time to run to & from Tavistock, I couldn't say - but I doubt you could get all of it back.

No way.  One trip to Gunnislake would show you that reducing the journey time there would be a major pipe dream when smoking whacky baccy.  Have a look at a  map - it's the ultimate in contour chasing railways with the straightest bit being over the  viaduct at Calstock.

 

You could of course do a cheaper job between Bere Alston and Tavistock to make that journey time longer but then you once again could  bust the  capability for the essential hourly frequency needed to make the reopening a good commercial proposition

[rab]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

Apart from the witterings of dear old "Northmoor" here, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that the LSW route would ever replace the coastal route.

 

That is certainly not the intention of the website that I flagged up or any of the groups to which it is linked.

 

It would be in "addition to", a pretty simple concept I think.

 

Why anyone would think otherwise is beyond comprehension.

And the 'Addition to' part is what most of the argument is about.

At a time when the railways, like much of the rest of the country,

are under scrutiny for every penny they spend, who is going to agree

to funding an 'additional to' bit with doubtful financial returns.

Edited January 12, 2022 by rab

[Zomboid]

9 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

No way.  One trip to Gunnislake would show you that reducing the journey time there would be a major pipe dream when smoking whacky baccy.  Have a look at a  map - it's the ultimate in contour chasing railways with the straightest bit being over the  viaduct at Calstock

I realise Bere Alston to Gunnislake is always going to be really slow (wasn't it built as a light railway? It's all 10/15/20mph limits), but the former main line between BA and Plymouth seems to be a 40-55mph zone at present, and the alignment may well be suitable for more like 75.

[MarcD]

Gunnislake line is a Col Stephens special or the remains of one. It was originally the narrow gauge East Cornwall Minerals Railway converted to standard gauge about 1895. It's only one of the col's lines still operating on the national system.

 

Marc

[Siberian Snooper]

First of all the shortest road route between Bere Alston and Plymouth is via Denham Bridge, it's quite torturous especially in winter, the only place of note on the route is that it passes close by Buckland Abbey, Franky Drake's gaff.

 

On the rail front,  how would  a Plymouth,  Bere Alston,  drop the Gunnislake portion, run to Tavistock return to Plymouth,  Plymouth to Tavistock,  Tavistock Bere Alston pick up the Gunnislake portion and return to Plymouth work?

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally in many respects it isn't directly comparable with the situation at Bourne End because there isn't an equivalent situation there of a train having to continue to/from a 'Tavistock' with all the running time differences that involves.  The Bourne End second platform only makes any sort of sense it if is used for separate originating/terminating trains on the section to Maidenhead and they are no longer necessary because they can't now become a through service to/from Paddington owing to line capacity problems and the trains having a worse performance than EMUs. Or putting it another,  much blunter,  way - Crossrail killed the through trains to London off the Thames Valley branches.

I was also reminded of Bourne End (though only with the current setup at Bere Alston - as you point out, it would be different if extended to Tavistock). According to the National Rail journey planner website, Maidenhead - Bourne End - Marlow is still sometimes worked in this way in peak, with connection times of only 3 minutes at Bourne End (presumably this is considered to be sufficient, given that there’s not many reasons for delays on the Marlow ‘twig’ when operating like this). I didn’t notice whether the onward connections from Bourne End went through to Paddington though.

As a variation on what has been suggested so far, would operating Gunnislake to Tavistock and Plymouth to Tavistock, with double track Tavistock to Bere Alston as two separate single lines have any advantages? I suspect not although I don’t really know enough about the line and the sort of journeys usually made on it.

 

Another line with a similar layout (a branch off a branch, accessed via a reversal) is Morecambe to Heysham, though as I understand it (though I could be wrong) this actually uses separate platforms and separate single lines at both Morecambe and Bare Lane, despite only having one passenger train per day (though there’s also some nuclear flask traffic to Heysham). I’ve never quite understood what is seen to be advantageous about having the Morecambe terminating line and the ‘reversing line’ for Heysham separate so early although I think it does mean that the reversal can be completed on a separate section of line, over traincrew-operated points.

[Zomboid]

38 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

As a variation on what has been suggested so far, would operating Gunnislake to Tavistock and Plymouth to Tavistock, with double track Tavistock to Bere Alston as two separate single lines have any advantages? I suspect not although I don’t really know enough about the line and the sort of journeys usually made on it.

It would be a lot of extra track, though having the Gunnislake trains going *somewhere* would probably be advantageous (I don't think Bere Alston is really much of a destination).

 

Also a nice bit of symmetry with the current arrangements between Crediton and Coleford.

[The Stationmaster]

6 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I realise Bere Alston to Gunnislake is always going to be really slow (wasn't it built as a light railway? It's all 10/15/20mph limits), but the former main line between BA and Plymouth seems to be a 40-55mph zone at present, and the alignment may well be suitable for more like 75.

Quite agree but the timetabling problem is very much down to the running time difference between Bere Alston - Gunnislake and Bere Alston - Tavistock.  Increasing the line speed to 75mph throughout between St Budeaux and Bere Alston wouldn't even save 5 minutes once you take into account the junction speed at St Budeaux and the fact that it wouldn't in any case be possible on the curves at the St Budeaux end or possibly not on certain underbridges/the Tavy viaduct.

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Incidentally in many respects it isn't directly comparable with the situation at Bourne End because there isn't an equivalent situation there of a train having to continue to/from a 'Tavistock' with all the running time differences that involves.  

 

 

 

There is nothing in the layout or the basic signalling arrangements installed at Bourne End which would prevent the Maidenhead leg of the service from continuing northwards to High Wycombe were that line to be reinstated and the Marlow stub be served by a all day shuttle from Bourne End.

 

Yes you now need an extra unit and crew a lot of the time - but what you don't need is lots of fancy expensive signalling equipment!

 

So the fact that Crossrail has now removed through trains to Paddington (and thus removed the issue where the train was physically unable to access the Marlow stub) thus is irrelevant.

 

With the need to avoid costly signalling arrangements if the Tavistock line is to ever stand a chance of being rebuilt then I still maintain the Bourne End setup is the most realistic solution.

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by phil-b259

[Zomboid]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Quite agree but the timetabling problem is very much down to the running time difference between Bere Alston - Gunnislake and Bere Alston - Tavistock

Only if you're trying to run two different services. PLY - TAV - GUN - TAV - PLY would slow down Gunnislake & Calstock to Plymouth journeys (hence trying to get some of it back by improving speeds on the main line if that's realistic), but would give those places a direct link to Tavistock and eliminate the timetabling issue caused by the different journey times. It would probably need a passing loop somewhere to achieve an hourly service though. 2 hourly might work without.

[Mike_Walker]

The present set up at Bourne End is that we have, as stated above, an hourly off-peak service between Maidenhead and Marlow.  In the morning and evening peaks this is replaced by a Maidenhead to Bourne End shuttle which uses platform 2 (Up) at Bourne End with a separate Bourne End to Marlow shuttle from platform 1 (Down) which uses the set which has been running the full service during the day.  There are no longer any through trains off the branch to or from Paddington.  These ceased on 19 May 2017 to free up paths on the GWML for Crossrail services.  Passenger changing at Bourne End do have to sprint round the end of the platforms but the Marlow train will always wait for them as there's plenty of time for it to make up any reasonable delay before the next trip.  Unlike Gunnislake, there are no timetabling issues caused by distances or speed limits.

 

Currently, Maidenhead to Bourne End is worked under NST (No Signaller Token) regulations with the tokens being released to the traincrew* at each end remotely by the Slough Workstation signaller at the TVSC.  At Bourne End there is now a Ground Switch Panel along with powered points and 2-aspect LED signals with standard indicators on the approach from Maidenhead and for departure from platform 1.  However, these are designated as "Points Indicators" rather than signals.  These arrangements replaced the former manual ground frame early in 2009.  From Bourne End to Marlow the line is worked with a train staff.

 

Several years ago, Mark Hopwood and I worked up a scheme to restore the double junction at Bourne End which would allow two trains to effectively pass there permitting a 2 TPH service all day without the need to change trains at Bourne End.  Mark was keen to do this as he feels the requirement for passengers making trips off the branch (in peak hours) to make two changes of train in the first 8 miles of their journey is not likely to encourage new customers or even retain existing ones!  (It should be noted that Mark grew up in Marlow and still holds a candle for the branch - we all joke that it's the most important part of the modern GWR network and which is why the branch trains show the "route number" 01 on the destination display!).  Despite securing funding for the scheme, detailed design work by W S Atkins threw up many objections based on modern standards etc. requiring several redesigns and the project stalled.  Ironically, each of these objections has been chipped away and we've now come back to the the design Mark and I drew up but the massive escalation in the costs of doing anything on the railway today now means that the available funding is no longer sufficient (and most of it has lapsed anyway) so it would, at present, appear the scheme will not be going ahead.

 

* When the one train service is in operation it is the conductor's duty to work the GSP and surrender/obtain the token and train staff at Bourne End.  When the two train service is operating, the driver of the Maidenhead train surrenders and obtains the token at Bourne End using an auxiliary instrument on the Up platform.  Even though the GSP and points are not being used during the 2 train service, the token still has to pass through the instrument at each end of the section.

 

Sorry to go "off topic" but as the subject of Bourne End has come up with some obviously outdated references I thought it worth clarifying.