Dawlish avoiding route?

[Falcon1200]

Of course I'm suggesting the Dawlish route be retained.

The logic somewhat escapes me here. A diversionary route via Okehampton and Tavistock absolutely must be built, at huge expense, for when Dawlish is closed, but Dawlish must be retained anyway?

 

[yorksrob]

The logic somewhat escapes me here. A diversionary route via Okehampton and Tavistock absolutely must be built, at huge expense, for when Dawlish is closed, but Dawlish must be retained anyway?

No, the route via Okehampton and Tavistock should be opened "at huge expense" (as though there's anything that doesn't come at huge expense these days) primarily to provide better access for Okehampton, Tavistock and the rest of mid Devon.

The ability to divert is an additional benefit.

 

[Falcon1200]

primarily to provide better access for Okehampton, Tavistock and the rest of mid Devon.

Fair enough, but then we are back to whether the benefits justify the cost!

 

[Harpo]

No, the route via Okehampton and Tavistock should be opened "at huge expense" (as though there's anything that doesn't come at huge expense these days) primarily to provide better access for Okehampton, Tavistock and the rest of mid Devon.

The ability to divert is an additional benefit.

Surely, the objective is an all-weather link to Cornwall? However, the alternative appears to be via the less than all weather east end of the Barnstaple line.

Ultimately though, it will fail the business case on the box marked ‘Which London borough/Home counties area will benefit from this?’

 

[35B]

No, the route via Okehampton and Tavistock should be opened "at huge expense" (as though there's anything that doesn't come at huge expense these days) primarily to provide better access for Okehampton, Tavistock and the rest of mid Devon.

The ability to divert is an additional benefit.

And so we go round again, the money must be spent because it’s a good thing, without considering the actual value of that investment. If Meldon weren’t so frail, the gap might be closer, but as it is, so much of the cost is in a few hundred yards.

Much as an enthusiast, I’d like the LSW route to reopen, I just don’t see the case given the costs and limited local demand. The “Dawlish diversion” part of the case didn’t stack up a decade ago when it was analysed, and nothing fundamental has changed since.

Bluntly, Plymouth and Cornwall aren’t important enough these days to justify that level of “what if” investment and anything that is done to mitigate the risks of Dawlish needs to properly consider Torbay. That makes for some very difficult choices as there are no good options, just a wide range of difficult and mediocre ones.

 

[zwk500]

Ultimately though, it will fail the business case on the box marked ‘Which London borough/Home counties area will benefit from this?’

Could you explain how Okehampton, Portishead and Northumberland line ticked this box?

 

[Harpo]

Could you explain how Okehampton, Portishead and Northumberland line ticked this box?

Agreed. My cynicism overload. Maybe the one thing the buffoon did for us was to bring the idea of ‘levelling-up’ to the national conscience, if actually doing little about it himself.

Meanwhile, Portishead? Let’s hope it escapes the usual death of all transport projects marked ‘Bristol’. (Sorry. Where’s the ‘cynicism off’ button?)

 

[yorksrob]

Surely, the objective is an all-weather link to Cornwall? However, the alternative appears to be via the less than all weather east end of the Barnstaple line.

Ultimately though, it will fail the business case on the box marked ‘Which London borough/Home counties area will benefit from this?’

Sorry, but the idea of an "all weather" link in the age of climate change is unrealistic. Resilience will mean the ability to go around the other way sometimes.

 

[35B]

Sorry, but the idea of an "all weather" link in the age of climate change is unrealistic. Resilience will mean the ability to go around the other way sometimes.

Which is why some of us are so sceptical about putting more eggs in the basket marked “Cowley Bridge”. The convectional storms you refer to are precisely what you would expect to cause most trouble there, and have less impact on the sea wall section.

 

[yorksrob]

Bluntly, Plymouth and Cornwall aren’t important enough these days to justify ....

And that's precisely the problem the country has today.

Torbay is one of a number of settled areas of Devon. The rail map of that county needs to look after the whole county, including Okehampton/Tavistock etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2026 ==

Which is why some of us are so sceptical about putting more eggs in the basket marked “Cowley Bridge”. The convectional storms you refer to are precisely what you would expect to cause most trouble there, and have less impact on the sea wall section.

It would still be very bad luck to have both Dawlish and Cowley bridge out of action at the same time. Not impossible, but by having both routes, the risk of the whole South West being cut off is significantly reduced.

 

[zwk500]

Meanwhile, Portishead? Let’s hope it escapes the usual death of all transport projects marked ‘Bristol’. (Sorry. Where’s the ‘cynicism off’ button?)

Portishead is under construction, they've started the works to reroute the roads and are clearing the trackbed. It's in NR's Enhancements Delivery Plan and has a project sponsor, so it's as firm as can be that it's happening.

 

[A S Leib]

Bluntly, Plymouth and Cornwall aren’t important enough these days to justify that level of “what if” investment

Do the MOD typically need railways for anything involving Plymouth? If 3.5-5% of GDP's planned to go on defence and related fields within a decade, looking for projects which could benefit might be good.

(I think Salvini wanted to have a bridge to Sicily built and counted as part of the Italian contribution, which seems even less realistic than a second Exeter to Plymouth route.)

 

[AndrewE]

Portishead is under construction, they've started the works to reroute the roads and are clearing the trackbed. It's in NR's Enhancements Delivery Plan and has a project sponsor, so it's as firm as can be that it's happening.

in the present world circumstances I fear a hasty and ill-advised bout of austerity putting a stop to useful/badly needed projects. It's a tragedy that international bond-buyers can't see that Keynsianism is still valid, and a population securely employed increasing resilience and building things like new or upgraded transport and energy infrastructure and housing are more likely to be able to take on financial commitments themselves.
All 3 rail projects mentioned above have been badly delayed, handicapping provincial economic development and probably costing more as a consequence.

 

[The Ham]

As I see it there's three options:

1) do nothing, other than maintain the existing, although this week at some point this will become difficult, this is unlikely now, but what about in 20 years time, and do we wait until it's too late to do the next thing

2) build the Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) however this doesn't create any new paths to/from anywhere other than that already served, adds a significant amount of extra track to be inspected and maintained for little benefit (also, in doubt anyone is suggesting that the DAL would also lead to the abandonment of the coastal route anytime soon after it's built)

3) build the link between Okehampton and Tavistock (which BTW didn't require any extra rolling stock as the trains would cover the distance in the time they would otherwise be sat idle at the end of the branch), with works to the WofE Line (more doubling would speedd the line noticeably if done right) in a post Crossrail 2 world it would be potentially possible to run 2tph Waterloo to Plymouth. Potentially with a start date of the new services in 2045.

OK, few would bother travelling the full length of that service (although some would) but then how may do that on the long XC services, the reason for it is to create a lot of short hop journeys without everyone having to get off a train.

It would also be attractive for other reasons (you could go direct from Clapham Junction to Plymouth, rather than getting to Paddington and then getting the faster services or getting to Basingstoke, changing to go to Reading to change again).

From London to Salisbury it would be mostly serving those London and Home Countries passengers which would generate a decent return on the investment and most of the rest of the way the passenger numbers would only really need to slightly more than cover the running costs.

Note here's the interesting thing. By providing extra capacity by using the WofE Line, then it actually potentially proves the need for a new line (and/or upgrades to the B&H and building the DAL) to then run me services from London (maybe not Paddington, but ideally somewhere like there).

Currently there's what 2 or maybe 3 fast trains an hour between Exeter and Plymouth, that's nowhere near enough to justify a pair of tracks costing significantly more than the Okehampton route but giving very few advantages (over a few minutes of time savings).

As I said, there's should be a plan for what happens in (say) 20 years time, not just ignore it and see how things go until it's too late and there's a 3 month line closure.

Should we build via Okehampton tomorrow, almost certainly not, but that's not what I'm suggesting and the above isn't something which was considered as part of the NR assessment of the route via Okehampton.

 

[SynthD]

Ultimately though, it will fail the business case on the box marked ‘Which London borough/Home counties area will benefit from this?’

More people (~25k) live in 1 square km of Bow, London than in a 24km diameter circle (~21k) that fits between Tavistock and Gunnislake. Neither has a station.

It's a tragedy that international bond-buyers can't see that Keynsianism is still valid

They may see it's valid but overused. The bond buyers have to believe the government can repay the debt, which is easier for the first trillion than the third.

By providing extra capacity by using the WofE Line, then it actually potentially proves the need for a new line (and/or upgrades to the B&H and building the DAL) to then run me services from London (maybe not Paddington, but ideally somewhere like there).

What kind of new line are you thinking of?

 

[stevieinselby]

Surely, the objective is an all-weather link to Cornwall? However, the alternative appears to be via the less than all weather east end of the Barnstaple line.

An "all-weather link to Cornwall" is only the objective if you are prepared to jettison the rail link to South Devon, and effectively allow the sea to cut off rail access to the coastal communities from Starcross down to Paignton along with most of the South Hams district. And while that is a smaller population than Plymouth and Cornwall, it is not an insignificant one. But as soon as you say that maintaining rail access to Torbay is essential, the existing main line is the all-weather link to Cornwall because we're going to make it so. What we are actually looking at is an "all-weather link to South Devon and Cornwall", which means that the route through Okehampton and Tavistock is not a suitable proposition.

If the inland route via Okehampton and Tavistock is to be reopened then it has to be on the basis of its own merits in providing connections to Okehampton and Tavistock – any benefits from being able to use it as a short-term diversionary route for a week or two every few years when Dawlish is closed and frantically being repaired (and indeed, it's questionable how useful the route would be for diversionary services at all) are so close to zero in the context of the cost and benefits that they make no odds.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

It would still be very bad luck to have both Dawlish and Cowley bridge out of action at the same time. Not impossible, but by having both routes, the risk of the whole South West being cut off is significantly reduced.

Isn't Cowley Bridge where the Dartmoor ex Southern route diverges from the ex-GWR route from Taunton to Exter St Davids? If Cowley Bridge is closed doesn't that cut off Paddington from Exeter?

Reversing other than local trains at Exeter St Davids was ruied out many years ago, but with all services operated by units, it shouldn't be too difficult. Cross Country reverse all over their network.

So it should be possible to run services from Waterloo to Plymouth via Dawlish or if the line rebult, Paddington to Plymouth via Dartmoor.

 

[AndrewE]

How often has Cowley Bridge been a problem recently (i.e. since they remodelled the embankment?)
A previous flooding/Dawlish thread said

Unlikely, it’s pretty normal there in winter, Hele usually poses more of a risk of closure.

In addition to the work that was done at cowley bridge itself, a few weirs in the Exe were also removed near Pynes water treatment works, so the river level sits about 1 metre lower than previous years

 

[stevieinselby]

Isn't Cowley Bridge where the Dartmoor ex Southern route diverges from the ex-GWR route from Taunton to Exter St Davids? If Cowley Bridge is closed doesn't that cut off Paddington from Exeter?

Reversing other than local trains at Exeter St Davids was ruied out many years ago, but with all services operated by units, it shouldn't be too difficult. Cross Country reverse all over their network.

So it should be possible to run services from Waterloo to Plymouth via Dawlish or if the line rebult, Paddington to Plymouth via Dartmoor.

It looks to me (although it's difficult to be sure) that after the split at Cowley Bridge, the main line towards Taunton sits higher above the river than the branch to Barnstaple/Okehampton, so there should be a lower risk of Exeter being cut off from Paddington.

In theory, yes you could run trains from Waterloo to Plymouth but if we're looking at short-term variations, the big question is "with what?" ... SWR doesn't have a load of spare 159s sitting around idle so the only place to get the stock from would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and short-forming trains or cutting the Salisbury terminators to only run as far as Basingstoke, meaning trains running into Waterloo would be (a) shorter than usual, and (b) have more passengers than usual, which doesn't seem like a good plan. And running a mix of 159s and IETs to Waterloo would need a lot of preparation in terms of route availability, crew training, checking pathing and scheduling, working out a plan for stations with short platforms, etc.

Diverting via Dartmoor could be even more problematic in terms of finding a path, depending on how much of the route was built as single track. Better to just run the usual trains along their usual routes but truncated where temporary closures require it, and put more staff out at stations where passengers will need to change to help them find their way around.

 

[martin butler]

I would view any services that might run on an re -opened Tavistock to Okehampton line as regional, rather than as an alternative to Paddington Plymouth, Possibly with a few longer runs to Salisbury thense on to Waterloo,but i would imagine the main reason would be a Devon metro type service, unless there was a market for direct to London Waterloo from Plymouth, and it proved to be easier to guarantee a seat, plus easier underground connections into the heart of london, Obviously Leasure use especially if Network rail cards were extended to include Plymouth via Okehampton, might proove to be worthwhile.

 

[AndrewE]

It looks to me (although it's difficult to be sure) that after the split at Cowley Bridge, the main line towards Taunton sits higher above the river than the branch to Barnstaple/Okehampton, so there should be a lower risk of Exeter being cut off from Paddington.

In theory, yes you could run trains from Waterloo to Plymouth but if we're looking at short-term variations, the big question is "with what?" ... SWR doesn't have a load of spare 159s sitting around idle so the only place to get the stock from would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and short-forming trains or cutting the Salisbury terminators to only run as far as Basingstoke, meaning trains running into Waterloo would be (a) shorter than usual, and (b) have more passengers than usual, which doesn't seem like a good plan. And running a mix of 159s and IETs to Waterloo would need a lot of preparation in terms of route availability, crew training, checking pathing and scheduling, working out a plan for stations with short platforms, etc.

Diverting via Dartmoor could be even more problematic in terms of finding a path, depending on how much of the route was built as single track. Better to just run the usual trains along their usual routes but truncated where temporary closures require it, and put more staff out at stations where passengers will need to change to help them find their way around.

Considering the way that we progress things like line reopenings in the UK, I would think that there would be more than enough time to sort out the rolling stock and route/service strategies...

 

[35B]

Considering the way that we progress things like line reopenings in the UK, I would think that there would be more than enough time to sort out the rolling stock and route/service strategies...

You mean like EWR...

It looks to me (although it's difficult to be sure) that after the split at Cowley Bridge, the main line towards Taunton sits higher above the river than the branch to Barnstaple/Okehampton, so there should be a lower risk of Exeter being cut off from Paddington.

The GW is less vulnerable there, but there is little in it - as there can't be given that the two lines join!

My real issue with the "but flooding" type comments is not that there's no grounds for building in resiliency, but that the risk of weather at Dawlish is being tied to just about anything that may occur, regardless of relevance.

 

[yorksrob]

Isn't Cowley Bridge where the Dartmoor ex Southern route diverges from the ex-GWR route from Taunton to Exter St Davids? If Cowley Bridge is closed doesn't that cut off Paddington from Exeter?

Reversing other than local trains at Exeter St Davids was ruied out many years ago, but with all services operated by units, it shouldn't be too difficult. Cross Country reverse all over their network.

So it should be possible to run services from Waterloo to Plymouth via Dawlish or if the line rebult, Paddington to Plymouth via Dartmoor.

Indeed. Having the two routes in full gives a lot more options. Great Western services are already diverted via Honiton on a regular basis.

 

[MarkyT]

How often has Cowley Bridge been a problem recently (i.e. since they remodelled the embankment?)
A previous flooding/Dawlish thread said

NR elevated the most at risk signalling equipment cabinets above historic flood levels to avoid water damage and recover more quickly if it does happen again.

 

[yorksrob]

They've also built some new channels under the line to help the water to drain away more quickly.

 

[35B]

They've also built some new channels under the line to help the water to drain away more quickly.

They have. My question is more about what the impact will be if climate change has the impact you suggest - because that will increase the flow from both Exe and Creedy to that point, and not in a controlled way either

 

[The Ham]

What kind of new line are you thinking of?

Given that that's probably 30+ (of not 40+) years away, it could be anything, for example another Crossrail type line or even HS Wales and West.

Basically something which allows more services to run from London to a point where existing lines could take some extra traffic (which may still need upgrades).

 

[yorksrob]

They have. My question is more about what the impact will be if climate change has the impact you suggest - because that will increase the flow from both Exe and Creedy to that point, and not in a controlled way either

It will increase the risk of flooding there and make those interventions more important.

It also makes it even more important to have the two routes between London and Plymouth.

 

[AndrewE]

It will increase the risk of flooding there and make those interventions more important.

maybe beavers spreading across the upper catchments of those rivers will reduce the peak flows downstream? (Just hoping!)

 

[35B]

It will increase the risk of flooding there and make those interventions more important.

It also makes it even more important to have the two routes between London and Plymouth.

Those two arguments contradict each other