Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[yorksrob]

That would certainly be the conventional view, however with peak hour journey times at best 35 minutes and likely to increase with ever worsening traffic congestion in provincial cities I would have thought the train would be quite attractive. The other thing is that it would open up commuting to Exeter which is increasingly popular.

Ivybridge has not been a srtunning success, but then again the service is not that great and the population is a third of Plymptons. The service dosen't exactly help. No eastbound train before 08.21 on Mon-Fri and no trains from Exeter on Mon-Fri between 16.05 and 18.22 are not exactly conducive to commuting to the main Devon conurbation. Give it at least an hourly service and it might work. Nonetheless pax have more than doubled since 2003 from 30,000 per year to 80,000 per year.

Also a Plympton Station on the west side of the town Centre at Underwoord on the B3146 would make a good Parkway station for Plymouth and if designed with a western facing bay platform would make a logical terminating point for trains from Tavistock giving a cross city service.

I'm inclined to agree with this. You wouldn't really want thousands of people piling onto the train at Plympton just to go to Plymouth anyway, so let them get the bus and have the station for Plymptonians wanting to go further afield.

With regard to Ivybridge, there seemed to be a smattering of people using it on the occasions I've gone there. Perhaps the answer is a more cheap to build modular station and a realisation from the authorities that not all new stations are going to have passenger numbers like Waterloo.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

im starting to think a 'do nothing' decision will appeal to politicians when the enthusiasts and campaigners for a fiscally-negative rail line can't actually agree what they want.

Even those arguing about the wider economic benefits not being considered, must admit that it's marginal.

I'm not sure what the point of the BCR calculations by Network Rail were. Building a long railway across private, contourous land in a very sparsly populated area is not economically viable. Shock. It's not like Brunel built his sea wall for fun.

The BCR is irrelevant. We are talking about a route as back up to whole Penzance to Exeter line. We are also talking about a public service. The media coverage seems to be very conscious of the financial impact. This is something the area needs for growth and investment - again, shockingly, investments do not always make quick returns and said returns can be hard to gauge. So why don't we just never build anything west of Bristol ever again as its not economically viable.

The Okehampton route will provide an alternative for any breach between Exeter and Plymouth. It will offer a slower but reasonable service for a second choice. A series of tunnels that bypass Dawlish are more expensive, save a matter of minutes (that people in Plymouth selfishly seem to want at the expense of non-Plymouthians using the line), and also allow for the future abandonment of the Dawlish line. Choosing Okehampton will mean future dawlish breaches will still need to be repaired - and do they should! Teignmouth and Dawlish are decent sized towns and deserve a service! I've no doubt that a Dawlish bypass will see those two towns eventually forgotten about.

For me, this is clearly the best option for all. To make the most of it, then see if Tavistock and Okehampton can be given a service as a by-product of a wider economic benefit (might as well whilst passing through).

There was some research into Sourton Parkway by NR I recall. An earlier point was made that the North Cornwall/west Devon/A30 users that would like a 'Tiverton Parkway' style station would want a decent transport hub with HST services. Not sure I'd drive from, say, Bideford to Sourton Parkway to catch a two-coach DMU into Exeter - Id go all the way to Tiverton.

There definitely needs to be unity from those lobbying for a significant and unattractive investment for Westminster. To be honest, the Dawlish breach in February would have been a bigger shock to people in London - I'm not sure they really know what life is like down here and relate it to what losing a rail connection would mean to them! Happy to use that in our favour though. Still plenty to do though. We need it to be a key focus of the 2015 general election.

I agree with a lot of that. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that the politicians will act with one voice in the interests of the area. Unfortunately, Ms Wollaston, MP for Totnes spouting sensationalist twaddle about reopening the Okehampton route being "a disaster" doesn't fill me with confidence:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/MP-...ing-disaster/story-21042265-detail/story.html

Perhaps we ought to close the the Swanley to Ashford line as it's been totally disastrous being able to divert trains to Charing Cross down there whenever Sevenoaks tunnel was closed over the past hundred years

 

[21C101]

im starting to think a 'do nothing' decision will appeal to politicians when the enthusiasts and campaigners for a fiscally-negative rail line can't actually agree what they want.

Even those arguing about the wider economic benefits not being considered, must admit that it's marginal.

I'm not sure what the point of the BCR calculations by Network Rail were. Building a long railway across private, contourous land in a very sparsly populated area is not economically viable. Shock. It's not like Brunel built his sea wall for fun.

The BCR is irrelevant. We are talking about a route as back up to whole Penzance to Exeter line. We are also talking about a public service. The media coverage seems to be very conscious of the financial impact. This is something the area needs for growth and investment - again, shockingly, investments do not always make quick returns and said returns can be hard to gauge. So why don't we just never build anything west of Bristol ever again as its not economically viable.

The Okehampton route will provide an alternative for any breach between Exeter and Plymouth. It will offer a slower but reasonable service for a second choice. A series of tunnels that bypass Dawlish are more expensive, save a matter of minutes (that people in Plymouth selfishly seem to want at the expense of non-Plymouthians using the line), and also allow for the future abandonment of the Dawlish line. Choosing Okehampton will mean future dawlish breaches will still need to be repaired - and do they should! Teignmouth and Dawlish are decent sized towns and deserve a service! I've no doubt that a Dawlish bypass will see those two towns eventually forgotten about.

For me, this is clearly the best option for all. To make the most of it, then see if Tavistock and Okehampton can be given a service as a by-product of a wider economic benefit (might as well whilst passing through).

There was some research into Sourton Parkway by NR I recall. An earlier point was made that the North Cornwall/west Devon/A30 users that would like a 'Tiverton Parkway' style station would want a decent transport hub with HST services. Not sure I'd drive from, say, Bideford to Sourton Parkway to catch a two-coach DMU into Exeter - Id go all the way to Tiverton.

I would agree pretty well with all that.

Unless there are through services to London a North Cornwall Parkway at Sourton would not be well used. The only practicable way of running services to London is to extend the existing class 158/159 service from Waterloo as a 3 car unit. You would never get enough pax to fill an HST and in any case; if you did run a service through to Paddington it wouldn't call at Exeter Central, so you would lose the other half of the passengers to the bus.

Same goes for the Barnstaple line, it is pointless providing services to Paddington because they wouldn't call at Exeter Central pi**ing off the pax going to Exeter who won't want to be dumped at a parkway station on the edge of town at St Davids, with a long hilly walk to the city centre (BR western region terminating Barnstaple trains at Exeter St Davids when they took it over nearly did for the line in the 1970's). Only logical thing to do is extend the SWT service, even if it would cause one or two people here to have apoplexy.

There definitely needs to be unity from those lobbying for a significant and unattractive investment for Westminster. To be honest, the Dawlish breach in February would have been a bigger shock to people in London - I'm not sure they really know what life is like down here and relate it to what losing a rail connection would mean to them! Happy to use that in our favour though. Still plenty to do though. We need it to be a key focus of the 2015 general election.

My guess is that some funding will be made before the election to do the following:

• Funding passive provision for the line opening further northwards when reopening Tavistock (ie funding a proper loop and bay platform, with proper signalling, at Bere Alston)
  
• Fund a consultants study into strengthening Meldon Viaduct so that trains can run over it again. I do not think it insignificant that the minister went to inspect it. If the line can be reopened without rebuilding Meldon Viaduct, the cost of reopening would collapse.

If the Meldon study is positive, then the rest may well follow.

 

[HowardGWR]

Same goes for the Barnstaple line, it is pointless providing services to Paddington because they wouldn't call at Exeter Central pi**ing off the pax going to Exeter who won't want to be dumped at a parkway station on the edge of town at St Davids, with a long hilly walk to the city centre (BR western region terminating Barnstaple trains at Exeter St Davids when they took it over nearly did for the line in the 1970's). Only logical thing to do is extend the SWT service, even if it would cause one or two people here to have apoplexy.

I agree with that, although I have not read anyone here who advocates running trains from North Devon on to Pad and neither have I read anyone here having "apoplexy" about extending services to Exeter Central or beyond. All I read is your contention that there are those - a straw man comment it seems.

I have read, a long while back, that there could be a case for a joining line from Tiverton area through towards Crediton to give a fast diversion route, but that is a different kettle of fish and no economic, social or environmental case was made for that (it would avoid Cowley Junction floods too, IIRC).

You are quite right that Exeter Central is a desirable end point for North Devon commuters and so the local services should always run through to there.

In the case of Bristol, they have moved the offices to the station, given they can't move the station. At Exeter, that will not happen and also, unlike Bristol, the shopping is situated outside the station too.

 

[Olaf]

I'm coming to the conclusion that "Do Not Feed" is probably the best way forward in this case.

I think you have hold of the wrong end of the stick; it's those that bang on about pet fantasies that are hijacking the thread.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, I don't have figures for Devon, but Appleby and Settle are both settlements in an area of outstanding natural beauty with a combined population smaller than Tavistock and Okehampton and not only do they benefit greatly from the railway, but areas such as West Yorkshire and Carlisle benefit from quality public transport access to them.

Those stations are on an existing line; Oakhampton to Tavistock would require the re-opening of the line which is a different scenario.

Then you're more trusting of the powers that be than I am.

Yes, that is apparent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think he should drop the L out of his name

A little more than shallow. I guess that means you have nothing to offer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are deluded and probably being humoured by your colleagues; the suggestions you came up with do not belong in the current millennium.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No delusion here my too young to know BR friend. It's called reality, like Network Rail's responsibility to maintain the existing network west of Exeter. I am advocating investigating the minimum possible to ensure a rail link is available 365 days a year to Plymouth and Cornwall whilst continuing to maintain the existing Dawlish route as long as it remains viable.

Doing nothing off the back of BCR numbers is not an option.

There's much more than dreaming up rail lines to build at stake here. It's the whole fundamental of Westminster supporting England's economy outside of London and the south east. Something that hasn't happened since before you were born.

Far from being humoured, my broad-based views have received support. The Scots want recognition, though they wisely chose to stay in the UK, and it's time there was similar recognition for the rest of England.

I was fully acquainted with the BR road-wreck thank you, old-man.

I am aware of NR's responsibility, but you proposals are stuck in the 50s; NR has to integrate any new diversionary route into the national network and thus also meet current standards such signalling, infrastructure specifications, and operating practices.

I am not advocating doing nothing - I have suggested how this could realistically be taken forward.

There's much more than dreaming up rail lines to build at stake here. It's the whole fundamental of Westminster supporting England's economy outside of London and the south east. Something that hasn't happened since before you were born.

Far from being humoured, my broad-based views have received support. The Scots want recognition, though they wisely chose to stay in the UK, and it's time there was similar recognition for the rest of England

That is just parochial hogwash and gibberish and the fashionable slant-eyed view of the world. There is not sufficient demand for rail services in the west to support what exist without subsidy from central government. I don't disagree with further devolution to the regions but projects will still require a justification.

You definitely are being humoured.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite. I think it is a bolt on certainty that if the GWR had built a cutoff line in the 1930s, Teignmouth, Dawlish, Dawlish Warren and Starcross would have joined the long list of controversial Beeching closures in Devon, with the high cost of maintaining the seawall for a local service used to justify closure of the line and all trains running fast from Exeter to Newton Abbot.

Torquay and Paignton would have found themselves with a branch shuttle to Newton Abbot (probably singled) with a handful of through intercity trains to Exeter and London a day.

Should in the future the cutoff option be built (rather than a single line reopened via Okehampton) then the same will happen next time a major financial crises hits the railways (which will inevitably be next time the government faces a major financial crisis). With the national debt being £1500bn and still rising at £100bn a year, that may not be as far off as many people think.

Imagine what would happen if the government held an emergency budget and announced a massive programme of spending cuts including immediate halving of the grant to Network Rail and subsidies to TOCs - and they could - because every budget is a primary act of parliament which would make previous contracts and commitments void.

That is just scaremongering as a means of justifying the pet-project.

If (or when) the next wave of the financial crisis was so bad as to result in the closure of a the suggested loop/spur route through Dawlish, then a lot more of the railway beside would also close.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Beeching just lied in his Report to justify closing as many lines as possible even ones that were marginally profitable. If he could do it for Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton with operating costs of £15k and revenue of £18k generated at Ripon station per annum, but his Report records revenue of only £13k, he could have done it for any line ...

It was not lying, but rather a failure in the collection of the data.

Yes the process was badly executed, but that is history now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you ever flew to Plymouth you'd have know how little the air service would have affected rail traffic. The only IC trains to/from Plymouth that are busy are the through trains from Cornwall.It has always been the case in my 25 years experience that you could get a whole standard class coach to yourself on a midday departure from plymouth outside of the school holidays.

I'm going back further than that; specifically in the summer periods the trains were packed.

Air services did take traffic from the railways, but that will have been reversed in recent years due to increased costs of operation killing the competition.

 

[HowardGWR]

Those stations are on an existing line; Oakhampton to Tavistock would require the re-opening of the line which is a different scenario.

Olaf, it really is Okehampton.

 

[yorksrob]

That is just scaremongering as a means of justifying the pet-project.

If (or when) the next wave of the financial crisis was so bad as to result in the closure of a the suggested loop/spur route through Dawlish, then a lot more of the railway beside would also close.

I think the real scaremongering is from those who suggest that the establishment of the rail link through Okehampton would lead to the closure of the main line through Newton Abbot.

It was not lying, but rather a failure in the collection of the data.

Yes the process was badly executed, but that is history now.

That was BR's "road-wreck" moment.

 

[The Ham]

I think the real scaremongering is from those who suggest that the establishment of the rail link through Okehampton would lead to the closure of the main line through Newton Abbot.

As I have suggested before it could lead to (in due course) a new high speed route running straight between the two as passenger numbers grow to a point that both routes are busy.

Given (assuming an extension of SWT's services) the route to Plymouth via Okehampton could make rail a more option for some. If the pricing was such that via Okehampton was a little less but take a little longer from Exeter then it could lighten loads on the existing route (an advantage to those going to/from the Torbay area).

Some of these flows could then find their way back onto the Paddington services if a new direct high speed route was built between Exeter and Newton Abbot as it would lead to significant drop in journey times. As there would be more people that would benefit from the time saving and there being a larger time saving the extra cost may well be justified, especially if there was a need for an extra pair of tracks between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

Although the new build options will provide an extra pair of tracks over part of the length, there would still be quite a length of new line that would still need to be built. Therefore any such new build scheme may not save that much money over building the direct route and parts could become obsolete if the options for the new lines elsewhere meant that they tied in some distance from the existing line.

 

[Xavi]

Dear Olaf,

You appear to be out of touch with your 'BR road-wreck' ideas. Respected commentators like Roger Ford and others have repeatedly demonstrated that BR was rather more efficient than the current multi-layered 'Privatised' railway.

As for my 'gibberish' about London being favoured for investment at the expense of the Regions during the last 30/40 years, we'll disagree, but listening to George Osborne today, I think he agrees with me.

Perhaps George remembers that Jubilee line extension was built at a time when schemes like the 1970/80s version of Northern Hub were filed away. Other railway rationalisation in the regions, eg Filton Bank, happened at the same time and now they're having to put it back! Let's also remember that this all happened at a time when the population and GDP of London was declining. I'll call it subsidising 'Capital' investment to stop the rot.

As for the South West railways all requiring subsidy as you presume, it actually comes down to how you group routes together and spread the costs. Think FGW v Northern / ECML - everyone says ECML is more profitable. Is it really? Neither is it all about Inter City or London & SE being the good parts. Exeter - Exmouth would probably be one of the most profitable routes in the country if you separately accounted for every item including reference for the fact that the rolling stock is in reality fully depreciated, oh hang about, I forgot we must charge market rate rental costs against all stock so the Roscos can invest in new stock. Does the current system give a true cost of all services? Also, have you ever noticed how the 'Network Grant' to Northern Rail is higher than that for South West Trains? I think it's fair to say this is unlikely to be the truth. It's called not understanding the actual cost of the infrastructure / asset base (Railtrack and Network Rail have both been repeatedly criticised for this) so they spread the grant evenly (probably by route miles) like a Corporate charge.

With your outlook on the world we'd grass over everything outside the M25; let's see how much of an economy is left once we've done this.

It's also amusing to me how many of us (me included) do 'London' jobs yet live 200 miles away and just make 1 or 2 trips to the capital each week. It's concerning for rail that a lot of the travelling is not essential. Business will realise this in due course and there will a gradual drift from London to the Regions as some basic economics returns to the UK - production of goods and services will ultimately be undertaken where it is most efficient to do so. London is already the least efficient region in the UK by many measures, but the Regions need new infrastructure to properly compete. My organisation recently trebled profit and offered our client a reduced price by moving production out of London with no impact on quality or service. Can we do this for all our clients? Not as much as we'd like to until better infrastructure makes it possible to expand operations and recruit adequate numbers of professionals in regional offices.

Back to subject, I support the lower cost, relatively easy to deliver solution to provide Plymouth and Cornwall with a 365-day a year railway whilst retaining the existing route to serve communities on that route and Torbay. Would I advocate reopening Okehampton if Dawlish route had always been inland? No. Do I believe doing nothing is an option? No.

Regards,

Not so old Xavi.

BTW I think the ideas some have posted for creating an extra platform at Newton Abbot through a 'by-pass' line are great and would benefit the current railway operation (and business) through Devon and Cornwall at a very low cost. It would be good if this featured in the consultation to the recent Network Rail document.

 

[MarkyT]

BTW I think the ideas some have posted for creating an extra platform at Newton Abbot through a 'by-pass' line are great and would benefit the current railway operation (and business) through Devon and Cornwall at a very low cost. It would be good if this featured in the consultation to the recent Network Rail document.

Here is my latest version with some thought given to platform lengths:
http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

 

[21C101]

Here is my latest version with some thought given to platform lengths:
http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

I'm a bit late to this, but whats preventing reinstatement of Platform 4?

 

[MarkyT]

I'm a bit late to this, but whats preventing reinstatement of Platform 4?

A large station car park and pedestrian walkways built out over the former track bed and providing level(ish) access to current platform 3 (up main, town side). Stairs from booking hall leading to footbridge taken over as private access to offices in the station building above.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

What about making a new platform on the downside, near the industrial park I believe it may have been a goods loop or siding there years ago.

 

[MarkyT]

What about making a new platform on the downside, near the industrial park I believe it may have been a goods loop or siding there years ago.

Certainly possible. There appears to be space for a platform alongside an additional track within the current railway boundary Anything more elaborate would probably require land re-acquisition in the industrial estate (a former large locomotive depot yard and workshop). Would probably be more expensive than the split branch platform however, and could lead to express to branch down direction interchanges requiring a crossing of the footbridge in addition to branch to express up connections.

 

[yorksrob]

As I have suggested before it could lead to (in due course) a new high speed route running straight between the two as passenger numbers grow to a point that both routes are busy.

Given (assuming an extension of SWT's services) the route to Plymouth via Okehampton could make rail a more option for some. If the pricing was such that via Okehampton was a little less but take a little longer from Exeter then it could lighten loads on the existing route (an advantage to those going to/from the Torbay area).

Some of these flows could then find their way back onto the Paddington services if a new direct high speed route was built between Exeter and Newton Abbot as it would lead to significant drop in journey times. As there would be more people that would benefit from the time saving and there being a larger time saving the extra cost may well be justified, especially if there was a need for an extra pair of tracks between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

Although the new build options will provide an extra pair of tracks over part of the length, there would still be quite a length of new line that would still need to be built. Therefore any such new build scheme may not save that much money over building the direct route and parts could become obsolete if the options for the new lines elsewhere meant that they tied in some distance from the existing line.

I was perhaps a little hasty in dismissing the possibility of a new route, given the RUS. If there was enough traffic to justify quadrupling the section between Newton Abbot and Exeter, then it would make sense to build it high speed. That said, it would still require a sea change in attitudes on the railway as there are quite a few busy double track sections and it seems quite rare for them to be re-quadrupled, even when there is a track bed available (Trent valley is the only one that springs to mind).

Nevertheless, since the trackbed exists, there are various markets en route which are currently underserved and it provides the largest length of secondary route (providing the greatest amount of resilience) the Okehampton option should come first.

 

[21C101]

A large station car park and pedestrian walkways built out over the former track bed and providing level(ish) access to current platform 3 (up main, town side). Stairs from booking hall leading to footbridge taken over as private access to offices in the station building above.

How about being radical. Narrow the up platform (dosen't need to be as wide as no longer an island) and make it twice as long. In the space given up by the platform provide an up loop which interfaces the platform. Scissors crossing half way along.

Alternatively make platform 1 the down fast and platform 3 the up fast, with platform 2 the up and down loop so that stopping trains can easily be passed in either direction?

 

[Rich McLean]

How about being radical. Narrow the up platform (dosen't need to be as wide as no longer an island) and make it twice as long. In the space given up by the platform provide an up loop which interfaces the platform. Scissors crossing half way along.

Alternatively make platform 1 the down fast and platform 3 the up fast, with platform 2 the up and down loop so that stopping trains can easily be passed in either direction?

Won't work due to the modifications needed at the down end. This would also involve more trains "crossing the job", thereby eating up much needed capacity. Marks Version (as suggested by me, but the opposite way round) is the most cost effective measures for a quick fix

 

[MarkyT]

How about being radical. Narrow the up platform (dosen't need to be as wide as no longer an island) and make it twice as long. In the space given up by the platform provide an up loop which interfaces the platform. Scissors crossing half way along.

Alternatively make platform 1 the down fast and platform 3 the up fast, with platform 2 the up and down loop so that stopping trains can easily be passed in either direction?

Would be difficult to build, very disruptive with trains diverted to other platforms during construction. Reinstating 4 would be cheaper and easier I think. The car park could be reduced in size, it rarely fills to more than 50% of it's capacity I understand.

 

[Xavi]

Here is my latest version with some thought given to platform lengths:
http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

Great work. Worth a submission to Modern Railways with the background notes to the role in facilitating the local transport objectives of Devon, Somerset and Cornwall County Councils. I really think this would get consideration amongst Network Rail, FGW and the local authorities and ought to feature on the possibilities list well before the need for a 4-track Exeter to Newton Abbot route which Network Rail recently included in the recent long-term strategy document.

To summarise the objectives all involving the sea wall route:

Regular interval half-hourly Devon Metro
BTM-PNZ semi-fast (inc new stations at Cullompton and Wellington)
Hourly fast London-Plymouth / Penzance
Continue with existing hourly XC inc extras to Paignton
Some semi-fast London services extended from Exeter to Paignton

 

[Rich McLean]

Great work. Worth a submission to Modern Railways with the background notes to the role in facilitating the local transport objectives of Devon, Somerset and Cornwall County Councils. I really think this would get consideration amongst Network Rail, FGW and the local authorities and ought to feature on the possibilities list well before the need for a 4-track Exeter to Newton Abbot route which Network Rail recently included in the recent long-term strategy document.

To summarise the objectives all involving the sea wall route:

Regular interval half-hourly Devon Metro
BTM-PNZ semi-fast (inc new stations at Cullompton and Wellington)
Hourly fast London-Plymouth / Penzance
Continue with existing hourly XC inc extras to Paignton
Some semi-fast London services extended from Exeter to Paignton

Simplied (ok more in depth):
UP
1tph PZN - PAD Fast (HST)
1tph PZN - BRI Semi Fast (158 - with 150 attached during peak hours and/or stock movements)
1tph XC Fast PLY/PZN - North of Bristol (220/221/HST)
2tph PGN - EXM (150 all shacks)
Plus selected XC & FGW HSS to PAD or the North

DN:
1tph PAD - PZN Fast (HST)
1tph BRI - PZN Semi Fast (with 150 attached during peak hours and/or stock movements)
1tph XC North of Bristol - PLY/PZN (220/221/HST)
2tph EXM - PGN all shacks (150)
Plus selected XC & FGW HSS to from PAD or the North to Paignton

PAD - London Paddington
PZN - Penzance
BRI - Bristol Temple Meads
PLY - Plymouth
EXM - Exmouth

EDIT: Just been speaking to a time served Exeter Driver about this layout. It's more than likely a no-go before 2024 due to space constraints at Exeter PSB, as apparently it's jammed full of it with no space to add more. Also it would involve putting track over a Bridge which hasn't been used for rail traffic in donkeys years

If that is the case, I doubt an hourly Bristol - Penzance service will fit before then, more than likely split at Exeter and Plymouth, with the odd one running straight through when space allows

 

[MarkyT]

EDIT: Just been speaking to a time served Exeter Driver about this layout. It's more than likely a no-go before 2024 due to space constraints at Exeter PSB, as apparently it's jammed full of it with no space to add more. Also it would involve putting track over a Bridge which hasn't been used for rail traffic in donkeys years

I've included a bargain basement alternative scheme A where the new line would join the down main before the old bridge. This sacrifices the parallel movements through the East Junction that would be possible in the enhanced scheme B.

http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

I doubt there is a problem with lack of physical space on the control panel. From my days in S&T I remember there was a technical constraint on all of the remote interlockings controlled from Exeter however. An obsolete 'panel processor' system, no longer supported by it's original manufacturer could not be reprogrammed to suit any layout changes desired. That was one reason why the fully signalled West Somerset Railway connection had to wait until the abolition of Silk Mills level crossing released sufficient spare telemetry channels to operate the additional routes. That constraint may still remain.

A possibility to overcome this might be to transfer control of a revised layout away from Exeter to the ROC at the same time as the Plymouth - Totnes resignalling. Without wholesale renewal of the signalling, the mid 80s relay interlockings at Newton Abbot and Totnes could be modified as required and remote controlled using more flexible modern display screen technology in the same way as Didcot took over the remote sites (60's, 70's vintage in that case) formerly controlled from Reading PSB before that facility's demolition as part of the redevelopment there.

 

[Xavi]

Simplied (ok more in depth):
UP
1tph PZN - PAD Fast (HST)
1tph PZN - BRI Semi Fast (158 - with 150 attached during peak hours and/or stock movements)
1tph XC Fast PLY/PZN - North of Bristol (220/221/HST)
2tph PGN - EXM (150 all shacks)
Plus selected XC & FGW HSS to PAD or the North

DN:
1tph PAD - PZN Fast (HST)
1tph BRI - PZN Semi Fast (with 150 attached during peak hours and/or stock movements)
1tph XC North of Bristol - PLY/PZN (220/221/HST)
2tph EXM - PGN all shacks (150)
Plus selected XC & FGW HSS to from PAD or the North to Paignton

PAD - London Paddington
PZN - Penzance
BRI - Bristol Temple Meads
PLY - Plymouth
EXM - Exmouth

EDIT: Just been speaking to a time served Exeter Driver about this layout. It's more than likely a no-go before 2024 due to space constraints at Exeter PSB, as apparently it's jammed full of it with no space to add more. Also it would involve putting track over a Bridge which hasn't been used for rail traffic in donkeys years

If that is the case, I doubt an hourly Bristol - Penzance service will fit before then, more than likely split at Exeter and Plymouth, with the odd one running straight through when space allows

Don't disagree, lack of PSB space would be a typically frustrating reason for delaying a good capacity enhancing scheme. I do though remember being struck by the vast amount of space in Exeter PSB when I was shown around shortly after its opening, but perhaps that was before Taunton, Newton Abbot and Totnes were controlled from there. Pity they went with relays for Exeter and Westbury PSBs when SSI was just about to be widely used!

The bridge would probably be okay with a modest amount of work. Plenty of structures reused on Borders Railway for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've included a bargain basement alternative scheme A where the new line would join the down main before the old bridge. This sacrifices the parallel movements through the East Junction that would be possible in the enhanced scheme B.

http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

I doubt there is a problem with lack of physical space on the control panel. From my days in S&T I remember there was a technical constraint on all of the remote interlockings controlled from Exeter however. An obsolete 'panel processor' system, no longer supported by it's original manufacturer could not be reprogrammed to suit any layout changes desired. That was one reason why the fully signalled West Somerset Railway connection had to wait until the abolition of Silk Mills level crossing released sufficient spare telemetry channels to operate the additional routes. That constraint may still remain.

A possibility to overcome this might be to transfer control of a revised layout away from Exeter to the ROC at the same time as the Plymouth - Totnes resignalling. Without wholesale renewal of the signalling, the mid 80s relay interlockings at Newton Abbot and Totnes could be modified as required and remote controlled using more flexible modern display screen technology in the same way as Didcot took over the remote sites (60's, 70's vintage in that case) formerly controlled from Reading PSB before that facility's demolition as part of the redevelopment there.

Where there's a will.... The 'Didcot' solution would be ideal since if shorter sections are part of Plymouth - Totnes resignalling this would be useful for the reliability of the enhanced service which the Newton Abbot scheme enables. How about some joined up planning and undertake Plymouth - Totnes at the same time as Cornwall resignalling?! Unfortunately I expect lack of budgets may mean this is not the case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've included a bargain basement alternative scheme A where the new line would join the down main before the old bridge. This sacrifices the parallel movements through the East Junction that would be possible in the enhanced scheme B.

http://www.townend.me/files/newtonabbot.pdf

I doubt there is a problem with lack of physical space on the control panel. From my days in S&T I remember there was a technical constraint on all of the remote interlockings controlled from Exeter however. An obsolete 'panel processor' system, no longer supported by it's original manufacturer could not be reprogrammed to suit any layout changes desired. That was one reason why the fully signalled West Somerset Railway connection had to wait until the abolition of Silk Mills level crossing released sufficient spare telemetry channels to operate the additional routes. That constraint may still remain.

A possibility to overcome this might be to transfer control of a revised layout away from Exeter to the ROC at the same time as the Plymouth - Totnes resignalling. Without wholesale renewal of the signalling, the mid 80s relay interlockings at Newton Abbot and Totnes could be modified as required and remote controlled using more flexible modern display screen technology in the same way as Didcot took over the remote sites (60's, 70's vintage in that case) formerly controlled from Reading PSB before that facility's demolition as part of the redevelopment there.

Where there's a will.... The 'Didcot' solution would be ideal since if shorter sections are part of Plymouth - Totnes resignalling this would be useful for the reliability of the enhanced service which the Newton Abbot scheme enables. How about some joined up planning and undertake Plymouth - Totnes at the same time as Cornwall resignalling?! Unfortunately I expect lack of budgets may mean this is not the case.

 

[MarkyT]

Don't disagree, lack of PSB space would be a typically frustrating reason for delaying a good capacity enhancing scheme. I do though remember being struck by the vast amount of space in Exeter PSB when I was shown around shortly after its opening, but perhaps that was before Taunton, Newton Abbot and Totnes were controlled from there. Pity they went with relays for Exeter and Westbury PSBs when SSI was just about to be widely used!

The original building was sized assuming all the panel logic for the remote sites would have been accomplished using hard wired relays. In the end the much more compact and now obsolete 'panel processor' system was chosen so the equipment rooms were left, as you say, quite sparsely populated even after the full final control area had been assumed. Whilst relay logic can be modified fairly easily by many different competent firms, unfortunately the panel processor isn't so easy!

 

[21C101]

OP Ed regarding reopening of Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth by the MP for Central Devon:

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/New-line-offers-West-growth/story-24086503-detail/story.html

And MP for West Devon and Torridge also calling for reopening:

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry...alls-for-additional-rail-route-through-devon/

 

[Busaholic]

OP Ed regarding reopening of Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth by the MP for Central Devon:

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/New-line-offers-West-growth/story-24086503-detail/story.html

And MP for West Devon and Torridge also calling for reopening:

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry...alls-for-additional-rail-route-through-devon/

The momentum continues to build - opportunists most MPs may be, but they're not stupid (well, some of them aren't) and they can see when a cause is worth supporting and, exactly six months before a General Election, what may well garner them some extra votes.

Watch this space.

OK Okehampton





















OK Okehampton.

 

[Ash Bridge]

OP Ed regarding reopening of Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth by the MP for Central Devon:

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/New-line-offers-West-growth/story-24086503-detail/story.html

And MP for West Devon and Torridge also calling for reopening:

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry...alls-for-additional-rail-route-through-devon/

So condition of Meldon Viaduct possibly the major deciding factor then if reopening is being considered?

 

[Rich McLean]

Here we go again.

Remaining XC Services cancelled along the Sea Wall. Will be assessed again after 2145 tonight

 

[yorksrob]

Here we go again.

Remaining XC Services cancelled along the Sea Wall. Will be assessed again after 2145 tonight

I wish the Dawlish cam was still free :cry:

 

[D1009]

Here we go again.

Remaining XC Services cancelled along the Sea Wall. Will be assessed again after 2145 tonight

High tide at Dawlish was 2018, and 1V60 appears to have been the last XC train through at 1902. Met office forecast was winds from the south 30 mph average.

 

[21C101]

High tide at Dawlish was 2018, and 1V60 appears to have been the last XC train through at 1902. Met office forecast was winds from the south 30 mph average.

This rather shows that it is not just extreme events that shut the line. Plenty of people tonight would be quite happy to have a half hour longer journey while they go at 60mph via Okehampton while remaining on the same train.....

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Back in 2001 Voyager trains were found wanting with salt water spray getting into roof vents shorting out electronics. But hey its only one wave in a few thousand! lol!
Put an HST on guys (its got more coaches too)?

This rather shows that it is not just extreme events that shut the line. Plenty of people tonight would be quite happy to have a half hour longer journey while they go at 60mph via Okehampton while remaining on the same train.....

If the LSWR was relaid could 70 - 90 mph be possible in several sections?