Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[455driver]

I'll ask it again then, if Okehampton is crying out for a rail service why has it never got off the ground? The track is there, the station is still there as far as I know, DCR kept saying they were going to do it, even FGW could if they wanted but it still hasnt happened. There were links to plans earlier on in the thread from one of the local councils but what has come from them?

Because FGW dont have any units to work the service (or the Portbury one at Bristol), hell they struggle enough to cover the services now with what they have got.

 

[The Planner]

That goes back to yorksrob's response though. DCR must have thought they could find some stock for when they looked at it. Everyone also assumes that SWT would run it for some reason as well if it all re-opened, do they have the stock, or is it really the fact that there isnt a massive market for it?

 

[Ash Bridge]

I think for £700m that okehampton route is far from unviable. The benefits that the route would bring would eclipse that figure within years. Brings mid devon, tavistock, okehampton back onto the rail network. A 15 minute extra for a diverted plymouth to Exeter is a hell of a lot better then the constant changing on coaches and replacement bus services.

This outcome was excepted we aren't a priority down here in devon and Cornwall. With tavistock getting the final go ahead earlier this week, at least in part the route will come back

If as you say Tavistock is definitely getting the green light then surely reinstating the remainder to restore the through route is an absolute no brainer?

 

[yorksrob]

So is there the demand there or not? if it has suported an intermittent service why not a full one? People keep saying it would open up access to North Devon etc, that ability is basically there now so why isn't it being tapped or lobbied for more intensively? the re-opening of the entire line shouldn't come into it if the latent demand at Okehampton is there.

Of course there is demand. As to why a better service isn't being lobbied for more intensively, I don't know, but then again, you could say that about a number of relatively rural counties which have less of a focus for railway improvements (N Yorks for example). Infact, we know that there has been lobbying for better services over the past decade or so, so I would suspect that the log jam lies elsewhere rather than with demand.

As for re-opening the entire line not coming into it, this is patently not the case. A better transport link to a wider range of destinations is bound to have better potential for serving the area. An example would be the more intensive services that rural stations between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings seem to support (as well as the higher ticket prices), as opposed to the rather spartan service the Uckfield branch gets. This is in spite of the fact that Uckfield, Crowborough and Edenbridge are all reasonably sized settlements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

do they have the stock, or is it really the fact that there isnt a massive market for it?

You seem to imply in this "either/or" situation that not having the rolling stock for a service is a result of there not meing a market for it. As experience with the Todmorden curve shows, this is not the case.

 

[Ash Bridge]

That goes back to yorksrob's response though. DCR must have thought they could find some stock for when they looked at it. Everyone also assumes that SWT would run it for some reason as well if it all re-opened, do they have the stock, or is it really the fact that there isnt a massive market for it?

Think DCR we're looking to use Class31s or 47s with a rake of mk2e/f stock if my memory serves me correct, but surely the running costs for these would make it much less economic than using much more suitable sprinter etc. type units?

 

[K Macdonald]

Readers of the forum may recall that I posted just a couple of days before the line was closed earlier this year. I stated that it was only a matter of time before the line ended up in the sea. I didn't envisage things happening quite that soon but the reasoning was based on solid climate science.
Sea level is rising quickly [by historical standards] due to a combination of thermal expansion and melting of ice that sits on land. Not only is a certain amount of future rise locked in due to inertia of the system, but things are currenly being made worse as we allow the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to continue to rise.
Given this background, I found the tone of the Network Rail report narrow, shortsighted, and complacent. It does mention in the middle of the report a prediction that sea level will rise 0.8m by 2100 but the tone of the report is a head in the sand macho attitude - ie we can engineer our way out of problems we are collectively creating.
It is simply not acceptable to embark on a course of action that will inevitably lead to such a large area being cut off from the rail network again. [For the record, I do not live near SW England]

While it's true that sea level is rising, the amount it is actually rising by is measured in millimetres per century. Which makes a nonsense of the alarmist tone of John S2's comment.

Far more important, by several orders of magnitude, were
1) the height of the waves (in 10's of metres, not millimetres)
2) how close the waves could get to the sea wall, because of the lack of maintenance (due to budget cuts) to beach groins that (in the past) prevented longshore drift from removing the existing sand.

The latter is an engineering problem that needs an engineering response. If & when some budget is found.

By the way, that prediction that sea level will rise 0.8m by 2100 is a computer model, which is not proof of anything, just more alarmist propaganda from "researchers" who want more grants.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If as you say Tavistock is definitely getting the green light then surely reinstating the remainder to restore the through route is an absolute no brainer?

Tavistock is getting a green light because of the housing development in Tavistock and the Section 106 Agreement the developers had to reach to get Devon Council to agree to the development.

Sadly it does not guarantee that anything will get built beyond Tavi.

Also, I wonder how many of use have read the recent Network Rail report completely?

When you look at the end of the report, on the business cases for all the route options, it's very disapponting to see that none of them gets a business case score of more than 1.0, and all are scored as "poor" options. A score of 4 is considered good.

What does that imply? The bean counters will say no new routes are justified?

 

[John S2]

While it's true that sea level is rising, the amount it is actually rising by is measured in millimetres per century. Which makes a nonsense of the alarmist tone of John S2's comment.

By the way, that prediction that sea level will rise 0.8m by 2100 is a computer model, which is not proof of anything, just more alarmist propaganda from "researchers" who want more grants.

The subject of sea level rise is of paramount importance when considering future rail options from Exeter to Plymouth.
KM's statements on sea level rise are misleading -
(a) The 0.8m projection is based on the fact that the current rate of sea level rise is much greater than KM suggests and that the rate of increase is not steady but is accelerating
(b) Anyone can take cheap shots at the conclusions of scientific studies as KM has done. It is well known that accepting inconvenient truths can sometimes be difficult.
The reason why sea level rise is central to the Dawlish debate is whether it makes sense to continue to spend large amounts of money maintaining this line to double track mainline standard. My opinion is that it doesn't. I would propose a managed retreat until one or more inland routes are completed [whether Okehampton or new route or both]. Nature will take its course eventually, as the 'taster' provided by last winter showed.

 

[swt_passenger]

That goes back to yorksrob's response though. DCR must have thought they could find some stock for when they looked at it. Everyone also assumes that SWT would run it for some reason as well if it all re-opened, do they have the stock, or is it really the fact that there isnt a massive market for it?

I think the only reason SWT come into it is because people are using rose tinted binoculars, and the LSWR (remember them) once ran the route, without a reversal at Exeter St Davids...

It's got little or no relevance to the present franchise known as SWT as far as I can see.

Also, as people will realise if they compare the 2012 GW franchise ITT with the 2014 consultation, all that stuff about Okehampton services to start 'when stock becomes available' has disappeared, just like the extra Axminster shuttles that we were discussing somewhere a few days ago. Presumably someone at DfT has looked at the rolling stock options and injected some realism...

 

[The Ham]

Maybe the solution is to build some more trains that can run off the wires and\or electrify more lines to free up more DMU's.

Of course by the time any new line was built there could be a whole load of 22x's which could be used.

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

Of course, the line could be reopened is stages. Get to Tavistock built, then introduce Okehamptom services, then provide a single track link between the two then start on building passing loops and finally in time double the whole lot when it is needed to be the main line.

Yes it would cost more overall, but each step would be reasonable and could be justified as it would be known what was happening at the time. Rather than the speculation that there is now.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the only reason SWT come into it is because people are using rose tinted binoculars, and the LSWR (remember them) once ran the route, without a reversal at Exeter St Davids...

It's got little or no relevance to the present franchise known as SWT as far as I can see.

Also, as people will realise if they compare the 2012 GW franchise ITT with the 2014 consultation, all that stuff about Okehampton services to start 'when stock becomes available' has disappeared, just like the extra Axminster shuttles that we were discussing somewhere a few days ago. Presumably someone at DfT has looked at the rolling stock options and injected some realism...

Not the franchise particularly, but you have a regular DMU service from London which conveniently terminates at Exeter St Davids (facing the correct way for those who attach a great importance to such things). Coupled to that, you have various settlements such as Yeovil and Salisbury which might benefit from a direct service further West.

Not only this, but you have potential electrification towards Salisbury which could free up units.

It seems to be the best option for the route to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not the franchise particularly, but you have a regular DMU service from London which conveniently terminates at Exeter St Davids (facing the correct way for those who attach a great importance to such things). Coupled to that, you have various settlements such as Yeovil and Salisbury which might benefit from a direct service further West.

Not only this, but you have potential electrification towards Salisbury which could free up units.

It seems to be the best option for the route to me.

[Okehampton] Why can't FGW run it as a through service across Exeter to Exmouth, as was suggested in the 2012 franchise ITT. If it was such a great idea, why wasn't it suggested then as an add-on to SWT? It could work as a through service from Paignton alternatively.

There's no fundamental reason it needs to be a through service to Waterloo.

 

[yorksrob]

[Okehampton] Why can't FGW run it as a through service across Exeter to Exmouth, as was suggested in the 2012 franchise ITT. If it was such a great idea, why wasn't it suggested then as an add-on to SWT? It could work as a through service from Paignton alternatively.

There's no fundamental reason it needs to be a through service to Waterloo.

I suppose there's not. Personally I see it being more benefit to the Nation as part of a longer inter-regional service between London and Plymouth, rather than just a branch focused on Exeter, but that would indeed be better than nothing.

 

[HSTEd]

A modern railway? - The route through South Devon should be improved

Why waste money on a 'modern' railway between Newton Abbot and Exeter when you are apparently not willing to build a modern railway in places which will do more good?

and in the next 30 years a 125mph electrified route between Newton Abbot and Exeter should be commissioned.

Why?
Newton Abbot and Exeter only saves you a handful of minutes.
If you are going to build any new railway it surely has to be something with a bit more long term use?

Draw a straight-ish line between Bristol and Plymouth, your project should ideally form some part of that route.
ANd forget 125mph, that's not modern - that is 70s tech.
Just build a HSL from North of Exeter to Plymouth, rejoining the existing line somewhere in the vicinity of Laira.

That will get you a better BCR than a tiny chord.

Business case?
Put it this way a lot of businesses, or ones proposing to locate in Devon & Cornwall will now be considering the effect on their company when the railway is again cut between Newton Abbott and Exeter.

The primary businesses in Cornwall, since the final death of the mining industry anyway, have been tourism and retirement homes.
You are kidding yourself if you think that is going to change any time soon.
And the majority of the tourists couldn't care less about the railway - they travel by road and, to a far lesser extent by air.

Passenger transport by rail in Cornwall is crippled by it taking two hours for the fastest train from Plymouth to reach Penzance.
That is the reason that businesses don't locate there.
Not that the so-slow-as-to-be-almost-useless railway might be cut off occasionally.

Luckily for the China Clay company it does not rely on rail! A timely reminder.
Business case? lol

No, as most of the clay and paper industry is dead and its all exported.
Rail makes no difference, most of the remaining loads in Britain are optimised for road transport anyway.

The effect the reopening of the LSWR through Devon will boost the economy of Devon and North Cornwall considerably, with Plymouth and Exeter areas becoming even more popular. 'Green' tourism on Dartmoor could bring millions a year alone.

"Millions" a year in economic activity are not that large when you consider the collosal cost of these projects (£600-750m? that is absurd).
And even if it were a lot, reopening parts of it as a pair of long sidings with a single unit shuttle on each is a rather different proposition than reopening as any sort of route useable for diversions in any sense.

And an alternative route through Devon for Plymouth & Cornwall.
But spending the money in high population areas eg South East is more cost effective?

Yes.
Because people will actually use something there heavily.
Reopening a huge stretch of railway for a single two car unit service for locals is iffy enough, doing so iwt ha hugely gold plated infrastructure to support once in a decade diversions is just absurd.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can go as high as you like but that doesn't prevent the wall being undermined!

You better tell the Dutch that attempting to hold back the sea is futile.... since they seem to have a rather large proportion of their population in a doomed position if that is the case.

And if th wall is undermined we basically lose Dawlish, which means you do propose you abandoning it.

Nor does it prevent the flotsam/fishing boats from landing on the railway which also tends to stop services.

HOw often does this happen?
How much does it cost to simply clear these things as they happen?
I doubt you will come up with a very large sum compared to the alternatives of paying for this collosal new route.

Building a sea wall is one thing - running a railway on top of it is quite another.

We do it in other places, I see no reason we can't here.

The simplest and most certain way of engineering our way out of these problems is exactly to build an alternative route!

And abandon Dawlish since you seem to think you will simply spend no more money on a sea wall there?
WHat about rail services to Dawlish?
You are going to axe all the services on that coast to avoid running a railway on a sea wall?

Will you also propose abandoning trains to Saltcoats and half a dozen other places?

 

[muddythefish]

Just build a HSL from North of Exeter to Plymouth, rejoining the existing line somewhere in the vicinity of Laira.

Agree with this. A direct straight high-speed line over the top of Dartmoor would cut Exeter - Plymouth to about 20 minutes (or so I read somewhere though I might be wrong) which strikes me as the best way to providing relief for the Dawlish route and bringing a rail travel revolution to Plymouth and Cornwall.

 

[HowardGWR]

Agree with this. A direct straight high-speed line over the top of Dartmoor would cut Exeter - Plymouth to about 20 minutes (or so I read somewhere though I might be wrong) which strikes me as the best way to providing relief for the Dawlish route and bringing a rail travel revolution to Plymouth and Cornwall.

I take it that this is tongue in cheek. Heard of the term National Park?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Agree with this. A direct straight high-speed line over the top of Dartmoor would cut Exeter - Plymouth to about 20 minutes (or so I read somewhere though I might be wrong) which strikes me as the best way to providing relief for the Dawlish route and bringing a rail travel revolution to Plymouth and Cornwall.

And not of much use to anywhere in between, plus what would this cost to construct especially through a national park? Edit (Beaten to that last bit)

 

[tbtc]

Government releases report saying that opening line through relatively empty part of country would have poor business case.

Self appointed experts (who want the railway to go back to what it was in the 1950s) think that it should have been built, regardless of the reality.

Could have predicted this a long time ago...

Running to/through Okehampton is a whole separate argument to building a resilient Dawlish line - I don't think that we can abandon Dawlish, and I don't buy the argument that Cornish towns/villages need money spending on them to guarantee a year round service to Exeter/London (etc) but we can give up on Torbay? Can't have it both ways here.

Common sense required not BCR

i.e. the facts don't matter?

0.52 is a no brainer?

DON'T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY!

If the Okehampton route had not been closed, does anyone here think it would now be recommended for closure?

Nothing is being recommended for closure right now. Not Teesside Airport, not the Stockport to Stalybridge service, not a six-day-a-week Sleeper from London to Fort William... nothing.

The fact that the Government wouldn't dare close the Okehampton route today means nothing - no politicians would dare close any route like this nowadays.

spending the money in high population areas eg South East is more cost effective?

Yes. Running a line through a heavily populated part of the UK will have a much better business case than running a line through a lightly populated part of the UK.

Heavy rail isn't the answer to everywhere's problems.

The problem is, unless you take into account wider social and economic benefits, no decision for Government makes sense financially.

These "wider social benefits" sound lovely, but they seem to be an unquantifiable way of trying to skew the result to fit the answer that you want.

I'm not convinced that a route which travels through a sparsely populated area can have such a better revenue impact on the network than one linking new settlements

I agree - an Okehampton route would travel through a sparsely populated area. That's why it's got such a poor business case.

The fact that it'd be handy for an unknown number of days/weeks as a diversionary route doesn't alter this.

I'll ask it again then, if Okehampton is crying out for a rail service why has it never got off the ground? The track is there, the station is still there as far as I know, DCR kept saying they were going to do it, even FGW could if they wanted but it still hasnt happened. There were links to plans earlier on in the thread from one of the local councils but what has come from them?

Yes, we seem to be pathologically incapable of contemplating modest medium sized projects in this country. If it's not billions, it's not worth doing.

I agree with The Planner here - and I don't think that you can complain that we can't deal with smaller projects when you're not prepared to accept the idea of a small Bere Alston - Tavistock extension in the short term, then maybe a week/year round Okehampton - Exeter service in the medium term - you can only accept a full reintroduction of a through route that used to exist.

A Bere Alston - Tavistock shuttle sounds like it could be justified. Through services to Plymouth sounds good (but potentially harder to accommodate, due to single line etc). Okehampton to Exeter isn't going to be a huge market, but might be possible one day. But you're insistent on going back to what once was, and I don't think that's realistic.

[Okehampton] Why can't FGW run it as a through service across Exeter to Exmouth, as was suggested in the 2012 franchise ITT. If it was such a great idea, why wasn't it suggested then as an add-on to SWT? It could work as a through service from Paignton alternatively.

There's no fundamental reason it needs to be a through service to Waterloo.

True. Sadly this argument is always couched in terms of bringing back what used to exist sixty years ago (rather than to solve today's problems)

 

[LateThanNever]

Why waste money on a 'modern' railway between Newton Abbot and Exeter when you are apparently not willing to build a modern railway in places which will do more good?



Why?
Newton Abbot and Exeter only saves you a handful of minutes.
If you are going to build any new railway it surely has to be something with a bit more long term use?

Draw a straight-ish line between Bristol and Plymouth, your project should ideally form some part of that route.
ANd forget 125mph, that's not modern - that is 70s tech.
Just build a HSL from North of Exeter to Plymouth, rejoining the existing line somewhere in the vicinity of Laira.

That will get you a better BCR than a tiny chord.



The primary businesses in Cornwall, since the final death of the mining industry anyway, have been tourism and retirement homes.
You are kidding yourself if you think that is going to change any time soon.
And the majority of the tourists couldn't care less about the railway - they travel by road and, to a far lesser extent by air.

Passenger transport by rail in Cornwall is crippled by it taking two hours for the fastest train from Plymouth to reach Penzance.
That is the reason that businesses don't locate there.
Not that the so-slow-as-to-be-almost-useless railway might be cut off occasionally.


No, as most of the clay and paper industry is dead and its all exported.
Rail makes no difference, most of the remaining loads in Britain are optimised for road transport anyway.



"Millions" a year in economic activity are not that large when you consider the collosal cost of these projects (£600-750m? that is absurd).
And even if it were a lot, reopening parts of it as a pair of long sidings with a single unit shuttle on each is a rather different proposition than reopening as any sort of route useable for diversions in any sense.



Yes.
Because people will actually use something there heavily.
Reopening a huge stretch of railway for a single two car unit service for locals is iffy enough, doing so iwt ha hugely gold plated infrastructure to support once in a decade diversions is just absurd.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You better tell the Dutch that attempting to hold back the sea is futile.... since they seem to have a rather large proportion of their population in a doomed position if that is the case.

And if th wall is undermined we basically lose Dawlish, which means you do propose you abandoning it.



HOw often does this happen?
How much does it cost to simply clear these things as they happen?
I doubt you will come up with a very large sum compared to the alternatives of paying for this collosal new route.



We do it in other places, I see no reason we can't here.



And abandon Dawlish since you seem to think you will simply spend no more money on a sea wall there?
WHat about rail services to Dawlish?
You are going to axe all the services on that coast to avoid running a railway on a sea wall?

Will you also propose abandoning trains to Saltcoats and half a dozen other places?

Saltcoats has a population of 11000 I understand. Plymouth has about 25 times as many. A city with that sort of population should be entitled to a robust rail service.

I don't propose axing services on the coast but an alternative needs to be provided as running a frequent mainline train service on top of a sea wall is always going to be problematic and engineering out the problems has not worked reliably enough. That is even spending allegedly more per mile than any other stretch of railway in Britain. Comparisons with Holland are pretty disingenuous as much of their land is below sea level - unless you're suggesting that Clog Rail could take over the Dawlish services and run them along the beach at low tide?

And it might take two hours to get from Plymouth to Penzance (Cornwall) but it's only 12 minutes to Saltash (Cornwall) so the journey time is clearly not the only thing wrong!

 

[Cliveblackpool]

The primary businesses in Cornwall, since the final death of the mining industry anyway, have been tourism and retirement homes.
You are kidding yourself if you think that is going to change any time soon.
And the majority of the tourists couldn't care less about the railway - they travel by road and, to a far lesser extent by air.

If you look around there is far more to Cornwall than Scones, Jam & clotted cream!! (and retirement homes - that probably give negative benefits)
You'll be amazed what, and how much is manufactured in Cornwall including diverse specialist skills. Although unlikely to be transported by rail, but many businesses rely on passenger services which could be much improved. Visiting Head office, sales, exhibitions to name a few.
Dawlish should without question keep its railway service.
Exeter to Newton Abbot should be just a start, then continue eventually to Plymouth.
There are constraints, eg Dartmoor National Park, so a line sort of following the A38, or A30. Or a long tunnel, through granite!
One option not evaluated (suppose there is a limit!) is an upgraded LSWR route, especially as they priced it for double track. With a new Meldon Viaduct maybe a new High speed railway!! Won't unfortunately be in my lifetime!!

 

[Muzer]

Nothing is being recommended for closure right now. Not Teesside Airport, not the Stockport to Stalybridge service, not a six-day-a-week Sleeper from London to Fort William... nothing.

Offtopic but I'm curious as to why you lumped the Fort William sleeper in with those other two, given that from what I gather it's very popular (correct me if I'm wrong), especially with tourists (walkers, etc.) during the summer.


My position is - if there is funding specifically available for improving railways in Devon+Cornwall, and this money would not be spent on rail at all if it is not spent, reopening the route through Okehampton is probably one of the more sane things you could do with it. That's not to say there aren't other projects in Devon+Cornwall more worthy of money of this order of magnitude - it's just I can't immediately think of any . If it's a case, however, of "here's N hundred million pounds, let's spend it somewhere, where doesn't matter", reopening Okehampton would be quite far down the list.

 

[jmc100]

The track bed of the former LSWR through the Dartmoor National Park is still in place so I cannot see this stretch of the old route being a major problem. Some of the route was sold off and is privately owned as is the stations at Brentor and Tavistock. The old route also passes through what is now the grounds of the West Devon council complex who seem to be in favour of reinstating the Okehampton to Bere Alston section. The station at Okehampton is fully operational and is currently used by the DCR. The line continues from Okehampton as a single track up to the Meldon quarry area and terminates just short of Meldon viaduct.

The only other options include tunnelling projects which are expensive and would take time to construct. The main problem from what I can see is the sea wall route is much more vulnerable now than when it was originally built by Brunel.

In the short term, a decision relating to a cost-effective alternative route is a necessary priority in order to keep the trains running before the elements wreak havoc again on the southern sea wall route.

Which option do members think will provide the most cost-effective alternative solution that would provide for maximum resilience and keep the SW railway infrastructure intact?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Which option do members think will provide the most cost-effective alternative solution that would provide for maximum resilience and keep the SW railway infrastructure intact?

IMHO it's simple, re-open the former Southern Railway mainline and keep maintaining the existing main route via Dawlish & at some point in the future construct a new inland cutoff line between Exeter & Newton Abbott.

 

[joeykins82]

NR think that they can make the existing route fully resilient through Option 2 interventions. Even the longest bypass option (C1) would leave 3.4km of vulnerable route. (see table on p28)

I don't know whether the 20 year Option 2 programme could be shortened through increased funding, but it seems to be that this is the best option because it not only protects the railway but would also protect the towns themselves.

The "reduced scope" option 3 might be progressed in parallel on its own merits.

 

[K Macdonald]

The subject of sea level rise is of paramount importance when considering future rail options from Exeter to Plymouth.
KM's statements on sea level rise are misleading -
(a) The 0.8m projection is based on the fact that the current rate of sea level rise is much greater than KM suggests and that the rate of increase is not steady but is accelerating
(b) Anyone can take cheap shots at the conclusions of scientific studies as KM has done. It is well known that accepting inconvenient truths can sometimes be difficult.
The reason why sea level rise is central to the Dawlish debate is whether it makes sense to continue to spend large amounts of money maintaining this line to double track mainline standard. My opinion is that it doesn't. I would propose a managed retreat until one or more inland routes are completed [whether Okehampton or new route or both]. Nature will take its course eventually, as the 'taster' provided by last winter showed.

I'm very sorry if you think pointing out the difference between theoretical computer models and empirical evidence is a cheap shot.

One of the acknowledged leaders in the actual measurement of real sea levels (not theoretical computer models) is NOAA. See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html for the latets data.
The nearest long-term tide station to Dawlish is Newlyn.

The official data says :
Based on monthly mean sea level data from 1915 to 2011, the mean sea level trend is 1.76 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.17 mm/year which is equivalent to a change of 0.58 feet in 100 years.

For those who care, 0.58 feet is 0.176 metres, or round about the height of one old-fashioned railway sleeper, in a 100 years.

Whereas (as any local person could tell you) the effect of seasonal weather and longshore drift along the DSW can change the height of the sand by the wall by more than two metres in one year.

In conclusion, sea level rise is a minor factor in comparison to the effects of longshore drift before and after groin maintenance.

 

[fegguk]

I'm very sorry if you think pointing out the difference between theoretical computer models and empirical evidence is a cheap shot.

One of the acknowledged leaders in the actual measurement of real sea levels (not theoretical computer models) is NOAA. See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html for the latets data.
The nearest long-term tide station to Dawlish is Newlyn.

The official data says :
Based on monthly mean sea level data from 1915 to 2011, the mean sea level trend is 1.76 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.17 mm/year which is equivalent to a change of 0.58 feet in 100 years.

For those who care, 0.58 feet is 0.176 metres, or round about the height of one old-fashioned railway sleeper, in a 100 years.

Whereas (as any local person could tell you) the effect of seasonal weather and longshore drift along the DSW can change the height of the sand by the wall by more than two metres in one year.

In conclusion, sea level rise is a minor factor in comparison to the effects of longshore drift before and after groin maintenance.

Their sea level rise trend statistics are based on past data and do not take into account the effects of future climate change, they are therefore not projections if the reasons for sea level change are now different than they were in the past.

The predicted increase in storm frequency and intensity are probably the most important risk to coastal installation if you wish to take climate change into consideration.

If you don't wish to take climate change into consideration then you only need to worry about the historic trend in sea level. How much scientific evidence you choose to accept or ignore is always going to be a judgement where only time will tell who was right.

 

[Busaholic]

Government releases report saying that opening line through relatively empty part of country would have poor business case.

Self appointed experts (who want the railway to go back to what it was in the 1950s) think that it should have been built, regardless of the reality.

Could have predicted this a long time ago...

Running to/through Okehampton is a whole separate argument to building a resilient Dawlish line - I don't think that we can abandon Dawlish, and I don't buy the argument that Cornish towns/villages need money spending on them to guarantee a year round service to Exeter/London (etc) but we can give up on Torbay? Can't have it both ways





DON'T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY!

If the Okehampton route had not been closed, does anyone here think it would now be recommended for closure?
/QUOTE]

Nothing is being recommended for closure right now. Not Teesside Airport, not the Stockport to Stalybridge service, not a six-day-a-week Sleeper from London to Fort William... nothing.

The fact that the Government wouldn't dare close the Okehampton route today means nothing - no politicians would dare close any route like this nowadays.



Yes. Running a line through a heavily populated part of the UK will have a much better business case than running a line through a lightly populated part of the UK.

Heavy rail isn't the answer to everywhere's problems.



These "wider social benefits" sound lovely, but they seem to be an unquantifiable way of trying to skew the result to fit the answer that you want.



I agree - an Okehampton route would travel through a sparsely populated area. That's why it's got such a poor business case.

The fact that it'd be handy for an unknown number of days/weeks as a diversionary route doesn't alter this.





I agree with The Planner here - and I don't think that you can complain that we can't deal with smaller projects when you're not prepared to accept the idea of a small Bere Alston - Tavistock extension in the short term, then maybe a week/year round Okehampton - Exeter service in the medium term - you can only accept a full reintroduction of a through route that used to exist.

A Bere Alston - Tavistock shuttle sounds like it could be justified. Through services to Plymouth sounds good (but potentially harder to accommodate, due to single line etc). Okehampton to Exeter isn't going to be a huge market, but might be possible one day. But you're insistent on going back to what once was, and I don't think that's realistic.



True. Sadly this argument is always couched in terms of bringing back what used to exist sixty years ago (rather than to solve today's problems)[/QU

Your argument seems to be that if Dawlish can't have a rail line then neither can Cornwall or the most populous part of Devon i.e. Plymouth. Actually, it's only Mother Nature that wants to stop Dawlish having a rail service, but if you want to use business case and 'value for money' arguments can we please see actual passenger numbers for Dawlish, Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth? Bet St Ives on its own would beat all three combined.

 

[swt_passenger]

...Impossible to follow I'm afraid

In quoting a post that already contained multiple quotes, some already broken, you make it impossible to follow what is your own new stuff, interspersed with bits of earlier replies.

But my main point is that this is page 98, and we are just going round and round in circles as new members find the thread. Everything you ask has been discussed many times already since February...

 

[yorksrob]

Government releases report saying that opening line through relatively empty part of country would have poor business case.

Self appointed experts (who want the railway to go back to what it was in the 1950s) think that it should have been built, regardless of the reality.

Is that opposed to those self appointed experts who feel that we should be forced to stay with a network, designed for half the number of passengers, forty years ago

Running to/through Okehampton is a whole separate argument to building a resilient Dawlish line.

That's a very narrow strategic viewpoint. It's a bit like saying HS2 has nothing to do with solving congestion on the WCML. The fact is, both have a bearing on the wider strategic network.

The fact that the Government wouldn't dare close the Okehampton route today means nothing - no politicians would dare close any route like this nowadays.

Tees Side Airport isn't really a very useful comparison. Salisbury - Exeter and Settle - Carlisle would be a meaningful comparison, and yes, no government would dare to close them. With good reason.

Heavy rail isn't the answer to everywhere's problems.

True, but it would be the best way of bolstering strategic rail links to the south west whilst at the same time improving local links to Okehampton, Tavistock and the Dartmoor national park.

These "wider social benefits" sound lovely, but they seem to be an unquantifiable way of trying to skew the result to fit the answer that you want.

They are indeed lovely, but they are also real. The ability for people to look for work in a wider area, find education opportunities, attract trade, operate in an area that hasn't ground to a halt through congestion and the ability for the elderly, the young and those who simply don't have the means to run a car, to get around quickly and comfortably are very real indeed.

Of course, if you're a Government department which doesn't want to spend money on such things, it doesn't pay to try and quantify these things properly.

I agree - an Okehampton route would travel through a sparsely populated area. That's why it's got such a poor business case.

The fact that it'd be handy for an unknown number of days/weeks as a diversionary route doesn't alter this.

The West Coast main line passes through a very sparsely populated area, yet it links several settlements and serves the area in terms of tourism. By your logic, that would have a poor business case.

You are being disingenuous to suggest that the route would only be of use once or twice a year.

I don't think that you can complain that we can't deal with smaller projects when you're not prepared to accept the idea of a small Bere Alston - Tavistock extension in the short term, then maybe a week/year round Okehampton - Exeter service in the medium term - you can only accept a full reintroduction of a through route that used to exist.

Au contraire, I'd love to see the Tavistock reinstated as a stepping stone and a proper service started to Okehampton.

I'd just like to see any business case regarding the central section looking at its benefits to the whole transport corridor. Also, these branch lines on their own, whilst being very useful, won't solve the strategic issue of the whole of the South West being stuck at the end of a single long branch.

 

[Busaholic]

In quoting a post that already contained multiple quotes, some already broken, you make it impossible to follow what is your own new stuff, interspersed with bits of earlier replies.

But my main point is that this is page 98, and we are just going round and round in circles as new members find the thread. Everything you ask has been discussed many times already since February...

My apologies for not having got to grips with the quoting business. If the point I made, as a new member, has been made before then (a) that is in the nature of discussion forums with hundreds of members, particularly on a subject that directly affects tens of thousands of people and has received such national nedia attention; (b) the person I was intending to reply to must also have made points already raised and (c) when joining the forum I wasn't told that only certain people's comments counted for anything.

On a more general note I 've noticed when looking through threads that certain individuals, sometimes with thousands of quotes, seem to specialise in trying to denigrate anyone who disagrees with their (often conventional) point of view - this particularly on the bus forum, where two or three, who all appear to have sort of tie to one of the major groups, jump on anyone expressing a contrary view.

On the topic of Dawlish, for my last contribution, however unwelcome to some, as someone living to the west of Penzance, it is utterly wrong for everyone to the west of Torbay and South Hams to be held to ransom by a small percentage of the population of Devon and Cornwall.

 

[Class 170101]

Seems like no lessons are being learned

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ive-route-options-post-dawlish-are-poor-value

Alternative route options post-Dawlish are poor value

Alternative rail route options being proposed to improve resilience in the South West, following this winter’s wet weather which led to the line collapsing at Dawlish, do not offer value for money, a new government-commissioned report has revealed.

Instead, options will be worked up to further strengthen the existing railway. That report is due in early 2015.

Network Rail’s West of Exeter Route Resilience Study detailed several options to give the region a train link fit for the 21st century. The options considered include:

Option 1: The base case of continuing the current maintenance regime on the existing route
Option 2: Further strengthening the existing railway. An early estimated cost of between £398m and £659m would be spread over four control periods, with a series of trigger and hold points to reflect funding availability, spend profile and achieved level of resilience
Option 3 (Alternative Route A): The former London & South Western Railway route from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton would be reconstructed at an estimated cost of £875m
Option 4 (Alternative Route B): Constructing a modern double track railway on the alignment of the former Teign Valley branch line from Exeter to Newton Abbot. This has an estimated cost of £470m. However, there is doubt as to whether a resilient railway is practical on this route
Option 5 (Alternative Routes C1 to C5): Five alternative direct routes would provide a new line between Exeter and Newton Abbot at an estimated cost between £1.49bn and£3.10bn

Network Rail appraised reach of the alternative routes in line with Department for Transport guidelines, where the project benefits and costs (BCR) ratio measures the net economic benefits per pound.

On this basis, schemes with a BCR of greater than 4.0 (£4 of benefit for every £1 spent) are deemed to be of very high value for money, while schemes with BCR of less than 1.0 are considered to offer poor value for money.

Within the report, Network Rail stated that the Route A scheme offered a BCR of only 0.14, route B getting a figure of 0.29 and the C1-C5 alternatives getting between 0.08 and 0.17.

The report also stated that the “financial appraisal of the alternative route options, consistent with DfT guidance, demonstrates that each represents poor value for money, even under more favourable sensitivity tests”.

It was even noted that even if certain revenue and unpriced benefits were doubled and the capital outlays halved in combination, the financial business case and transport economic case for all of the additional route options would remain “significantly negative, with each one still offering poor value for money”.

In response to the report, transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “Network Rail’s West of Exeter route resilience study reflects the government’s commitment to delivering world class transport infrastructure in the South West.

“It will be treated as a material input for Network Rail’s long term planning process and will be incorporated in the Western Route Study, a draft of which will be published for consultation later in 2014.

“It is imperative that this work leads to improvements to the resilience of the railways in the south west that ensure there is no repeat of the disruption we saw earlier this year. I expect to make a further statement in the autumn regarding the West of Exeter Route Resilience study and our next steps.”