The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,630
And this is why these threads are futile. Repeat ad infinitum, nothing is going to change.
-
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!
Dawlish avoiding route?
- Thread starter Ashley Hill
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Grecian 1998
Member
It is intriguing how many people think that the only possibility for an alternative route is to bring a 19th century alignment unused for almost 60 years back into use. Apparently there's no point trying to use 21st century technology to build a new and more direct route.
The Okehampton route is even more indirect than the current route, completely misses Torbay and Teignbridge which have considerably more population than the Okehampton route, leaves Exeter heading north-east and then arrives in Plymouth facing east. This necessitates a long reversal and a hefty time penalty for Cornwall traffic. It would therefore serve Plymouth slightly worse than currently, Cornwall much worse than currently and the Devon Riviera not at all. Additionally, Meldon Viaduct hasn't seen a train for decades and realistically needs replacement - it won't be easy to find a suitable design given the winds off Dartmoor. If an alternative route is needed, it really isn't the answer.
However, it's still better than the Teign Valley route mentioned above, which is an even dafter idea. It's a winding single track alignment with single track infrastructure, including two single track tunnels, one of which has collapsed (Perridge). It served (poorly a handful of villages) and carried so little passenger traffic, it closed nearly 70 years ago, 5 years before Beeching. There is no question about effective 21st century public transport provision in Devon where the answer is going to be 'reopen the Teign Valley line'.
If an alternative route is needed, then tunnel through the Haldon Hills between Exeter and Newton Abbot. It's a very dull answer, but if a line is needed, it's the correct answer.
That said, Plymouth suffers very little time penalty when the route is shut anyway - fast buses run non-stop to Tiverton Parkway which take about the same amount of time as the train anyway, since the A38 is a much shorter route. The only time penalty really is changing from train to bus or vice versa. Granted it might be less convenient taking a bus for part of the route, but the time penalty is minimal. The intermediate stations have more grounds for complaint as the buses have to crawl in and out of Exeter.
The Okehampton route is even more indirect than the current route, completely misses Torbay and Teignbridge which have considerably more population than the Okehampton route, leaves Exeter heading north-east and then arrives in Plymouth facing east. This necessitates a long reversal and a hefty time penalty for Cornwall traffic. It would therefore serve Plymouth slightly worse than currently, Cornwall much worse than currently and the Devon Riviera not at all. Additionally, Meldon Viaduct hasn't seen a train for decades and realistically needs replacement - it won't be easy to find a suitable design given the winds off Dartmoor. If an alternative route is needed, it really isn't the answer.
However, it's still better than the Teign Valley route mentioned above, which is an even dafter idea. It's a winding single track alignment with single track infrastructure, including two single track tunnels, one of which has collapsed (Perridge). It served (poorly a handful of villages) and carried so little passenger traffic, it closed nearly 70 years ago, 5 years before Beeching. There is no question about effective 21st century public transport provision in Devon where the answer is going to be 'reopen the Teign Valley line'.
If an alternative route is needed, then tunnel through the Haldon Hills between Exeter and Newton Abbot. It's a very dull answer, but if a line is needed, it's the correct answer.
That said, Plymouth suffers very little time penalty when the route is shut anyway - fast buses run non-stop to Tiverton Parkway which take about the same amount of time as the train anyway, since the A38 is a much shorter route. The only time penalty really is changing from train to bus or vice versa. Granted it might be less convenient taking a bus for part of the route, but the time penalty is minimal. The intermediate stations have more grounds for complaint as the buses have to crawl in and out of Exeter.
I wonder how often the existing GW line to Plymouth is closed because of bad weather, compared to the Northern main lines particularly the WCML? Does it really need a standby route?
Also, the 2014 collapse of the Dawlish wall really was because that section had not been rebuilt previously, IIRC because of local objections (by those it would protect?). The recent storm Ingrid damage was minor by comparison. When weather is that bad everyone ought to stay at home, high-sided road vehicles (including buses) especially
The LSWR route was quite a climb with c25 miles of c1:80 to Meldon Summit, then the same down to Tamerton. It also skirted rather wild and windy country.
WAO
Also, the 2014 collapse of the Dawlish wall really was because that section had not been rebuilt previously, IIRC because of local objections (by those it would protect?). The recent storm Ingrid damage was minor by comparison. When weather is that bad everyone ought to stay at home, high-sided road vehicles (including buses) especially
The LSWR route was quite a climb with c25 miles of c1:80 to Meldon Summit, then the same down to Tamerton. It also skirted rather wild and windy country.
WAO
irish_rail
On Moderation
The line is shut to Voyagers and IETs more often than you'd think. Complete closures less likely, but IETs and Voyagers provide the bulk of the service through Dawlish, and the inconvenience to all concerned is signifcant. As I mentioned up thread, the line was closed for several hours last Wednesday to IETs and Voyagers. It's almost something we've had to get used to. But that doesn't make it right.
In reverse order:
3 is no good. Tremendous amount of brand new construction required and the article thinks it might take 10 to 15 years, so multiply by three, even if they do still have all the original GWR surveys etc (if I understand the article correctly).
2 is no good either because by the time you've rebuilt the branch line in a form that would actually be useful you've effectively done 3 anyway, as the GWR recognised.
This leaves 1, which has several advantages...
You're not building something which has no function other than as a Dawlish avoider. Instead you're restoring rail services to Tavistock, providing Tavistock and Okehampton with services to Exeter/Plymouth that aren't maximally indirect, and so on, with the option of using the route as an alternative to Dawlish in times of need.
It's also a route which plainly (at least so I would hope) isn't suitable as a Dawlish replacement. So it minimises the temptation to do something horrible like not repairing the sea wall and just having a couple of withering stub-end branches to Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.
AIUI there is very little obstruction on the route and the main problem is getting someone to realise that you can repair Meldon viaduct using the same techniques that the original builders would have used to be compatible with it being listed.
It was a double track main line in the first place, so it's much more suitable to be one again than the Teign Valley branch would be.
The gradients, although more prolonged, are less severe than Hemerdon or Rattery, so it is potentially more useful as a freight route than any variation on the other options (including more extreme variations that also avoid Dainton; they can't avoid the others).
grahamshevlin
Member
This is going to be another 72 hour story in the media. Then the damage will be repaired, the line will re-open, and the topic of an avoiding line will disappear once more.
Until the Dawlish area is hit by The Big One, and miles of track and seawall, millions of tons of cliff and beach, and hundreds of houses and people are washed away.
Then there will be uproar and cries of "why was nothing ever done?" And a frantic mega-project will be initiated to restore the Okehampton route.
Nothing will be done until The Big One strikes.
Until the Dawlish area is hit by The Big One, and miles of track and seawall, millions of tons of cliff and beach, and hundreds of houses and people are washed away.
Then there will be uproar and cries of "why was nothing ever done?" And a frantic mega-project will be initiated to restore the Okehampton route.
Nothing will be done until The Big One strikes.
But surely a tunnel between Exeter and Newton Abbott would miss out the urban areas or Dawlish and Teignmouth.
ABB125
Established Member
To be honest, the answer to that is "so what?".
Fast services run via the new "Devon Base Tunnel", with a half-hourly local service running along the current route through Dawlish. If and when the Dawlish route is shut, there's no impact on fast services and the local services simply divert through the tunnel (or run as a shuttle connecting to the fast services. Or something). A far better situation that at present - the world is not going to end if Dawlish and Teignmouth are cut off from rail for a few days/weeks
Harlequinuk
On Moderation
Does the Meldon viaduct need replacing as per NR assessment or can it be repaired to original standards via those who still construct in the same methods?
Topological
Established Member
You would almost think that the Okehampton route ran through Teignmouth, Dawlish...
The local services continuing via the coast is exactly what should happen. The base tunnel approach then keeps London trains at Newton Abbott and Totnes. The base tunnel maintains the option for London services from Paignton/Torquay.
I can only assume those advocating for Okehampton have some other cunning plan for the existing line.
FGWHST43009
Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2020
- Messages
- 253
I would concur, new line is probably the best as Okehampton will become congested, especially if there is to be an increase in local service frequency as well.
Build the new line suitable for 250kmh and run IETs over it on electric at 140mph. Given that there will be civil engineering crews down there already, might as well build a full new line all the way to Plymouth and bypass the curvy bits west of Newton Abbot. Include a connection so trains can serve Newton Abbot and then serve Paignton or rejoin the new line to Plymouth. Electrify all connecting lines to London etc. Then upgrade and electrify the Cornish main line while you're there. But back to the main point, Okehampton makes sense with current levels of traffic but if any increase is expected then a new line will eventually be needed. The Cardiff-Exeter could be extended to Plymouth using the new line as well, although how to serve Totnes leaves a bit of a question mark
Is leaving Torbay / Dawlish to Plymouth temporarily unserved a risk too expensive not to take? Newton Abbot to Exeter Central / St Davids / St Thomas is 100,000 journeys per year, to Paddington 66,000, and to Plymouth 71,000, so it isn't an unimportant flow for Newton Abbot.
On the other hand, from Dawlish it's 96,000 per year to Exeter compared to 11,000 to Plymouth, so maybe all that needs to be done is to ensure that trains can run Plymouth – Newton Abbot shuttles (or Penzance – Newton Abbot, or Plymouth – Paignton?) if Dawlish is out of use.
On the other hand, from Dawlish it's 96,000 per year to Exeter compared to 11,000 to Plymouth, so maybe all that needs to be done is to ensure that trains can run Plymouth – Newton Abbot shuttles (or Penzance – Newton Abbot, or Plymouth – Paignton?) if Dawlish is out of use.
....then wouldn't money be better spent on proofing the existing rolling stock and/or obtaining non water-soluble units in the future?
HST's proved excellent sea-boats in heavy weather!
WAO
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,728
That is an issue with the trains not being fit for purpose, not the infrastructure. We’ve had trains running on that line in all conditions for 175 years or so, and it is only now a problem with two specific train types.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,227
I think that was suggested early on and ruled out, as were large offshore barriers. I’m no expert but rock armour against the existing seawall would probably make the beach significantly narrower.
irish_rail
On Moderation
Of course, but they've been trying to fix the Voyagers for years, and seemingly it's impossible. A new build fleet of "HST mk2" would of course be preferable, but it ain't gonna happen!
I don't agree. Yes modern trains have more issues, however that stretch of track has always been susceptible to interesting weather and always will be to an extent.
Sir Felix Pole
Established Member
According to Peter Kay (1991) 'Exeter - Newton Abbot: A Railway History' the GWR planned no intermediate stations, nor had any intention of closing the coastal route. Local politicians, however, wanted stations - for Dawlish by St. Michael's Church and for Teignmouth at Coombe - but both would have been tricky sites to build, had poor road access and remote from the towns. They had an eye to 'beautifying' their towns by removing the railway from the sea front altogether.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And right on cue, calls to open the Tavistock / Okehampton route...
North Devon Gazette
Last edited:
what is wrong with
“I have been arguing for some time that we now need a long-term plan for rail in our region that addresses resilience, improves journey times and creates new routes including to Tavistock,” ?
(apart from the price!)
Oh aye, quite remarkably cunning... like, carry on as normal. (Unless you count "stop diagramming water-soluble stock over it", but I think that should be done regardless of whatever else happens.)
Okehampton/Tavistock is a potential avoiding route. It gets you out of a hole under abnormal conditions. It categorically isn't suitable as a replacement for the coastal route when conditions are not abnormal. So it avoids, as far as possible, creating any temptation to have any "cunning plans" for the coastal route. This is important, because any such "plan" would inevitably cause its downgrading and eventually result in its closure.
Okehampton/Tavistock also isn't only a potential avoiding route. It has a function in its own right, ie. reconnecting Tavistock, giving towns along the route through services in both directions, etc. That it can also function as an avoider when necessary is simply an additional advantage.
And Okehampton/Tavistock is actually vaguely possible to imagine happening, unlike the various grandiose proposals for miles of magic tunnels.
Topological
Established Member
So you think the line would be funded purely as a nice-to-have in case?
In essence there is a sign up to maintain two routes that are capable of handling heavy services between Plymouth and Exeter?
Presumably, the maintenance level would need to be high enough to permit 2 or 3 IET equivalents per hour?
The Dawlish avoider would undoubtedly see the existing line become something of a Weston-super-Mare approach with a single track loop and maybe one two platformed station to maintain..
Once you spend money on a line you need to actually use it.
brad465
Veteran Member
If this were possible it would certainly be a huge journey time saving as well that would draw in more usage: currently Exeter-Plymouth on faster services is around an hour: a direct route of this nature could easily cut that in half and has the potential to take lots of traffic off roads like the M5 and Devon Expressway. If 30 minutes were saved on the journey, London-Plymouth would drop to 2h30m, all else being equal, with Plymouth-Bristol becoming 1h25-30m.
Of course this is all fantasy as HS2 is using up all the resources that would be required to make this project happen, even if the business case could be made worthwhile.
That's not what I said at all. I said it has a usefulness in its own right in providing services to places along its route, and its ability to be used as a diversionary route is an additional advantage on top of that.
If as few as 2 or 3 trains per hour incurs an excessive maintenance burden then there is something more fundamental amiss. Are IETs really that punishing to the track? If so they need fixing themselves.
Exactly. With a rotten service, so nobody wants to use it, and then gets closed after some storm damage and we lose it altogether. So it is not safe to construct something which would allow that to happen.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,268
It's all going to be new construction anyway.
Just because a railway was notionally there 60 years ago does not mean it is going to be easier to build than on a new alignment.
And the surveys from the construction of the Okehampton route will definitely all be gone since they were done in the 19th Century.
I'd trust the quality of 1930s surveying work over 1870s surveying work any day of the week, but that is admittedly just me!
If it can't reduce the costs on the existing route then its business case consists of "give us a pile of money to build this line, then provide a pile of additional money each year in perpetuity to run trains on it, whilst you continue to spend the same amount of money you do now on the main route".
I'm not really convinced that that is going to be a particularly attractive business case to the Treasury.
A Dawlish bypass goes where the passenger flows are and provides significant benefits every day, whether or not the existing route is untenable or not.
If you squint you can make a case for a train to Tavistock, maybe. But a line from Bere Alston to Tavistock, a total line modernisation between Plymouth and Bere Alston and a major upgrade between Okehampton and Exeter has no chance. Especially if you are trying to justify it on the basis of local traffic and a few days a decade of diversion. It's 30+km of brand new alignment just between Bere Alston and Tavistock - compared to about ~15km minimum to bypass Dawlish.
EDIT:
Worth noting that by the time a train from Tiverton Parkway to the west has managed to divert (reversing twice) and leave Plymouth, a coach on the A30 (now essentially all dual carriageway) would likely be a loong way ahead of it, even allowing ofr changing. I can't see it being an attractive option for diversions, its just too slow.
The technques the original builders would have used is probably to tear it down and build a new viaduct....
The line is unobstructed because it runs through one of the closest things you can find to a wilderness in the south of Britain. There is noone around to use the line, so its not going to generate large amounts of traffic to defray the cost of operating it, much less building it.
Last edited:
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 848
I think the time will come when Dawlish will be under threat anyway, rising sea levels, a warmer wetter climate, the geography of the area soft unstable sandstone, will make cutting tunnels very difficult and costs will soon rise, there is going to be no cheap options, but much of tthis is mute, a reform government won't invest in railways,
Most likily outcome would be the line being severed and the rest possibly run down then closed with car ownership being the chosen alternative
Most likily outcome would be the line being severed and the rest possibly run down then closed with car ownership being the chosen alternative
mike57
Established Member
The reality, the line will get patched up again, and the can 'Dawlish avoider' will get kicked down the road yet again, after all it been kicked down the road for 90 years.
The best we can hope for, re-opening beyond Okehampton will be partly justified as an alternative route, and when the route via Dawlish is unuseable there will be a very basic service via Okehampton to maintain connectivity. The route via Okehampton will not be an attractive alternative, slow with reversals, but it will be touted as a win.
There will be no new construction in the forseeable future, what will happen 15 or 20 years into the future if sea levels continue to rise and storms become more frequent and severe I dont know, but once the principle of a reduced service during and after bad weather becomes established it will probably limp along with more frequent closures for years.
The best we can hope for, re-opening beyond Okehampton will be partly justified as an alternative route, and when the route via Dawlish is unuseable there will be a very basic service via Okehampton to maintain connectivity. The route via Okehampton will not be an attractive alternative, slow with reversals, but it will be touted as a win.
There will be no new construction in the forseeable future, what will happen 15 or 20 years into the future if sea levels continue to rise and storms become more frequent and severe I dont know, but once the principle of a reduced service during and after bad weather becomes established it will probably limp along with more frequent closures for years.
Yes, this is something to bear in mind, particularly if the railway decided that coastal routes were too difficult under the guise of climate change.
martin butler
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 848
The best option would be if the inland line was reopened, and the sea defence works at Dawlish continued, there is another possible reason, Meldon quarry, heavy ballast trains will have less impact if ballast is needed West of Plymouth, on any of the lines, if they were routed over the northern line, given the western routes limitations , steep gradients etc.
The main traffic would still go via Dawlish, and the former Southern route would be a secondary and at least when inclement conditions close the coastal route, at least there will still be another route available,
As the Southern route went through largely unspoilt countryside, could that, if the line was rebuilt be a marketing tool for attracting tours, Bristol to Plymouth, out one way, back another, no need for turning, or running round, the local service could also operate as an exeter circular local service to simplify usage.
The main traffic would still go via Dawlish, and the former Southern route would be a secondary and at least when inclement conditions close the coastal route, at least there will still be another route available,
As the Southern route went through largely unspoilt countryside, could that, if the line was rebuilt be a marketing tool for attracting tours, Bristol to Plymouth, out one way, back another, no need for turning, or running round, the local service could also operate as an exeter circular local service to simplify usage.
- Status