Well that was more or less the conclusion that the eminent scientists who wrote those reports for the Labour government concluded just about everywhere where the railway is next to a big river or low lying land.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)
- Thread starter John S2
- Start date
- Status
Well that was more or less the conclusion that the eminent scientists who wrote those reports for the Labour government concluded just about everywhere where the railway is next to a big river or low lying land.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Of course we could just redouble a route which was made single track when the line through Okehamton.
But there are trains running between Exeter and Bristol....though not today (Sunday) because of Engineering works near Bath.
The point has been made earlier in the thread that there is an alternative route here. Via Athelney, Castle Cary, Westbury and Bath! That means Taunton is NOT cut off by rail. Unlike Devon and Cornwall Goatboy.
However. It is likely to be a long time before the direct route opens as water levels will have to recede so the track foundations can be checked. Also of course The Signalling will need serious work done on it.
I have no problems with a viaduct here. But is this better than a route which keeps the 15th largest City in the UK as well as Cornwall connected by rail?
Last edited:
They take so much longer though that most travel is currently by rail replacement bus instead.
No need for a bridge!
A mate down the pub said a bloke he works with spoke to an engineer and he is outfitting a Voyager with skirts and some huge fans so the trains can hover across, the logic is sound because they are not called the Somerset levels for nothing!
From memory,the Dawlish route is 52 miles compared to 57 for the Okehampton one,so not really a vast difference.Also from memory,i think the Southern route from Exeter St Davids to Waterloo was a couple of miles shorter than the GWR to Paddington,so overall the Southern route to London was not that much longer.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,308
Well: there is no particular reason a viaduct could not be built over the Somerset levels.
The terrain is not difficult in the slightest.
Is anyone willing to pay for it? (This is likely what would happen with a Bristol-Plymouth HSL though).
The terrain is not difficult in the slightest.
Is anyone willing to pay for it? (This is likely what would happen with a Bristol-Plymouth HSL though).
Cliveblackpool
Member
The Somerset Levels need improved drainage etc!
They've been flood plains for 100s of years. It always amazes me that people are surprised their homes/railways/roads etc flood when they are built on a flood plain.
Not really flood plains, as a lot of the Somerset Levels are reclaimed marsh and the like which only exist because they are pumped out.
Pedantic, I know, but DEE-ABD via INV should be considered an alternate route. It might be the long way round, but it can be done.
It's so far that its of no practical use, though.
I did say I was being pedantic.
However, the point remains that while it may not be practical, it is possible. And some people like taking the long way round, I'm getting the DEE-INV straight-through train on Friday just for the fun of it. 
No that's not the Dawlish logic.
If there was already a currently disused embankment running above the levels that because it already exists, could have an alternative route put on it for a very small amount of money in the scheme of things, but was a longer way round so would only be used for a diversion route, but could also reconnect some isolated towns to the network. That would be the Dawlish logic.
In fact there is already a longer and perhaps more robust alternative route which can be used when the Somerset levels route is disrupted or if there is engineering work but that doesn't mean the Somerset levels route will be abandoned. It means work will be done where it can to make Somerset levels line make more robust and will mean that the benefits as a diversion will be taken into account when deciding whether to add extra loops or double track sections to the diversion routes.
The same thing I'm in favour of for Dawlish.
DDB
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
How will building bridges or any other means due to the flooding on the Somerset Levels help in avoiding Dawlish. This is what the thread is supposed to be about.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
The Somerset Levels problems should be deserving of a separate thread, if one does not already exist.
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I'll answer it anyway. I'm not a supporter of reopening out of nostalgia but out of practicality. It is much cheaper and easier to build a railway along an existing alignment as there is less civil engineering to do and much less legal stuff to do if much of the route is either already in railway hands or not built on.
Politics is the art of the possible. We reconnect towns to the network where the opportunity arises. For Portishead and Mansfield it is/was because there was an existing freight only line part or all of the way that could be adapted. We shouldn't refuse to connect towns if they are not in strict order of population.
There is a limit. That's why we go for the cheap option. If money was no option we would put in new direct tunnels through the granite.
Instead we go for the cheap option that allows a limited diversion. Not full two tracking but just a few loops where operationally convenient and cheap to put in.
It avoids the need for buses during planned maintenance on a winter weekend as surveys keep saying that people would rather a longer train journey than have to transfer to buses. It also allows a limited service in times of unplanned disruption and means that the sleeper can still run and stock can still be moved between depots.
The other 99% of the time it provides new journey opportunities to towns without a service and better access to Dartmoor.
When doing cost benefit analysis it is just as important to capture all the benefits as it is to capture all the costs.
DDB
Boysteve
Member
Parts of the Somerset levels are below sea level!
The railway needs to be built higher.
If you look at the largest town's at present without a connection to national rail network it could be argued that Plymouth is currently at the top of that list, with Penzance and Truro coming not that much further down the list (unless you're Cornish and then it's London that been cut off from your network!)
tbtc
Veteran Member
If you look at the largest town's at present without a connection to national rail network it could be argued that Plymouth is currently at the top of that list, with Penzance and Truro coming not that much further down the list (unless you're Cornish and then it's London that been cut off from your network!)
If you are wanting to be pedantic then Belfast has an urban population that's much bigger than Plymouth
Obviously the local chamber of commerce is going to want to keep a railway line - everyone wants cuts as long as they are made elsewhere - but in terms of passenger numbers from intermediate stations, Settle is the only place between Skipton and Carlisle that generates decent numbers - hence this long double tracked railway north of Settle only justifying a two-car DMU every couple of hours.
If its going to be used as a diversionary route for London/Birmingham - Plymouth - Cornwall services then presumably it needs to have long sections of double track?
Otherwise you are going to have to put a large number of "through" passengers onto rail replacement coaches, which defeats the argument.
If you can redouble an existing line and the extra capacity can create 100,000 new journeys a year (as well as speeding up a number of existing journeys) then this needs to be seen against reopening an old line that would generate 100,000 new journeys a year.
What price do you put on reconnecting unserved towns though? If the same expenditure was shown to generate 100,000 passengers from Okehampton & tavistock or generate 100,000 additional passengers on the Yeovil line then I presume you'd go for the first option (?). But what if the figures were 95,000 and 105,000? Where do you draw the line? I'd go for spending money where it benefits the most people (which, in railway terms, probably means "the biggest increase in passenger numbers/ passenger miles").
A local project for local people.
But not something which either half of the coalition is going to be able to score points against each other on.
Services from Exeter to London can be very busy, I could see a double tracked line through Yeovil adding more passengers to the network than a line through Okehampton.
The Yeovil line has long been restricted by single track capacity meaning no scope for extra services, no scope for faster services (since the limited number of trains means that they can't run non-stop services). It could rival the B&H for passenger numbers, if there were capacity to expand.
Fair enough.
Spending is best targetted in the areas where it'll be of biggest benefit. Since rail is mass transportation, that means a lot more money gets spent on densely populated urban areas.
Since the population of Devon and Cornwall are spread over thousands of square miles they get a lower amount of infrastructure investment per head of population, as rail can't serve the spread out populations very effectively.
You can argue that everywhere should have the same amount of education spending per head of population or the same amount of health spending per head of population, but railways don't work like that.
What next? Expecting the Environment Agency to spend the same amount of money on hilly regions that it spends on floodplains and coasts?
That's when the article referred to.
It can be done, but if there's a problem north of Dundee then everyone will be on replacement coaches. Just like if there's a problem at Newport then anyone going to Cardiff from the east/north is going to be on a replacement coach rather than on a diverted service via Shrewsbury and the Heart Of Wales line.
One of the options that could be looked at is running services from Plymouth to London Via Okehampton and Yeovil, involving redoubling of the line between Exeter and Yeovil. As such a route could be the fastest route for many in the South East to the South West (e.g. Southampton to Plymouth, Woking to Exeter/Plymouth and possibly even Portsmouth to Plymouth).
It would then provide a lot of resilience to services in the SW including better options for diversions and likely improvements in journey times (less lost time waiting for single track sections to clear).
The big problem with such a route is that it would require more DMU's to run a more frequent service to Exeter as well as the extra units required for running onto Plymouth (even if that was less frequently i.e. 2tph to Exeter with 1 of those going to Plymouth), so it would then mean that electrifying throughout would be a possible option to overcome the need to order more DMU's. That would then push the costs up significantly, however it would also provide a lot more benefits (e.g. faster journey times, more capacity, etc.) and would make electrification of other routes in the SW more likely to happen. Problem is that it would then take a lot longer to build.
It may well be that if such a scheme was looked and it's BCR was good that it would have to be implemented in stages.
It would then provide a lot of resilience to services in the SW including better options for diversions and likely improvements in journey times (less lost time waiting for single track sections to clear).
The big problem with such a route is that it would require more DMU's to run a more frequent service to Exeter as well as the extra units required for running onto Plymouth (even if that was less frequently i.e. 2tph to Exeter with 1 of those going to Plymouth), so it would then mean that electrifying throughout would be a possible option to overcome the need to order more DMU's. That would then push the costs up significantly, however it would also provide a lot more benefits (e.g. faster journey times, more capacity, etc.) and would make electrification of other routes in the SW more likely to happen. Problem is that it would then take a lot longer to build.
It may well be that if such a scheme was looked and it's BCR was good that it would have to be implemented in stages.
Good post. This constant nonsense we get now about 'no more dmus' shouts 'loco hauled' it seems to me, like Chiltern's 'Mainline' (is it?).
Your points on south coast travel are appreciated. I have posted here that I think a huge market is being missed and all because of the split between SWT and FGW. It's as though we are fighting the gauge wars all over again.
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
If you are wanting to be pedantic then Belfast has an urban population that's much bigger than Plymouth
If its going to be used as a diversionary route for London/Birmingham - Plymouth - Cornwall services then presumably it needs to have long sections of double track?
It already has some existing double track and it is all engineered for double track so it shouldn't be much more difficult then building single track.
Spending is best targetted in the areas where it'll be of biggest benefit. Since rail is mass transportation, that means a lot more money gets spent on densely populated urban areas.
Since the population of Devon and Cornwall are spread over thousands of square miles they get a lower amount of infrastructure investment per head of population, as rail can't serve the spread out populations very effectively.
You can argue that everywhere should have the same amount of education spending per head of population or the same amount of health spending per head of population, but railways don't work like that.
What next? Expecting the Environment Agency to spend the same amount of money on hilly regions that it spends on floodplains and coasts?
Floodplains like the Somerset Levels you mean!!??
If it is established that Plymouth is currently the largest GB city unconnected to the rail network then an alternative route needs to be provided - after all the severance will be months this time, it was a total of 3 weeks in 2012 and more days in 2013. It is a link that cannot be relied on - you can argue that it doesn't lose the local economy £20m a day or whatever but it does cause the local economy to suffer and is highly detrimental to local business investment. For this service the South West has received rail investment per head of £212 [2011] which reduced by 13% over the previous 5 years. The UK average was £363 which went up by £41 or 14% over the same period. So whilst you have a point about mass transit, the South West is not getting its fair share however you look at it. And there are more than .75m people on the end of that, which is quite a lot and that does not include the tripling of numbers in the summer period.
And in the end railways will work - as we have seen - however politicians tell them to work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Good post. This constant nonsense we get now about 'no more dmus' shouts 'loco hauled' it seems to me, like Chiltern's 'Mainline' (is it?).
Your points on south coast travel are appreciated. I have posted here that I think a huge market is being missed and all because of the split between SWT and FGW. It's as though we are fighting the gauge wars all over again.
I agree too!
Last edited:
If you look at the largest town's at present without a connection to national rail network it could be argued that Plymouth is currently at the top of that list, with Penzance and Truro coming not that much further down the list (unless you're Cornish and then it's London that been cut off from your network!)
Truro comes quite a bit down the list believe it or not, St Austell, Falmouth, Camborne, Penzance, and Newquay all have greater populations. If we include surrounding parishes Truro is tiny in comparison with 23k, st Austell 35k, Camborne 55k and Falmouth 26k (all inclusive of surrounding parishes/villages)
Well, you get people hopping on and off, going for walks and visiting places, so I've no doubt the raw entries and exit data underestimates the value of the route. As I mentioned, those two-carriage (actually, very often 3-carriage DMU's as many services have to be strengthened by a 153) are often very busy when I'm on them.
The other point that I mentioned previously is that Okehampton and Tavistock are both rather larger in terms of population than Appleby and Settle, so they do begin with a greater intermediate passenger potential to start off with.
Perhaps it would be better to to have a longer section of double track or two, that could pass two trains in flight rather than traditional short loops. I doubt the cost would be prohibitive and this way the route could cope with diversions without being double track throughout.
An interesting conundrum. If we thought that redoubling the existing route were likely to generate the same number of new journeys (which I doubt would be the case, as it would not be suffering from the same level of suppressed demand), then we would have to look at the value of those journeys from an economic point of view. All things being equal, a town that is off the railway network is likely to suffer from a greater level of deprivation than one which is on it. It's residents will miss out on opportunities that those in the railway connected town take for granted.
On the existing route, those who have little option but use the railway are likely to be already catered for with a lot of the growth being discretionary. That's not to say that this is a bad thing - it's just that the regeneration effect is likely to be more valuable to a town that doesn't already have a railway.
If the redoubling had the potential to generate vastly greater numbers of passengers, then it would be worth considering that investment on its own merit, however, the key point with this route is the new diversionary capacity that bolsters the case for the new route.
In terms of benefiting the greatest number of people, it depends what that benefit is. A speeded up journey time is a benefit, but it's no where near as beneficial to the individual or the economy as a new journey.
But, it is something that they can take the credit for, and coming out of a recession (which frankly, most people haven't come out of yet) good news is something that's in short supply.
I've no doubt the services are busy and the line has the potential to generate more passengers. However, I'm yet to be convinced that there would be the same level of suppressed demand. Perhaps there's scope for lengthening the trains from six to more carriages if needs be.
That's all well and good, but the Yeovil line is hardly a densely populated urban area, yet as you say so yourself, it supports a busy railway service. In a country with a varied geography such as the UK, an over-simplistic belief that railways work in urban areas but not elsewhere simply doesn't work.
No ones suggesting that everywhere in the country should have the same level of infrastructure spend. Just that some towns should be linked to the railway network (and that for it's population, the West Country has been neglected over many years).
Maybe if we start having problems on these routes which lead to them experiencing unplanned closures for weeks on end, we will have to start working on ways to overcome them. But for the time being, the recurring problem is on the Dawlish coast.
Last edited:
I have a suggestion that you may find interesting. Many people have mentioned about speeding up journey times from Penzance and Plymouth to London and other locations as well as alternatives to the Dawlish sea wall route.
I think the Dartmoor route should be reinstated to two track permanent way throughout its length then construct a new chord section north of Cowley Junction from the GW mainline to the Barnstaple/Okehampton line to create a resilient solution. The only problem I can see would be finding a way into Plymouth without the need for reversal operations.
Patrick Hallgate of Network Rail has stated that it would cost £400-500million to reinstate the Dartmoor route, but I think this amount may be a bit over-the-top. However, if this was the case and the invested amount was projected over a twenty-five year operational term the project should pay dividends and would also provide North Devon with a much-needed rail infrastructure.
I think the Dartmoor route should be reinstated to two track permanent way throughout its length then construct a new chord section north of Cowley Junction from the GW mainline to the Barnstaple/Okehampton line to create a resilient solution. The only problem I can see would be finding a way into Plymouth without the need for reversal operations.
Patrick Hallgate of Network Rail has stated that it would cost £400-500million to reinstate the Dartmoor route, but I think this amount may be a bit over-the-top. However, if this was the case and the invested amount was projected over a twenty-five year operational term the project should pay dividends and would also provide North Devon with a much-needed rail infrastructure.
Yeah, what does he know!
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,270
Is that so you can miss out Exeter? Why ever would you want to do that?
Reversal is hardly an issue for DMUs or even HSTs and presumably IEPs. If it's done during a station call it possibly adds two or three minutes to the normal timings while the driver changes ends. I don't think it is considered an issue when trains run Plymouth > Exeter > Honiton; and I don't think it was ever considered a significant issue when diverted HSTs were reversing at Banbury, or at Westbury to/from Waterloo.
- Status