• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Lord Berkeley's ideas for a Great South West Plan

Status
Not open for further replies.

CW2

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2020
Messages
2,233
Location
Crewe
IRJ ARTICLE LINK
The sainted Lord Berkeley (along with Michael Byng) has made another foray into rail infrastructure spending proposals - see IRJ article linked above.
Their proposals are:
  • "reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)
  • reopening the railway between Okehampton, Tavistock and Bere Alston and upgrading existing sections to create an alternative to the storm-damage-prone Exeter – Plymouth main line (£426.5m)
  • upgrading the Exeter – Barnstable line (£17.25m)
  • reopening the Bodmin – Padstow line (£31.8m)
  • reopening the Lostwithiel – Fowey freight line to passenger trains (£5.25m)
  • reopening the direct link between Newquay and St Austell (£181.5m), and
  • upgrading the Taunton – Minehead West Somerset Railway heritage line (£11.8m)."
It strikes me that there are some pretty sound proposals in that lot. What do you think? Discuss:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
IRJ ARTICLE LINK
The sainted Lord Berkeley (along with Michael Byng) has made another foray into rail infrastructure spending proposals - see IRJ article linked above.
Their proposals are:
  • reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)
  • reopening the railway between Okehampton, Tavistock and Bere Alston and upgrading existing sections to create an alternative to the storm-damage-prone Exeter – Plymouth main line (£426.5m)
  • upgrading the Exeter – Barnstable line (£17.25m)
  • reopening the Bodmin – Padstow line (£31.8m)
  • reopening the Lostwithiel – Fowey freight line to passenger trains (£5.25m)
  • reopening the direct link between Newquay and St Austell (£181.5m), and
  • upgrading the Taunton – Minehead West Somerset Railway heritage line (£11.8m).
It strikes me that there are some pretty sound proposals in that lot. What do you think? Discuss:

It's already being ripped apart discussed elsewhere.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
I certainly linked to it on another thread discussing Dawlish, but as a broader plan than merely the route between Exeter and Plymouth it might deserve its own with the discussion in progress moved over here.
 
Last edited:

37424

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,064
Location
Leeds
Well it looks like the usual fantasy stuff £426 million for Exeter Plymouth via Oakhampton wasn't it estimated to be at least £800 million by Network Rail, plus trying to make a business case on it being a diversionary route is complete nonsense in my view but still if you want to spend £800 million on a line serving minimal population then I guess its a good candidate. £181 million for a direct line from Newquay to St Austell I bet the business case for that stacks up well, while the other re-openings look grossly underestimated.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,932
Location
Gateway to the South West
Fowey. £5.25m to reopen the line, including extending through the port (with subsequent relocation of port and china clay facilities) looks very naïve.

I am suspicious of costs, which doesn't bode well for someone eager to promote themselves as “Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Construction Cost Consultant”.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
There does seem to be part of a recent shift from promoting standalone schemes such as the Okehampton route (which are worthy but perhaps only generating active support by those in the specific area that will benefit) to packaging a number of modest schemes into regional “vision” for rail. This has got to be the way forward, as it creates mutual support between fans of different schemes in the basis of “together we stand, divided we fall”. It also plays into the strengthening of regional identity we have seen in recent years.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,932
Location
Gateway to the South West
The phrase "use design and construct contractors who can respond to output specifications without a project having to go through multiple stages of checks and approvals" will likely raise eyebrows. In its simplest form, this looks like the promoters want to say 'we want a railway, just build it, start digging tomorrow' without adequate planning.
 

geordieblue

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
790
Location
Leeds
Fowey. £5.25m to reopen the line, including extending through the port (with subsequent relocation of port and china clay facilities) looks very naïve.

The new station at Peterlee was pretty bargain basement, and even that cost £10m. You might lose some of the cost without the need for a second platform or footbridge, but you'd be lucky to build a station for £5.25m anyway, setting aside the cost of upgrades to track and movement of china clay facilities.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
I wondered if the best thing that could be done for the southwestern line from salisbury would be to straighten out some of the bends rather than simply double tracking it on the current alignment. It is very twisty in its western sections.

I would also have liked to have sen some electrification!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,439
Location
Yorks
A lot of it I would agree with. Obviously the West country deserves a second through route, and it makes sense to serve Tavistock and Okehampton at the same time.

I also think double tracking a lot of the surviving main line via Honiton would be worthwhile as well.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,749
The phrase "use design and construct contractors who can respond to output specifications without a project having to go through multiple stages of checks and approvals" will likely raise eyebrows. In its simplest form, this looks like the promoters want to say 'we want a railway, just build it, start digging tomorrow' without adequate planning.
It's more "we don't want to conform to GRIP"
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
21,995
Location
Airedale
I wondered if the best thing that could be done for the southwestern line from salisbury would be to straighten out some of the bends rather than simply double tracking it on the current alignment. It is very twisty in its western sections.
I don't recall any curves sharp enough to impose a speed limit West of the 40mph at Wilton - obviously with 90mph stock. You could build direct from Chard Jn to Honiton of course - but omitting Axminster wouldn't be clever.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,061
I wondered if the best thing that could be done for the southwestern line from salisbury would be to straighten out some of the bends rather than simply double tracking it on the current alignment. It is very twisty in its western sections.

I would also have liked to have sen some electrification!

It could well be, although you may need to have some of the existing line retained if such a straightening was to result in a bypass to one of the more minor stations.

Post Crossrail 2 the ability to run 2tph through to Plymouth (one acting as a slightly slower service out to Basingstoke before then running fairly fast to Plymouth with 7 or 8 stops to Plymouth, whilst the other with the same calling pattern as the Exeter services today before all stops to Plymouth) could be quite attractive in picking up more inter regional (i.e. not London) passengers.

For the extra path it could be Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Wimbledon, Woking, Farnborough Main, Basingstoke, Salisbury, Yeovil Junction, Honiton, Exeter Central, Exeter St. David's, Okehampton, Tavistock, Plymouth.

Whilst that allows it down by calling at Wimbledon and Farnborough before Basingstoke, both these locations are key locations. Wimbledon due to its connectivity to a wider area of London which could put journey times at least on a par with the GWR route, whilst Farnborough is an urban area with a population only marginally smaller than Plymouth and with its current good connections to Reading on the NDL already is likely to see a fair number of passengers heading towards the West Country.

With ~9 stops fewer than the current service from most stations between Yeovil and Waterloo that's likely to cut the journey time by around 20-30 minutes. Electrification to Salisbury, or better still Yeovil, would ensure that it's towards the upper range. 100mph running to Basingstoke and 110mph running over sections between Basingstoke and Plymouth would likely cut journey times further.

Whilst probably not enough to beat the London Plymouth times on the GWR services, enough that as long as the times were staggered from the GWR service that it was an option that allowed a later departure than the proceeding faster train and an earlier arrival than the subsequent faster train.

However the main focus of such a service would be to pick up passengers from the areas which have good connections to Clapham Junction and Wimbledon as well as those areas South of a line between Woking and Yeovil and possibly as far East as Brighton to connect to the West Country much more easily than is currently the case.

Even providing a comparable Exeter to Plymouth journey time would attract more passengers due to the extra frequency, especially as there's no need to change when traveling from Exeter Central, Cranbrook (for Exeter Airport) and Honiton.

Add an extra call on the existing services at St. James Park and it would improve connectivity between more of Exeter and Plymouth even further.

It should be noted than when looking at this is likely to be circa 2040 and so it should be viewed through the lens of the extra passengers which are likely to be using rail services at that time. As well as the need to be rapidly reducing our carbon emissions and so reducing our car use.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,892
I’m not sure why anyone is giving any airtime at all to the two utterly discredited individuals who have come up with this.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
3,774
I don't recall any curves sharp enough to impose a speed limit West of the 40mph at Wilton - obviously with 90mph stock. You could build direct from Chard Jn to Honiton of course - but omitting Axminster wouldn't be clever.
I agree, it's at least as well horizontally aligned as the GWR route. The BCR for a Blackdown Hills base tunnel would be interesting
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,408
With ~9 stops fewer than the current service from most stations between Yeovil and Waterloo that's likely to cut the journey time by around 20-30 minutes. Electrification to Salisbury, or better still Yeovil, would ensure that it's towards the upper range. 100mph running to Basingstoke and 110mph running over sections between Basingstoke and Plymouth would likely cut journey times further.
With ~9 stops fewer, it is likely to catch up the residual stopping service - ie the same problem with what would happen on the Weymouth route if the 'fast' didn't stop at Branksome and Parkstone. 110mph running between Salisbury and Exeter is the stuff of a massively disruptive upgrade.

It should be noted than when looking at this is likely to be circa 2040 and so it should be viewed through the lens of the extra passengers which are likely to be using rail services at that time. As well as the need to be rapidly reducing our carbon emissions and so reducing our car use.
Probably many years later.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,061
I’m not sure why anyone is giving any airtime at all to the two utterly discredited individuals who have come up with this.

Probably because all they've done is stitched together some (fairly popular) schemes and put some costs to them.
 

MontyP

Member
Joined
18 Nov 2015
Messages
539
It could well be, although you may need to have some of the existing line retained if such a straightening was to result in a bypass to one of the more minor stations.

Post Crossrail 2 the ability to run 2tph through to Plymouth (one acting as a slightly slower service out to Basingstoke before then running fairly fast to Plymouth with 7 or 8 stops to Plymouth, whilst the other with the same calling pattern as the Exeter services today before all stops to Plymouth) could be quite attractive in picking up more inter regional (i.e. not London) passengers.

For the extra path it could be Waterloo, Clapham Junction, Wimbledon, Woking, Farnborough Main, Basingstoke, Salisbury, Yeovil Junction, Honiton, Exeter Central, Exeter St. David's, Okehampton, Tavistock, Plymouth.

Whilst that allows it down by calling at Wimbledon and Farnborough before Basingstoke, both these locations are key locations. Wimbledon due to its connectivity to a wider area of London which could put journey times at least on a par with the GWR route, whilst Farnborough is an urban area with a population only marginally smaller than Plymouth and with its current good connections to Reading on the NDL already is likely to see a fair number of passengers heading towards the West Country.

With ~9 stops fewer than the current service from most stations between Yeovil and Waterloo that's likely to cut the journey time by around 20-30 minutes. Electrification to Salisbury, or better still Yeovil, would ensure that it's towards the upper range. 100mph running to Basingstoke and 110mph running over sections between Basingstoke and Plymouth would likely cut journey times further.

Whilst probably not enough to beat the London Plymouth times on the GWR services, enough that as long as the times were staggered from the GWR service that it was an option that allowed a later departure than the proceeding faster train and an earlier arrival than the subsequent faster train.

However the main focus of such a service would be to pick up passengers from the areas which have good connections to Clapham Junction and Wimbledon as well as those areas South of a line between Woking and Yeovil and possibly as far East as Brighton to connect to the West Country much more easily than is currently the case.

Even providing a comparable Exeter to Plymouth journey time would attract more passengers due to the extra frequency, especially as there's no need to change when traveling from Exeter Central, Cranbrook (for Exeter Airport) and Honiton.

Add an extra call on the existing services at St. James Park and it would improve connectivity between more of Exeter and Plymouth even further.

It should be noted than when looking at this is likely to be circa 2040 and so it should be viewed through the lens of the extra passengers which are likely to be using rail services at that time. As well as the need to be rapidly reducing our carbon emissions and so reducing our car use.

You can’t sensibly add stops at Wimbledon to fast line trains, this would take at least two paths. Also the fast line platforms at Wimbledon are fenced off and only opened for special srvices such as during the tennis fortnight when a lot of fast line trains do call there.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,912
£25m for Bodmin to Padstow? What are they smoking? Add a zero and multiply by 2 or 3 and you'd be somewhere in the right ball park.
Fowey is interesting. I don't think you'd have to move the china clay terminal. The line could be extended though it, as it was in the past. You'd have to manage the interaction with the private haul road on the old trackbed to Par but that shouldn't be a show stopper. This one feels very doable and worthwhile, though it works cost more like £20m than £5m.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,439
Location
Yorks
£25m for Bodmin to Padstow? What are they smoking? Add a zero and multiply by 2 or 3 and you'd be somewhere in the right ball park.
Fowey is interesting. I don't think you'd have to move the china clay terminal. The line could be extended though it, as it was in the past. You'd have to manage the interac7tion with the private haul road on the old trackbed to Par but that shouldn't be a show stopper. This one feels very doable and worthwhile, though it works cost more like £20m than £5m.

Bodmin to Padstow would be wonderful to my mind. The bus connection has slways been unsatisfactory.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,912
Bodmin to Padstow would be wonderful to my mind. The bus connection has slways been unsatisfactory.
Oh I agree it would be wonderful. But £25m is ridiculous. I doubt that would even pay for the rails, ballast and sleepers, let alone all the formation work, bridge refurbishment/renewal (some of them looked pretty ropey when I checked it over 20 years ago now), signalling, land purchase etc.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,386
What happens if you replace the existing service with a high performance EMU, for example a Class 395?

It seems likely the existing times would get crushed even without infrastructure work.

Maybe its a possible contender for tilt?
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,233
Location
Dyfneint
Oof, I can't imagine the cost of straightening the WoE line enough to make a huge difference, it'd probably pay for one of the other schemes. Some more double track would be nice, not sure you really need to do it all though ( at least not yet, unless there's a really radical service change. ).

I'm surprised there's no Barnstaple-Bideford in there given it's more or less protected and arguably more useful than over the moors... those prices do seem admirably optimistic!
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,518
Bodmin to Padstow would be wonderful to my mind. The bus connection has slways been unsatisfactory.
I was cycling along the Camel trail a week ago, and was very much of the opinion that the cycleway probably brings much more economic value to the 3 towns than the railway ever could - even this summer the trail was very busy indeed - narrowing it would not really be an option, and there isn't room to get a single track railway and the cycleway through side-by-side. And that's before you try to work out how on earth you could get anything through the centre of Padstow. I suspect even £250M would be very challenging to achieve!
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,518
The new station at Peterlee was pretty bargain basement, and even that cost £10m. You might lose some of the cost without the need for a second platform or footbridge, but you'd be lucky to build a station for £5.25m anyway, setting aside the cost of upgrades to track and movement of china clay facilities.
Also, I could be wrong, but I think the current track ends at the far end of the port facility, so about a 1.6km walk from the centre of town, most of which through an industrial port with no public road. Looking on Google Earth, it looks like there is much use made of all of the sidings at the end of the line, so the station may need to go even further away from the town, so that the freight yard is still usable. Who on earth is going to use a station that is that poorly located? The road journey from Par station is only 10 minutes!
Plus, it would presumably be necessary to re-instate platform 3 at Lostwithiel station, which doesn't look difficult but wouldn't be cheap.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,439
Location
Yorks
I was cycling along the Camel trail a week ago, and was very much of the opinion that the cycleway probably brings much more economic value to the 3 towns than the railway ever could - even this summer the trail was very busy indeed - narrowing it would not really be an option, and there isn't room to get a single track railway and the cycleway through side-by-side. And that's before you try to work out how on earth you could get anything through the centre of Padstow. I suspect even £250M would be very challenging to achieve!

I think we're going to disagree on the central point - I'm not convinced that any of the other branches in Cornwall would bring more to the area as cycle lanes (and hopefully we'll never find out) and I've no reason to suspect that this one would be any different, however the line never did go through the centre of Padstow - it approached to the bottom corner where the car park is now.
 

4141

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2015
Messages
170
I was cycling along the Camel trail a week ago, and was very much of the opinion that the cycleway probably brings much more economic value to the 3 towns than the railway ever could - even this summer the trail was very busy indeed - narrowing it would not really be an option, and there isn't room to get a single track railway and the cycleway through side-by-side. And that's before you try to work out how on earth you could get anything through the centre of Padstow. I suspect even £250M would be very challenging to achieve!
Did you mean "the centre of Wadebridge"? That is a massive conundrum, even with the now existing by pass. I still remember the traffic backed right up Gonvena Hill when the level crossing gates were closed on a summer day!
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,518
Did you mean "the centre of Wadebridge"? That is a massive conundrum, even with the now existing by pass. I still remember the traffic backed right up Gonvena Hill when the level crossing gates were closed on a summer day!
I did!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top