Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[The Ham]

With respect that link does not say that at all, what it does say is (quoting the Prime Minister):



The Western Morning News says:



So not only does your source not state anything like your claim, but your claim that an Okehampton route would cost £700m is patently not true either.

Given that reinstating 5 miles of this closed route will cost £26m, the other 16 miles cannot possibly cost £700m. Its just not plausible. £700m has got to be the cost of the construction of a branch new bypass line.

Which is what I said further up the thread before tcbc reposted the link.

Although £700m would enable the reopening of the line plus a lot of the works tcbc has been suggesting are of higher importance such as the electrification of Basingstoke to Exeter.

 

[yorksrob]

Let us not forget that the case (and most likely funding source) for this has been made largely by the development gain a house builder is expecting from being able to market his 750 new houses as having a direct rail link to Plymouth. At least it was last time I looked. Other reopening campaigns take note. (As an aside, I'm willing to bet the reopening cost for Tavistock has been significantly underestimated).

Now if there are similar development proposals elsewhere on the rest of the closed route, then I can see the case improving from no hope to possibility.

Government always welcomes match funding, so the private sector contribution should be seen in that context, strengthening the case for investment along the whole coridoor.

It should also be remembered that the central section has been estimated as costing between100and 200m as opposed to the 26m quoted for Tavistock, so whatever the shortcomings of the Tavistock quotation, it appears unlikely that the central section will share them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The fact that it was breached when it was built around 150 years ago is irrelevant.

Goatboy quoted figures which showed that the Dawlish route has had few closures over the years - some, but nothing like enough to be used as justification for an alternative route avoiding any large places of population.



Good luck to them, but lets assess these two separate schemes on their own merits (and compare to Portishead and other re-openings), rather than trying to bundle them together to claim a "solution" to the Dawlish section.



The answer is always to reopen something, eh?

Goatboy's figures suggest a recurring history of major structural breaches - as it happens, of a sort similar to the regular landslips that used to occur between Folkestone and Dover - which justified major investment in that area in the 1950‘s.


The two seperate schemes would be eminently stronger as a single through route, improving transport links and opportunities across Devon and resillience across the South West.


But hey, if you‘re pathalogically against any sort of reopening on principle, that‘s probably not going to influence your opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Playing Devil's advocate, say upgrading a line benefits 400,000 recorded users of that line to get somewhere 5 mins earlier, all those 5 mins do add up. Then compare to improved economic opportunities available to 20,000 people through building a new line, who may or may not benefit from it (as a proportion of the population won't notice any difference).

Obvious to state, but the key thing is the numbers who benefit, and the amount they benefit by, per pound spent. Benefit cost analysis.

Yes, those minutes all stack up, but it all smacks of those rather dubious conjectures of whether a businessman sits on the train doing not much or works etc. Highly nebulous, whereas the benefit of being able to work or study elsewhere, attract business from elsewhere that otherwise wouldn‘t have come, spent the money that they would have had to spend running a second car in local shops and businesses instead - particularly in a region that suffers some deprivation.These benefits are of an order of magnitude greater, even though the cost benefit methodology is pretty poor at expressing this.p

 

[Woody]

There was a lecture held at Plymouth University on 22nd January 5.45-6pm start giving not only historical details but also the detailed work required to develop the Tavistock rail reopening project and progress so far. This very interesting update from another rail forum.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=804.msg147154#new

scroll down to TRAINBUFF.

Still looking good to me and events at Dawlish now must have given The Tavistock reopening a big psychological boost. I think it is all good news

 

[The Planner]

Surpirsed no one has caught on to this...

Network Rail denies Dawlish plan

NETWORK RAIL has denied reports that it has chosen another rail route through Devon, avoiding the vulnerable coastal stretch through Dawlish.

Damage to the Great Western Main Line caused by storms in south Devon will take some time to repair. Network Rail now says the link is unlikely to be restored beforre April, and the number of flights between London and Cornwall will be doubled from tomorrow.

But the company has denied a BBC report which claimed that the former Southern main line through Dartmoor via Okehampton and Tavistock had been selected for reopening, providing an inland alternative between Exeter and Plymouth.

A Network Rail source commented to Railnews: "I think there have been a few assumptions here, and they are not true."

In a statement about the former Southern line, Network Rail said: "It was closed in the 1960s and the land was sold off and built on. It would require substantial engineering, including new bridges and viaducts, before a new line could be constructed.

"While it is right to look at the alternatives, our priority now is to resume rail services to Devon and Cornwall as soon as possible. We will take forward a professional study on this once the current situation is resolved, engaging business, local authorities, communities and the rail industry in the advantages and disadvantages of alternative routes.

"In addition, we plan to develop a strategy and scheme that will provide increased levels of resilience to marine erosion as part of the Western Route Climate Change Adaption Plan by 2019. Implementation is currently planned for 2019 to 2024."

Parts of the former Southern line are still in use, from Plymouth to Bere Alston and from Exeter to a point just past Okehampton. In addition, there are plans to restore a further section from Bere Alston as far as Tavistock.

Other possible routes avoiding Dawlish are the restoration and upgrade of a former single track line which closed to passengers in 1958, or a completely new railway. The Great Western Railway bought land for such a line in the 1930s, but the scheme was interrupted by the outbreak of war and the land was resold by British Railways after nationalisation in 1948.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

See #358 etc.

 

[The Planner]

Ah yes, serves me right for not reading every post.

 

[tbtc]

The two seperate schemes would be eminently stronger as a single through route, improving transport links and opportunities across Devon and resillience across the South West

Of course building the two schemes plus the link between Tavistock and Okehampton would be more resilient/ provide better links etc etc - that's obvious. That's a bit like saying that a five bedroom house would have more room than a two bedroom house.

The point that you appear to be missing (?) is that building both lines plus the link between these two small towns is going to cost a lot more money - money that could be spent on other schemes in south west England (Portishead, redoubling the Yeovil route etc), and therefore needs to be seen in that context...

...but you've made your mind up about what you want, the only problem is justifying it now.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Network Rail have announced that the Dawlish line will reopen on March 18th. Sadly the media circus will move on and that will probably be it as 'The Planner' suspects. Patrick McLoughlin, Transport Secretary, said in the Commons today that 'successive governments have allowed development on alternate routes'. The NIMBYs have started...

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Old-train-station-market-way-alternative-rail/story-20620746-detail/story.html

 

[yorksrob]

...but you've made your mind up about what you want, the only problem is justifying it now.

No problem doing that !

 

[yorksrob]

Network Rail have announced that the Dawlish line will reopen on March 18th. Sadly the media circus will move on and that will probably be it as 'The Planner' suspects. Patrick McLoughlin, Transport Secretary, said in the Commons today that 'successive governments have allowed development on alternate routes'. The NIMBYs have started...

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Old-train-station-market-way-alternative-rail/story-20620746-detail/story.html

One Council building and some holiday chalets.

Sounds like the Government is losing its nerve. Time for local politicians to force the issue.

 

[The Ham]

Of course building the two schemes plus the link between Tavistock and Okehampton would be more resilient/ provide better links etc etc - that's obvious. That's a bit like saying that a five bedroom house would have more room than a two bedroom house.

The point that you appear to be missing (?) is that building both lines plus the link between these two small towns is going to cost a lot more money - money that could be spent on other schemes in south west England (Portishead, redoubling the Yeovil route etc), and therefore needs to be seen in that context...

...but you've made your mind up about what you want, the only problem is justifying it now.

The point you appear to keep missing is that the SW doesn't get a fund of money that it can spend on rail projects, the UK has a fund which is spends on rail projects, so any scheme in the SW is fighting for money against projects in the SE, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, etc.

If (for political reasons) the Okehampton route is opened and is run using an extension of the SWT's services to Exeter then the redoubling of the Yeovil route then jumps up the UK need list as more people are using the service (even if it isn't an extension to the existing service, then there would be some uplift in the number of passengers; although this wouldn't be as much, either way it would have the same effect). Likewise, because of better rail connections in Devon, Electrification and/or increasing in service frequencies in and around Exeter could also be pushed further up the UK need list.

It could also mean that the cost of electrifying the existing route between Exeter and Plymouth is cheaper or at the very least finished faster (as longer work blockades on the existing line could be viable and less replacement buses would be needed).

All of which could have a positive impact on when the next set of works are undertaken in the SW, although this would mean that other areas of the UK do not have their schemes built.

£250m may sound a lot (and we are assuming that it this figure and not the £100m also suggested as the cost of the works to be robust in our arguments), but in terms of railway investment its fairly small fry (given the £30 odd million which has been promised to strengthen rail infrastructure in the SW, which will provide little more benefit than keeping routes open a little more during bad weather).

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Dawlish-rail-line-set-reopen-mid-March/story-20621284-detail/story.html

Anne Marie-Morris MP has been a bit excitable as usual - NR have not confirmed re-opening date.

 

[Michael.Y]

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Dawlish-rail-line-set-reopen-mid-March/story-20621284-detail/story.html

Anne Marie-Morris MP has been a bit excitable as usual - NR have not confirmed re-opening date.

BBC News reporting March 18th as a possible date for ending of works.

 

[34104]

Of course building the two schemes plus the link between Tavistock and Okehampton would be more resilient/ provide better links etc etc - that's obvious. That's a bit like saying that a five bedroom house would have more room than a two bedroom house.

The point that you appear to be missing (?) is that building both lines plus the link between these two small towns is going to cost a lot more money - money that could be spent on other schemes in south west England (Portishead, redoubling the Yeovil route etc), and therefore needs to be seen in that context...

...but you've made your mind up about what you want, the only problem is justifying it now.

You seem to be rather dismissive of Tavistock and Okehampton as "two small towns".Tavistock's population is now 12450 and is set to grow considerably between now and 2026.By my reckoning that makes Tavistock a considerably bigger town than Totnes,which seems to have no problem in supporting a main line station.Okehampton is also projected to grow to levels which match Totnes,so maybe your perception is a trifle ungenerous.Totnes is a railhead for the South Hams but there is no reason why Okehampton in particular shouldn't act in the same way for North/East Cornwall and West Devon-Launceston especially,with a very fast road connection to Okehampton now,would be a beneficiary.The catchment area obviously would never match the Newton Abbot/Torbay district but is not negligible by any means and any way in which the two towns could be reconnected to the eastward national rail network would plainly be of huge advantage to a burgeoning populace and ultimately the rail system on wider scale.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558588/Grandfather-lives-former-train-station-sell-ministers-plan-reopen-rail-route-following-Dawlish-track-collapse.html

Daily Mail on the case now - that's all we need.

 

[47802]

You seem to be rather dismissive of Tavistock and Okehampton as "two small towns".Tavistock's population is now 12450 and is set to grow considerably between now and 2026.By my reckoning that makes Tavistock a considerably bigger town than Totnes,which seems to have no problem in supporting a main line station.Okehampton is also projected to grow to levels which match Totnes,so maybe your perception is a trifle ungenerous.Totnes is a railhead for the South Hams but there is no reason why Okehampton in particular shouldn't act in the same way for North/East Cornwall and West Devon-Launceston especially,with a very fast road connection to Okehampton now,would be a beneficiary.The catchment area obviously would never match the Newton Abbot/Torbay district but is not negligible by any means and any way in which the two towns could be reconnected to the eastward national rail network would plainly be of huge advantage to a burgeoning populace and ultimately the rail system on wider scale.

As I see it Tavistock and Okehampton should be largely irrelevant to the argument, if there is justification these can be reopened at fairly moderate cost to serve the majority of traffic on these routes.

Therefore it comes down to the cost and benefits of a Dawlish Diversion or putting back the Missing link on the Okehampton route and probable upgrading to more mainline standards on the section of route that still exists, also It will have to be one or the other not both, and probably neither is likely.

 

[yorksrob]

As I see it Tavistock and Okehampton should be largely irrelevant to the argument, if there is justification these can be reopened at fairly moderate cost to serve the majority of traffic on these routes.

Therefore it comes down to the cost and benefits of a Dawlish Diversion or putting back the Missing link on the Okehampton route and probable upgrading to more mainline standards on the section of route that still exists, also It will have to be one or the other not both, and probably neither is likely.

Frankly that's a fairly ridiculous way of looking at the situation. We're talking about improving a rail corridoor that runs between Plymouth and Exeter. If considering this move seriously, what possible justification could there be to ignore the contribution of the two main population centres. What if we decide to include a Parkway station at Launceston. Should we evaluate this station, but ignore passengers travelling from Tavistock and Okehampton ? The only way such an approach could be justified would be if we were fairly certain that there would be no demand from Okehampton - Crediton to the South or Bere Alston - Tavistock to the North (and I'm pretty certain that that wouldn't be the case).

Unfortunately, this does illustrate precisely why our system for deciding these things is so bad. Considering each part in its own little silo, but with no one capable of putting the various bits together and thinking about the place of this transport corridor holistically - both as a local transport link, and as a wider part of the West Country network.

 

[tbtc]

You seem to be rather dismissive of Tavistock and Okehampton as "two small towns".Tavistock's population is now 12450 and is set to grow considerably between now and 2026

There's surely a lot of larger places without a train station, and most places will see increases between now and 2026 as the UK population increases.

Totnes is a railhead for the South Hams but there is no reason why Okehampton in particular shouldn't act in the same way for North/East Cornwall and West Devon-Launceston especially,with a very fast road connection to Okehampton now,would be a beneficiary.The catchment area obviously would never match the Newton Abbot/Torbay district but is not negligible by any means

You mean like places like Crediton currently can act as a railhead? Or Gunnislake can act as a railhead? It's not like the Tweedbank line (where the lack of any local railway means you'd have to drive into Edinburgh to get to your nearest station) - there are local stations in Devon that currently mean such motorists don't need to drive into Plymouth/ Exeter. It's just that Gunnislake and Crediton (both with around seventy departing passengers a day, to give an idea of the potential demand out there) don't need any expensive infrastructure to serve that catchment area.

The point you appear to keep missing is that the SW doesn't get a fund of money that it can spend on rail projects, the UK has a fund which is spends on rail projects, so any scheme in the SW is fighting for money against projects in the SE, NE, NW, Wales, Scotland, etc

I'm well aware of the different places that money could be spent, I only use the Exeter - Waterloo line and the Bristol - Portishead line as examples of where else it could be spent in the south west of England.

Okehamton - Tavistock would have to compete with a lot of other schemes, and there are a lot of places with better cases. Think of all of the bottlenecks in the UK, think of all the unelectrified lines, think of all of the "overcrowded" routes where more capacity is needed and tell me that Okehampton it top of the list.

If (for political reasons) the Okehampton route is opened and is run using an extension of the SWT's services to Exeter

I'm not sure where the idea of SWT running such a route has come from, but it seems to be getting repeated - knowing the way that forums work it'll be accepted as fact soon

£250m may sound a lot (and we are assuming that it this figure and not the £100m also suggested as the cost of the works to be robust in our arguments), but in terms of railway investment its fairly small fry

Compared to HS2, everything is small fry. But there are a lot of schemes that are small fry compared to a £250m line through Devon (e.g. electrification from Bolton to Wigan was around £37m and should give a big capacity increase on some services on a busy line). Its not about the price tag though, its about the costs when compared to the benefits.

 

[D1009]

I'm not sure where the idea of SWT running such a route has come from, but it seems to be getting repeated - knowing the way that forums work it'll be accepted as fact soon.

Possibly because that's the way trains went originally over that line? Also because otherwise you'd have two separate services terminating at St David's from two different directions, and you'd need to change at St David's to get to Central which is where most people want to go in Exeter.

There is something of a 21st century railway mania starting with all the investment currently going into the railway as a whole, so it's just as well this sort of stuff is being discussed so government can consider where best to spend whatever money it decides is worth spending. But Okehampton to Bere Alston wouldn't be at the top of my list, though my nostalgic side says I would love to see it. At the moment there seems to be difficulty justifying a service Exeter to Okehampton, even though the infrastructure is already there.

 

[455driver]

Possibly because that's the way trains went originally over that line? Also because otherwise you'd have two separate services terminating at St David's from two different directions, and you'd need to change at St David's to get to Central which is where most people want to go in Exeter.

As we are well into pipedream mode*-
Who said the re-opened Okey trains would have to terminate at St Davids?
If they are an extension of the SWT route (snigger) then they would serve Central anyway, the service could just as easily run around the Okey line and on to Exmouth or on to Axminster or on to Paignton (not serving Central)!

*-Not aimed at you D1009!

 

[yorksrob]

There is something of a 21st century railway mania starting with all the investment currently going into the railway as a whole

I'd hardly call it a "railway mania" on a 1970's network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Possibly because that's the way trains went originally over that line? Also because otherwise you'd have two separate services terminating at St David's from two different directions, and you'd need to change at St David's to get to Central which is where most people want to go in Exeter.

We've got a load of trains, terminating from the East, of a reasonably long distance spec, it would make sense to use them to continue. Plus it adds an additional element of competition between Plymouth and Exeter - which I'm pretty sure was one of the aims of having different franchises in the first place.

 

[fsmr]

Well I hate to say it but any disused railway could at some point be a candidate for reopening.

Or for that matter any quiet backwater 2 TPD branch could become a 6 TPH at some point the way things are moving

A grandfather who lives in a former train station says he can't sell up because of plans to reopen a disused railway following the major collapse at Dawlish.

Eric Rhodes, 67, lives in a former station master's house which is still flanked by the old railway platform.

Pretty Brentor Railway Station was transformed into a three-bedroom dwelling and garden when the Southwestern Junction Line was closed in 1968 under the Beeching cuts.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-route-following-Dawlish-track-collapse.html

 

[LateThanNever]

Possibly because that's the way trains went originally over that line? Also because otherwise you'd have two separate services terminating at St David's from two different directions, and you'd need to change at St David's to get to Central which is where most people want to go in Exeter.

There is something of a 21st century railway mania starting with all the investment currently going into the railway as a whole, so it's just as well this sort of stuff is being discussed so government can consider where best to spend whatever money it decides is worth spending. But Okehampton to Bere Alston wouldn't be at the top of my list, though my nostalgic side says I would love to see it. At the moment there seems to be difficulty justifying a service Exeter to Okehampton, even though the infrastructure is already there.

As you say - yet Devon CC seems very keen to construct a Park & Ride from the Ide Junction on the A30 to Exeter to accommodate all the people arriving from the West - that's the A30 from Okehampton! So they either have to justify the Park & Ride which will require investment and subsidy or put their weight behind a rail connection. I think that American owned Devon & Cornwall railways originally touted for the plan have probably got cold feet and have put the Okehamton line up for sale, and now seem keener on operating anywhere other then Devon & Cornwall so it comes back to a franchise price and that seemed near but was all thrown into disarray by the franchising cock up.
The Okehampton route solution to the Dawlish crisis would be the cheapest and quickest solution for a more robust connectivity to a city of more than a quarter of a million people (and incidentally about the same number in Cornwall - both considerably more than the population in the borders of Scotland by the way). More fancy solutions are unlikely to be well received and are likely to take much longer.
There are also good "bi products" of the scheme such as better connections for North Devon and Cornwall, which are also areas of high unemployment. But it is surely avoiding Plymouth being isolated on regular annual or bi-annual (and always unplanned) occasions that is the real driving force for any scheme. It is just the Okehampton scheme is already half built!

 

[47802]

Frankly that's a fairly ridiculous way of looking at the situation. We're talking about improving a rail corridoor that runs between Plymouth and Exeter. If considering this move seriously, what possible justification could there be to ignore the contribution of the two main population centres. What if we decide to include a Parkway station at Launceston. Should we evaluate this station, but ignore passengers travelling from Tavistock and Okehampton ? The only way such an approach could be justified would be if we were fairly certain that there would be no demand from Okehampton - Crediton to the South or Bere Alston - Tavistock to the North (and I'm pretty certain that that wouldn't be the case).

Unfortunately, this does illustrate precisely why our system for deciding these things is so bad. Considering each part in its own little silo, but with no one capable of putting the various bits together and thinking about the place of this transport corridor holistically - both as a local transport link, and as a wider part of the West Country network.

Frankly I think your argument is ridiculous, The amount of revenue generated by passengers travelling from Tavistock to Okehampton would be very small compared to the high cost of reinstating that section of line, and hence why it should be judged purely as through route and Okehampton and Tavistock are largely irrelevant in this respect. You can serve the most substancial traffic to Tavistock and Okehampton without the missing link.

 

[yorksrob]

Frankly I think your argument is ridiculous, The amount of revenue generated by passengers travelling from Tavistock to Okehampton would be very small compared to the high cost of reinstating that section of line, and hence why it should be judged purely as through route and Okehampton and Tavistock are largely irrelevant in this respect. You can serve the most substancial traffic to Tavistock and Okehampton without the missing link.

This is an extremely poor argument as there are likely to be passengers travelling from Crediton and Okehampton to Plymouth and beyond, and ditto passengers from Tavistock and Bere Alston travelling to Exeter and beyond.

 

[47802]

This is an extremely poor argument as there are likely to be passengers travelling from Crediton and Okehampton to Plymouth and beyond, and ditto passengers from Tavistock and Bere Alston travelling to Exeter and beyond.

Yes and the numbers would be small plus Tavistock/Bare Alston can travel to Exeter and beyond via Plymouth as they do now in the case of Bare Alston, similarly Okehampton Plymouth via Exeter, not quite as conveinent perhaps but would certainly would not justify the cost reopening the missing link, which is why it has to be justified largely on the basis of through route between Exeter and Plymouth.

 

[moggie]

Frankly I think your argument is ridiculous, The amount of revenue generated by passengers travelling from Tavistock to Okehampton would be very small compared to the high cost of reinstating that section of line, and hence why it should be judged purely as through route and Okehampton and Tavistock are largely irrelevant in this respect. You can serve the most substantial traffic to Tavistock and Okehampton without the missing link.

Quite frankly I think you are missing the point.

The point is (for the purposes of debate) is that this week politicians have decided an ADDITIONAL route should exist between Exeter and Plymouth and points west. This could take the form of a by-pass route but after spending the money what do you get for it for the majority of the time? 20 mins saving perhaps but not a lot else. I made the point earlier that if the coast route serving the local communities was damaged again (it will obviously be maintained until such time as another route is in place) then the case for further repair of the coastal is then undermined by the existence of the new nearby by-pass route (but which presumably doesn't / adequately serve those communities it by-passes).

The Okehampton route for the money does provide a permanent additional service to those communities it serves and allows opportunities for new economic development around those communities. It ALSO provides the alternative East West core route in the event the coastal route is temporarily out of use but is unlikely to ever replace it in the medium term. I would imagine if it was chosen then it would have to have significant double track throughout if it was to have a reasonable and useable capacity in the event is raison d'etre was to be needed.

If the coastal route is eventually sacrificed due to weather related events then presumably the writing is on the wall (no pun intended) for the community protected by the coastal railway. This is the time to consider the inland diversion of the GWML route.

Re who pays to maintain the wall without a railway in existence - no idea really, except that until recent political changes BRB retained ownership and maintenance responsibility of many ex Railway structures unless they could offload them to another owner, usually for a token sale fee. So there doesn't seem to be an obvious incentive for NR to remove the railway permanently in the near term.

Re- where does the money come from? Well there seems to be an awful lot of indulgent tunnelling proposed for HS2, so while the choice definitely isn't HS2 or <whatever> it could be HS2 minus a tunnel or three and a new route to pacify the south west AND give them something the locals as well as those from farther afield could use.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well I hate to say it but any disused railway could at some point be a candidate for reopening.

Or for that matter any quiet backwater 2 TPD branch could become a 6 TPH at some point the way things are moving

The full name of the line that Brentor railway station was on was the Plymouth, Devonport and South Western Junction Railway line than ran from Plymouth to Lydford.

 

[HSTEd]

The route via Okehampton would be nearly useless for diversions unless it was largely or completely double track.
Such a route would be stupendously expensive.

You could get a lot of flood defences at Dawlish for that much money.

 

[47802]

Quite frankly I think you are missing the point.

The point is (for the purposes of debate) is that this week politicians have decided an ADDITIONAL route should exist between Exeter and Plymouth and points west. This could take the form of a by-pass route but after spending the money what do you get for it for the majority of the time? 20 mins saving perhaps but not a lot else. I made the point earlier that if the coast route serving the local communities was damaged again (it will obviously be maintained until such time as another route is in place) then the case for further repair of the coastal is then undermined by the existence of the new nearby by-pass route (but which presumably doesn't / adequately serve those communities it by-passes).

The Okehampton route for the money does provide a permanent additional service to those communities it serves and allows opportunities for new economic development around those communities. It ALSO provides the alternative East West core route in the event the coastal route is temporarily out of use but is unlikely to ever replace it in the medium term. I would imagine if it was chosen then it would have to have significant double track throughout if it was to have a reasonable and useable capacity in the event is raison d'etre was to be needed.

The idea that we use Okehampton as a backup route and we will also try and justify it by a new service to Okehampton and Tavistock is half assed solution which doesn't properly address the problem in my view.
If the coastal route is eventually sacrificed due to weather related events then presumably the writing is on the wall (no pun intended) for the community protected by the coastal railway. This is the time to consider the inland diversion of the GWML route.

Re who pays to maintain the wall without a railway in existence - no idea really, except that until recent political changes BRB retained ownership and maintenance responsibility of many ex Railway structures unless they could offload them to another owner, usually for a token sale fee. So there doesn't seem to be an obvious incentive for NR to remove the railway permanently in the near term.

Re- where does the money come from? Well there seems to be an awful lot of indulgent tunnelling proposed for HS2, so while the choice definitely isn't HS2 or <whatever> it could be HS2 minus a tunnel or three and a new route to pacify the south west AND give them something the locals as well as those from farther afield could use.

If you really think that both money will be spent on reopening the Okehampton route and then eventually a Dawlish diversion then that's in the realms of fantasy land quite frankly.

If the Dawlish route needs to be replaced then the solution would be a Dawlish diversion and closure or the Dawlish route, clear and simple, Okehampton is not a solution to that problem, if there is justification to reopen Okehampton fully for the new traffic generated then fine although I personally doubt it, but don't use Dawlish as excuse.

The idea of using Okehampton as a backup to try and justify the reopening of the Okehampton line is half assed solution in my view which doesn't really address the issue properly.