Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Bald Rick]

The best idea would be a 7.5 mile tunnel. Network Rail could save their organisation millions of pound as they would not have to purchase any land under the tunnel. The only expense would be the acquisition of land up to the tunnel portals. The only problem is that building a tunnel is a much slower process compared with routing a line overland.

Land is cheap, especially in the boondocks. Tunnelling machines, tunnel linings and tunnellers are not.

 

[Gadfly]

The problem with this discussion is that some people want not just a Dawlish avoiding line, but a South Devon avoiding line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Land is cheap, especially in the boondocks.

Would there be much in the way of objections from local councils and the County Council ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would there be much in the way of objections from local councils and the County Council ?

For the railway - probably not. For being called "in the boondocks", almost certainly.

 

[Kettledrum]

If the DAL exists there is absolutely no reason to complete the entire ex-Southern route.
Branch lines to Okehampton and Tavistock are far cheaper than a through route.

It's a really big IF here. To construct a new line through virgin countryside gives you loads of political grief - just look at HS2 - no-one wants it in their back yard. It's actually much easier in political terms to re-open a railway line that closed in the past.

The repair work at Dawlish appears to be going much better than first expected. With modern technologies, there may be a solution that allows the coast to be protected much better than in the past, and therefore safeguard the existing Dawlish route anyway. It could be for example a huge strategically positioned breakwater.

I'm really not sure that a Dawlish Avoiding Line would happen.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It could be for example a huge strategically positioned breakwater.

....stretching from Portland Bill to Brixham...

Well, you did ask for a huge one.

 

[jmc100]

It's actually much easier in political terms to re-open a railway line that closed in the past.

I think this is true with regards to the missing stretch of line between Okehampton and Bere Alston. This alternative route is nearly complete although covered with vegetation, more so in the cuttings. The majority of the bridges, tunnels and viaducts are still in place and the stations are some fine examples of Southern Region architecture that have heritage value and should be preserved. The councils along the route seem in favour of the line reopening as it would improve their economies. The only problem would be that of train reversals at Exeter and Plymouth but I think this could be overcome with some careful route planning.

The Dawlish sea wall route should be kept as the priority main line until such time as a more direct route can be installed, preferably a tunnel rather than an overland route as land in Devon is on the expensive side. If the line needed to be closed for any reason with the alternative route in place at least the trains would keep running and not be cut off from the rest of the country.

 

[341o2]

....stretching from Portland Bill to Brixham...

Well, you did ask for a huge one.

double entendre?

can't see the Dawlish collapse thread, announced today line will reopen 4 April

On building a new line, can see problems with land aquistion. Land is cheap when it can only be used for agricultural or plantation use, for example.

One local line, now closed, from Brockenhurst to Ringwood became known as Castleman's Corkscrew because refusal of landowners to allow construction of the railway on their land

And the problems encountered when proposed routes for Eurostar announced

Far easdier to reinstate Bere Alston - Tavistock primarily to improve rail facilities north of Dartmoor, in the event of another major disruption around Dawlish. west Devon and Cornwall will have alternative rail access

News reports regarding the damage to Cornwall's economy highlight reliance on the tourist trade and visitors are not coming under the impression that Cornwall is somehow totally isolated from the rest of the UK

 

[jmc100]

The problem with this discussion is that some people want not just a Dawlish avoiding line, but a South Devon avoiding line.

That's exactly what we do not want to see.

Any alternative route would be a backup for the main route should anything unforeseen happen.

 

[LateThanNever]

It is rarely ever closed.

Depends what you mean by rare. I would could unplanned annual closures for days and weeks and now months during the last three years as frequent for a mainline and all the more important when it is the only line.

 

[47802]

That's exactly what we do not want to see.

Any alternative route would be a backup for the main route should anything unforeseen happen.

Well not exactly as most the Okehampton camp try justify it on the basis of building it now, and then at some point in the future spend a whole load more money on some form of DAL, which is crazy, as is spending £400 to £500 million on an occasional diversion route which doesn't really address the problem.

Anyway once Dawlish open at best it will be a few quid for some kind of improved sea defences and the rest will be forgotten.

 

[yorksrob]

Well not exactly as most the Okehampton camp try justify it on the basis of building it now, and then at some point in the future spend a whole load more money on some form of DAL, which is crazy, as is spending £400 to £500 million on an occasional diversion route which doesn't really address the problem.

Anyway once Dawlish open at best it will be a few quid for some kind of improved sea defences and the rest will be forgotten.

That's poppycock.

The majority of people arguing for Okehampton do so on the basis that the existing Dawlish route will be strengthened and maintained as a mainline (myself included) not that the whole of Torbay should be permanently closed to the railway.

It suits the purposes of those who dont want to see the Okehampton route to suggest that we wish to abandon tbe whole of South Devon to the sea, but the reality is, the sea wall route will be with us for many decades to come.

 

[47802]

That's poppycock.

The majority of people arguing for Okehampton do so on the basis that the existing Dawlish route will be strengthened and maintained as a mainline (myself included) not that the whole of Torbay should be permanently closed to the railway.

No it isnt there are quite a few posts on here which when you suggest that the Okehampton route doesn't really solve the problem and doesn't serve Torbay, then come back and say well we could build a DAL at a later date. I don't think anybody has suggested that Torbay should be closed to the railway but if you put all your money into Okehampton and the situation at Dawlish becomes difficult well what happens then?

It suits the purposes of those who dont want to see the Okehampton route to suggest that we wish to abandon tbe whole of South Devon to the sea, but the reality is, the sea wall route will be with us for many decades to come.

Well If that's true then we don't really need the Okehampton route or DAL either.

 

[yorksrob]

No it isnt there are quite a few posts on here which when you suggest that the Okehampton route doesn't really solve the problem and doesn't serve Torbay, then come back and say well we could build a DAL at a later date.
.

That would only be in the event of major cataclysmic climate change. The problem isn't that the Dawlish route needs replacing. It's that it needs back up (as the vast majority of main lines have), particularly given the fact that it will continue to have to close periodically.

Well If that's true then we don't really need the Okehampton route or DAL either.

So you'd rather we had no back up routes than an Okehampton one if you can't have your preferred option. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[tbtc]

Firstly, well done to those involved at ground level for getting the line rebuilt.

Secondly, imagine that we spend £500m on a predominantly double tracked Tavistock – Okehampton line, linking Plymouth to Exeter... allowing an hourly service via Dartmoor... I’d there are going to be five (?) types of passenger:

1. Tavistock to Plymouth (and Cornwall)
2. Tavistock to Exeter (and the rest of Devon/ further afield)
3. Okehampton to Plymouth (and Cornwall)
4. Okehampton to Exeter (and the rest of Devon/ further afield)
5. Cornwall/ Plymouth to Exeter/ further afield

...I’d warrant that the biggest such passenger flow (in year-round terms, not worrying obsessing with a few weekends in the summer holidays) would be Tavistock to Plymouth, by some margin – a clear majority.

However, you could serve that market with just seven miles of single track (Bere Alston to Tavistock) and one new station (Tavistock). I’m no engineer, but I’d imagine that this would cost a fraction of the £500m. So, for maybe a fifth of the total budget you could meet maybe two-thirds of the overall demand?

The second biggest market (Okehampton to Exeter) wouldn’t need much spending to supply some service – though clearly a much smaller market than Tavistock to Exeter.

In which case, it’s very hard to justify the additional expenditure for Tavistock to Okehampton, and for the necessary upgrades/ double tracking.

Fixing Dawlish is happening. But Janners and the Cornish feel that is no longer sufficient. You are in danger of trying to argue that because we shouldn't be ever so slightly ambitious we should just go home and shut up.
What would Mr Brunel say?

There’s being "ever so slightly ambitious", and there’s spending £500m on a line linking two relatively small towns, trying to justify it as a diversionary route for a line that’s open 99% of the time.

Slight difference.

If you didn't try to pass off some sort of spurious argument that a shuttle from Plymouth to Tavistock was somehow comparable in value to a through route then I wouldn't have to state the bleedin' obvious in the first place

Most of the people who are going to use an Exeter – Okehampton – Tavistock – Plymouth service (over a year) are going to use it only between Tavistock and Plymouth. Those passengers could be supplied by a simple seven mile section from Bere Alston...

...but you don’t want a straightforward route that only runs as Tavistock because you have your heart set on reopening the whole thing (even though there are clearly diminishing marginal returns beyond Tavistock).

That’s the difference between us – I can see some benefit in some of the Dartmoor scheme, whereas you won’t accept anything short of a full reopening of a line from Plymouth to Exeter

No one has said that both options would cost the same amount. My whole argument is that the through route will cost more but it will also provide more benefits.

Of course a through route would “provide more benefits” – you’re making more Strawman arguments – the subtle point is that if you can get 66% of the benefit for 20% of the cost then those “additional benefits” come at a silly cost.

I'm happy to argue the figures/ percentages, but some bits of this scheme have much better business cases than others.

"oh, we know the Tavistock and Okehampton branches are doing well, and we know the the link between the two would be good for the economy, but the link between them is just too expensive"

The middle section would be a “nice to have” for those around Dartmoor, but that doesn’t mean that it washes its face when compared to other things that the railway could spend its money on.

The key additional factor is the diversionary capability, and that relies on the central section.

...on the “1%” of the time that the Dawlish route is unavailable (to use your own figure)? Expensive bit of capability. Aren't there other things we could spend the money on?

We have congestion/connectivity problems in West and North Devon that have been recognised as requiring a rail solution.

Recognised as requiring a rail solution by who? By Network Rail? By FGW? Or by enthusiasts who want to turn the clock back fifty years?

A "marginal" difference between a population of 2,000 and one of 11,000

I keep being told that a station for Tavistock could act as a “railhead” for the tens/hundreds of thousands of people in north Devon/ eastern Cornwall who could drive there – just like a station at Gunnislake or Bere Alston could – but now we are only allowed to use the populations of each town?

You may have avoided the Settle Carlisle in your comparison, but its use as a diversion certainly featured in opposing the closure campaign.

The S&C is sometimes used as a diversionary route, sometimes Virgin choose not to use it (and put people on coaches up the M6 instead) – but since the only passenger service it gets is a 158 every couple of hours, it’s a weak example to use as a route that justifies other rural lines.

Interesting to note that Rail Magazine has come out in favour of Okehampton whilst Modern Railways appears to have come out in favour of the Dawlish avoider.

Rail Magazine 1
Modern Railways 0

on this occasion.

Or, perhaps, Modern Railways is the magazine of railway professionals who understand how these things work, whilst Rail gets more of the nostalgic enthusiast market? Both magazines know their market and play to the prejudices of their readers?

, the route through Okehampton could have a significant impact on the local economey. For instance if it were possible to retain a cycle route as well as the rail route through Okehampton people could catch a train from Exeter and Plymouth to Okehampton to hire a bike. It could even provide for new tourist opertunities, for instance people cycleing between two stations on the line as even if they had their own cycles they are likely to want refreshments.

As even a small amount of money spent in one local business can pass through several local business before it leaves a region. For instance a cyclists buys a cup of tea and a cake in a cafe (£4), the cafe owner then uses some of that money to pay a local company for the produce that they had to supplied (e.g. cake and milk), that supplier then uses some of that money to pay the local farmer(s) and businesses who supplies them, who then in tern have people who supply them. In addition any money used to pay staff (in the first or any subsiquent business) then is likely to also pass though other local business. By the time that £4 leaves the local area (through taxes or paying non local business) it could well be that it has been accounted as significantly more than that by the business which it has passed through their books.

There’s an economic multiplier, yes, but you’d need a lot of £4 tea/cakes purchased to justify a £500m railway. There’d be a much bigger impact if you wanted to (re)open a line serving larger places currently unserved by the railway (which led to people getting jobs etc).

Cannot vouch for the 1.6 million in Devon and Cornwall which seems a bit high to me but the population of Torbay is not a massive connurbation as would normally be understood with just over 130k. Whereas Cornwall is just over half a million and Plymouth alone just over a quarter of a million. Torbay is therefore only about 14% of the population of Plymouth and Cornwall never mind the whole peninsula!!

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

The population of Torbay is a lot more reliant upon regular trains to Exeter than the population of Cornwall (spread over a much larger area, and therefore much harder for the railway to serve.

The line through Dawlish is much more important to the average resident of Torbay than the average resident of Cornwall.

Freak waves do exist.
I experienced one many years ago at Trebarwith Strand. (Perfect sunny afternoon, sunbathing etc.)
First a roar, then people screaming and scrambling up onto the rocks, as a huge wave rolled in. Low tide became high tide in seconds. Thanks to quick actions from locals on the beach there were no casualties.

How do you propose that we deal with freak events like this though?

If Dawlish is blocked, Torbay would then still have rail access to rail transport, via Plymouth

Nobody is going to us a train from Paignton to Exeter via Tavistock – it’d take far too long (just like a train from Plymouth to Exeter via Tavistock will probably take longer than a Rail Replacement Coach)

Doing nothing/ back burner is not an option

Yes it is. It always is.

Starting from the position that “we must spend a large sum of money” doesn’t always work.

The bbc report emphasises again that the South West is & has been seriously underfunded

...only if you think that every person in the UK should have the same amount of infrastructure investment spent on them (and ignore the fact that mass transit works a lot better in densely populated urban areas).

Spend the money where its best needed.

. Tavistock, Okehampton, the National Park and the rest of the surrounding area need links all year round

Need? By what definition?

One interesting point in the report a 40 minute saving is valued at £6 per passenger. If that is the case (assuming 12,000 per day between Plymouth and Exeter, when the total entry/exits for Plymouth is about 7,000) the benefit of about 13 minutes of time saving (which is likely to be more than could be achieved between Exeter and Newton Abbot given the current fastest journey time of 18 minutes) works out at about £24,000 per day, or £8,736,000 per year (364 days per year), or £349m over 40 years

Is that 12,000 per day the number in each direction? That would mean that the “£20 MILLION A DAY” figure would work out at each return trip from Plymouth to Exeter being worth over three thousand pounds to the economy. Just to put things into perspective.

If the DAL exists there is absolutely no reason to complete the entire ex-Southern route.
Branch lines to Okehampton and Tavistock are far cheaper than a through route.

Agreed

The problem with this discussion is that some people want not just a Dawlish avoiding line, but a South Devon avoiding line.

Agreed – some people will try anything to justify this Okehampton line though.

The first sign of a lost argument is denigrating the opposition.

Fact: the Dawlish sea wall will not be abandoned to the sea even if your precious DAL is built because of the wider social good it achieves..

Okay

 

[47802]

That would only be in the event of major cataclysmic climate change. The problem isn't that the Dawlish route needs replacing. It's that it needs back up (as the vast majority of main lines have), particularly given the fact that it will continue to have to close periodically.
.

Plenty of mainlines don't really have a backup including Plymouth to Penzance, but what you are saying in order to justify Okehampton is well Dawlish is vulnerable so it needs a backup but its not so vulnerable we need to replace it. Reality is I think neither you or I know how vulnerable will be over the next 30 years, and on basis my view you either take the view that will be OK and leave it, or if not you replace it, and not a half arsed backup solution with other motivations.

So you'd rather we had no back up routes than an Okehampton one if you can't have your preferred option. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And where exactly does it say that in my statement!

 

[MarkyT]

Reality is I think neither you or I know how vulnerable will be over the next 30 years, and on basis my view you either take the view that will be OK and leave it, or if not you replace it.

I have always assumed the coast route would be retained for the long term foreseeable future in conjunction with any Dawlish Avoiding Line, with the express services switching to the new line and local trains continuing on the coast, together with any freight and excursion traffic. Following the high quality repair of the section damaged most recently, and a continuing and neccessary effort to further secure the structures, the lower traffic levels on the coast remaining after a DAL would provide improved routine engineering access opportunity to the wall and cliffs for their maintenance and reconstruction.

The coast is a busy route now where the frequent slow stopping trains compete for path-space with much quicker expresses. The need to maintain a frequent and well spread pattern for each service type tends to use available track capacity to the maximum. Waiting in the Dawlish Warren platform loops to allow expresses to overtake is possible but adds around 5 minutes to the local journey time and the need to choreograph the precision manouevre adds performance risk to the whole timetable. Adding a pair of fast tracks all or most of the way from Exeter to Newton Abbot could increase the corridor capacity many times, with more frequent expresses always being able to overtake locals, which could themselves be increased in number and be scheduled more flexibly without blocking the fast paths.

A local only service on the coast means engineering access would be available more readily to carry out routine and preventive maintenance on the sea wall structures, and the retention of two way working on the inner (up) track would continue to permit the outer (down) track to be closed easily temporarily at quiet times to provide space to work and protect staff and machinery from traffic.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Plenty of mainlines don't really have a backup including Plymouth to Penzance, but what you are saying in order to justify Okehampton is well Dawlish is vulnerable so it needs a backup but its not so vulnerable we need to replace it. Reality is I think neither you or I know how vulnerable will be over the next 30 years, and on basis my view you either take the view that will be OK and leave it, or if not you replace it, and not a half arsed backup solution with other motivations.

Have you a property on the old LSWR?

I agree there should be a back up railway as far as Bodmin!!

Seriously, Plymouth is a large City with enormous potential.
As well as a faster line to Exeter, eg new route Newton Abbot to Exeter
It also needs better linking to Tavistock, Okehamton, Dartmoor etc.
Buses serving Tintagel, Camelford, Launceston to a parkway station. – Sowton Down for instance.
Bude, Holsworthy to Okehampton for trains to Plymouth/ Exeter etc.
It will not become redundant if they build a S Devon fast line!
Running buses between Plymouth and Tiverton Parkway seems to happen fairly regularly.

 

[47802]

I have always assumed the coast route would be retained for the long term foreseeable future in conjunction with any Dawlish Avoiding Line, with the express services switching to the new line and local trains continuing on the coast, together with any freight and excursion traffic. Following the high quality repair of the section damaged most recently, and a continuing and neccessary effort to further secure the structures, the lower traffic levels on the coast remaining after a DAL would provide improved routine engineering access opportunity to the wall and cliffs for their maintenance and reconstruction.

The coast is a busy route now where the frequent slow stopping trains compete for path-space with much quicker expresses. The need to maintain a frequent and well spread pattern for each service type tends to use available track capacity to the maximum. Waiting in the Dawlish Warren platform loops to allow expresses to overtake is possible but adds around 5 minutes to the local journey time and the need to choreograph the precision manouevre adds performance risk to the whole timetable. Adding a pair of fast tracks all or most of the way from Exeter to Newton Abbot could increase the corridor capacity many times, with more frequent expresses always being able to overtake locals, which could themselves be increased in number and be scheduled more flexibly without blocking the fast paths.

A local only service on the coast means engineering access would be available more readily to carry out routine and preventive maintenance on the sea wall structures, and the retention of two way working on the inner (up) track would continue to permit the outer (down) track to be closed easily temporarily at quiet times to provide space to work and protect staff and machinery from traffic.

When I say replace I mean replace as in the mainline, I don't envisage the coastal route closing either but perhaps there may come a time when it becomes too difficult and costly or it gets closed more frequently, in which case only Dawlish and Teignmouth are affected, unlike Okehampton where we are spending £400 to £500 million on a backup that doesn't replace the mainline.

Then we get examples of the S&C trotted out, to justify Okehampton except we are not spending £400 million relaying the track, the S&C also has some freight, and in terms of diversion virgin would rather use buses now. Maybe the TOC would still rather use buses if the Okehampton
diversion is built, afterall it might be quicker and you will still need buses to Torbay

 

[LateThanNever]

Firstly, well done to those involved at ground level for getting the line rebuilt.

Secondly, imagine that we spend £500m on a predominantly double tracked Tavistock – Okehampton line, linking Plymouth to Exeter... allowing an hourly service via Dartmoor... I’d there are going to be five (?) types of passenger:

1. Tavistock to Plymouth (and Cornwall)
2. Tavistock to Exeter (and the rest of Devon/ further afield)
3. Okehampton to Plymouth (and Cornwall)
4. Okehampton to Exeter (and the rest of Devon/ further afield)
5. Cornwall/ Plymouth to Exeter/ further afield

...I’d warrant that the biggest such passenger flow (in year-round terms, not worrying obsessing with a few weekends in the summer holidays) would be Tavistock to Plymouth, by some margin – a clear majority.

However, you could serve that market with just seven miles of single track (Bere Alston to Tavistock) and one new station (Tavistock). I’m no engineer, but I’d imagine that this would cost a fraction of the £500m. So, for maybe a fifth of the total budget you could meet maybe two-thirds of the overall demand?

The second biggest market (Okehampton to Exeter) wouldn’t need much spending to supply some service – though clearly a much smaller market than Tavistock to Exeter.

In which case, it’s very hard to justify the additional expenditure for Tavistock to Okehampton, and for the necessary upgrades/ double tracking.



There’s being "ever so slightly ambitious", and there’s spending £500m on a line linking two relatively small towns, trying to justify it as a diversionary route for a line that’s open 99% of the time.

Slight difference.

£500m was quoted by Network Rail in the Transport Select Committee so needs taking with a pinch of salt. Devon County Council estimated it at £100m so the real answer is probably somewhere between the two.
Nor is the line is open 99% of the time - if it never closes again this year it's will have been open less than 90% of the time. And forget the idea that it has been so well rebuilt this time that it will never close again because in rough weather lots of debris (even including boats and bits of beach hut) ends up fouling the track - so it's closed again...
Most of the people who are going to use an Exeter – Okehampton – Tavistock – Plymouth service (over a year) are going to use it only between Tavistock and Plymouth. Those passengers could be supplied by a simple seven mile section from Bere Alston...

...but you don’t want a straightforward route that only runs as Tavistock because you have your heart set on reopening the whole thing (even though there are clearly diminishing marginal returns beyond Tavistock).

That’s the difference between us – I can see some benefit in some of the Dartmoor scheme, whereas you won’t accept anything short of a full reopening of a line from Plymouth to Exeter.

The Okehampton route is already half built - and nothing else is. It falls in to the quick win category.

Of course a through route would “provide more benefits” – you’re making more Strawman arguments – the subtle point is that if you can get 66% of the benefit for 20% of the cost then those “additional benefits” come at a silly cost.

I'm happy to argue the figures/ percentages, but some bits of this scheme have much better business cases than others.

The middle section would be a “nice to have” for those around Dartmoor, but that doesn’t mean that it washes its face when compared to other things that the railway could spend its money on. Doesn't mean it doesn't either!



...on the “1%” of the time that the Dawlish route is unavailable (to use your own figure)? Expensive bit of capability. Aren't there other things we could spend the money on?



Recognised as requiring a rail solution by who? By Network Rail? By FGW?
By Devon County Council.
Or by enthusiasts who want to turn the clock back fifty years?



I keep being told that a station for Tavistock could act as a “railhead” for the tens/hundreds of thousands of people in north Devon/ eastern Cornwall who could drive there – just like a station at Gunnislake or Bere Alston could – but now we are only allowed to use the populations of each town?



The S&C is sometimes used as a diversionary route, sometimes Virgin choose not to use it (and put people on coaches up the M6 instead) – but since the only passenger service it gets is a 158 every couple of hours, it’s a weak example to use as a route that justifies other rural lines.



Or, perhaps, Modern Railways is the magazine of railway professionals who understand how these things work, whilst Rail gets more of the nostalgic enthusiast market? Both magazines know their market and play to the prejudices of their readers?



There’s an economic multiplier, yes, but you’d need a lot of £4 tea/cakes purchased to justify a £500m railway.
You do, but it's not proposed to open it just so we can have tea and cakes tomorrow afternoon. It's so the great grandkids can have tea and cakes in 2100!
There’d be a much bigger impact if you wanted to (re)open a line serving larger places currently unserved by the railway (which led to people getting jobs etc). Tourism creates jobs too!



Lies, damned lies and statistics? That is more relevant to your assertion below.

The population of Torbay is a lot more reliant upon regular trains to Exeter than the population of Cornwall (spread over a much larger area, and therefore much harder for the railway to serve. In fact the railway serves all the most densely populated areas of Cornwall.
The line through Dawlish is much more important to the average resident of Torbay than the average resident of Cornwall.
What evidence is there for this? If it's true then the railway operators have got something very, very wrong because more trains go to Plymouth from Exeter than go to Paignton. Indeed the service on the Paignton branch was recently improved as a result of an EU grant - hardly a testament to Torbay residents voting for the train with their feet. More an effort to entice them with a more regular subsidised service.
The Dawlish line is used by many more long distance passengers than passengers from Torbay. Just look at the trains!



Nobody is going to us a train from Paignton to Exeter via Tavistock – it’d take far too long (just like a train from Plymouth to Exeter via Tavistock will probably take longer than a Rail Replacement Coach)



Yes it is. It always is.

Starting from the position that “we must spend a large sum of money” doesn’t always work.



...only if you think that every person in the UK should have the same amount of infrastructure investment spent on them (and ignore the fact that mass transit works a lot better in densely populated urban areas).

Spend the money where its best needed.
A quarter of a million Plymothians - whose population density is actually greater than Manchester or the West Mids - would agree.



Need? By what definition?



Is that 12,000 per day the number in each direction? That would mean that the “£20 MILLION A DAY” figure would work out at each return trip from Plymouth to Exeter being worth over three thousand pounds to the economy. Just to put things into perspective.

There is also a cost to the economy when things do not happen and there are also business investment decisions that have gone against Plymouth - never mind Cornwall - because of their fragile connections to the wider UK.



Agreed



Agreed – some people will try anything to justify this Okehampton line though.





Okay

.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When I say replace I mean replace as in the mainline, I don't envisage the coastal route closing either but perhaps there may come a time when it becomes too difficult and costly or it gets closed more frequently, in which case only Dawlish and Teignmouth are affected, unlike Okehampton where we are spending £400 to £500 million on a backup that doesn't replace the mainline.

Then we get examples of the S&C trotted out, to justify Okehampton except we are not spending £400 million relaying the track, the S&C also has some freight, and in terms of diversion virgin would rather use buses now. Maybe the TOC would still rather use buses if the Okehampton
diversion is built, afterall it might be quicker and you will still need buses to Torbay

I thought that it was usually more profitable for train operators to use buses than divert trains ?- yet another fault of the franchising system...

 

[D1009]

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/6845

At the hearing of the Transport Select Committee on Tuesday of last week, it became clear to me that the local politicians who were called to give evidence in the first session see the South West economy already suffering from a poor rail service to and from London compared with other parts of the UK, and the complete closure of the route since the start of the Whiteball block was the last straw. I was actually quite impressed by the importance they see the railway as having to the region as a whole.

Against this background I don't believe the Okehampton route has any chance as it would do nothing to improve journey times compared to what is there currently. In fact I believe the only time it was mentioned was when Patrick Hallgate was asked about his TV interview, and he made it clear that he had been quoted out of context and Network Rail had not decided on a preferred solution.

 

[Bald Rick]

.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought that it was usually more profitable for train operators to use buses than divert trains ?- yet another fault of the franchising system...

Not a fault of the franchising system at all. It's just that for low volume flows, buses are much cheaper.

 

[47802]

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/6845

At the hearing of the Transport Select Committee on Tuesday of last week, it became clear to me that the local politicians who were called to give evidence in the first session see the South West economy already suffering from a poor rail service to and from London compared with other parts of the UK, and the complete closure of the route since the start of the Whiteball block was the last straw. I was actually quite impressed by the importance they see the railway as having to the region as a whole.

Against this background I don't believe the Okehampton route has any chance as it would do nothing to improve journey times compared to what is there currently. In fact I believe the only time it was mentioned was when Patrick Hallgate was asked about his TV interview, and he made it clear that he had been quoted out of context and Network Rail had not decided on a preferred solution.

Indeed seems to be strong requirement there for reduced journey time with any new route, which is hardly surprising really given the current timings.

 

[yorksrob]

There’s being "ever so slightly ambitious", and there’s spending £500m on a line linking two relatively small towns, trying to justify it as a diversionary route for a line that’s open 99% of the time.
Slight difference.

Talking of “slight differences”, are you not ever so slightly suspicious about the discrepancy between the supposed £25m for the single line to Tavistock and £500m for the admittedly slightly longer middle section ? Whatever you say about the £25m for Tavistock, it has been costed by someone who is a long way down the line to funding and building that link, so it is a lot more likely to be realistic than the £500m figure. I simply don’t see how that middle section could cost that much more, unless we were using gold plated rails. My suspicion is that the £500m is a ball park figure for a full double track all the way through line, in which case, it is unlikely to be the cost of the middle section.

Most of the people who are going to use an Exeter – Okehampton – Tavistock – Plymouth service (over a year) are going to use it only between Tavistock and Plymouth. Those passengers could be supplied by a simple seven mile section from Bere Alston...

...but you don’t want a straightforward route that only runs as Tavistock because you have your heart set on reopening the whole thing (even though there are clearly diminishing marginal returns beyond Tavistock).
That’s the difference between us – I can see some benefit in some of the Dartmoor scheme, whereas you won’t accept anything short of a full reopening of a line from Plymouth to Exeter

Whilst we’re getting onto existentialist arguments about how different we are, I can see the benefit of opening the branch to Tavistock, but I just feel the route will be a far more use to the whole area (including Tavistock residents) as a through route. Just as you will not accept any reopening beyond that which has already been decided as a fait accomplis. Also, the point that you are missing is that a branch to Tavistock will not offer anything in terms of increased resilience to the South West (which, in case you’d forgotten) is the point of this whole thread.

Of course a through route would “provide more benefits” – you’re making more Strawman arguments – the subtle point is that if you can get 66% of the benefit for 20% of the cost then those “additional benefits” come at a silly cost.

I'm happy to argue the figures/ percentages, but some bits of this scheme have much better business cases than others.

But your supposed “66%” of the benefit for “20%” of the costs yet again completely ignores the fact that for the corridor to have any sort of benefit whatsoever in terms of resilience requires the full route.
Is it really so difficult for people to comprehend that a railway line can have more than one purpose ? providing year round passenger links and diversionary benefits. I don’t get this mental block.

The middle section would be a “nice to have” for those around Dartmoor, but that doesn’t mean that it washes its face when compared to other things that the railway could spend its money on.
...on the “1%” of the time that the Dawlish route is unavailable (to use your own figure)? Expensive bit of capability. Aren't there other things we could spend the money on?

Like I say, you can spend the same money on improving access to the National Park and improving resilience to the South West and improving congestion around Tavistock. The point is we’re not spending this alleged £500m just on the time when Dawlish might not be available.

Recognised as requiring a rail solution by who? By Network Rail? By FGW? Or by enthusiasts who want to turn the clock back fifty years?

Local Authorities in Okehampton and Tavistock

I keep being told that a station for Tavistock could act as a “railhead” for the tens/hundreds of thousands of people in north Devon/ eastern Cornwall who could drive there – just like a station at Gunnislake or Bere Alston could – but now we are only allowed to use the populations of each town?

Tavistock will indeed act as a railhead for people in the wider hinterland, but surely you must see that a settlement of 11,000 people is going to have more passenger potential than one of 2,000. That’s fairly obvious isn’t it ?

Or, perhaps, Modern Railways is the magazine of railway professionals who understand how these things work, whilst Rail gets more of the nostalgic enthusiast market? Both magazines know their market and play to the prejudices of their readers?

Obviously everyone you disagree with is just a nostalgic enthusiast, harking back to the fifties and wanting the reopening of every branch line that ever closed. This obviously includes the editorial team of Rail.

There’s an economic multiplier, yes, but you’d need a lot of £4 tea/cakes purchased to justify a £500m railway. There’d be a much bigger impact if you wanted to (re)open a line serving larger places currently unserved by the railway (which led to people getting jobs etc).

The fact is, part of this allegedly £500m railway (which I note you’ve already decreed would have to be double track throughout) will be built anyway. The Tavistock end would need to be built and the Okehampton end would need to be improved to run their services, so part of that £500m will be accounted for anyway. The only other options on the table offer nothing more than 15 or less minutes off of the length of existing journeys.

Plenty of mainlines don't really have a backup including Plymouth to Penzance, but what you are saying in order to justify Okehampton is well Dawlish is vulnerable so it needs a backup but its not so vulnerable we need to replace it.

I think we’ve established the South Wales mainline and Dundee to Aberdeen, but there really aren’t many major routes which don’t have an alternative, but yes. You’ve summarised my view pretty well.

Reality is I think neither you or I know how vulnerable will be over the next 30 years, and on basis my view you either take the view that will be OK and leave it, or if not you replace it, and not a half arsed backup solution with other motivations.

I don’t really think that’s a good enough evaluation of the situation. We know:
• Over its existence, this stretch of route has suffered far more unplanned long term closures due to severe weather than most other main lines, particularly South Wales and Eastern Scotland, which don’t have a particularly realistic alternative.
• We know that due to climate change, severe weather events are going to become more frequent.
For these reasons, it’s worth considering the resilience of this area as a pressing case. That said, we need those other motivations to make the case fully, and as I’ve said, better connectivity is far more valuable than 15 minutes off the journey to Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When I say replace I mean replace as in the mainline, I don't envisage the coastal route closing either but perhaps there may come a time when it becomes too difficult and costly or it gets closed more frequently, in which case only Dawlish and Teignmouth are affected, unlike Okehampton where we are spending £400 to £500 million on a backup that doesn't replace the mainline.

Then we get examples of the S&C trotted out, to justify Okehampton except we are not spending £400 million relaying the track, the S&C also has some freight, and in terms of diversion virgin would rather use buses now. Maybe the TOC would still rather use buses if the Okehampton
diversion is built, afterall it might be quicker and you will still need buses to Torbay

The point is, Okehampton and Tavistock are a lot larger than the settlements on the Settle Carlisle, so they have much more traffic potential.

 

[LateThanNever]

Not a fault of the franchising system at all. It's just that for low volume flows, buses are much cheaper.

So it is really. If the franchisees are tasked with running a railway then they shouldn't be taking advantage - unless Network Rail and hence the taxpayer get a share of the savings!

 

[yorksrob]

So it is really. If the franchisees are tasked with running a railway then they shouldn't be taking advantage - unless Network Rail and hence the taxpayer get a share of the savings!

Indeed. It can't take that much tweaking of the system to incentivise diversions and penalise bustitutions.

 

[LateThanNever]

Indeed seems to be strong requirement there for reduced journey time with any new route, which is hardly surprising really given the current timings.

I agree, it was rather impressive. And the chief executive of Network Rail is a Cornishman! So he will have heard of Dawlish even if only in passing...
Was absolutely amazed that there seems to be so much increase in speed potential by just installing new signalling?

 

[yorksrob]

Was absolutely amazed that there seems to be so much increase in speed potential by just installing new signalling?

If this is due anyway, doesn't it make speeding up journey times less of a justification for the DAL?

 

[LateThanNever]

If this is due anyway, doesn't it make speeding up journey times less of a justification for the DAL?

The Select Committee didn't find that it was 'due' the local authority representatives just seem to have discovered that it was possible...

 

[yorksrob]

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/6845

A very interesting read. Thanks for posting.

I can't say I'm that impressed with the local representatives. Cllr Evans seems to think that the Okehampton route would take "half an hour, maybe an hour" longer than the existing line. This seems unlikely.

They also contradict themselves. On the one hand, they are all adamant that the Dawlish line needs to be rebuilt and re-enforced for the next sixty years, yet Mr Carney, complains that the Okehampton route is "only possible as a diversionary route". Surely if Dawlish is the mainline, you only need a diversionary route.

They say that the most likely diversionary route would be "seven miles, three furlongs and seven chains" round the back of Dawlish, yet this would provide a minimal improvement to journey times on itself and none of the "whole load of reasons" for reopening the Okehampton route.

Where's the joined up thinking. At one point one of them complains about people thinking in silos, yet they can't link these two.

Very disappointing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Select Committee didn't find that it was 'due' the local authority representatives just seem to have discovered that it was possible...

Yes, but we know that new signalling will be due with the change to ROC's.