Dawlish blockage 21/6/2024... Important transport link shows vulnerability again!

[AndrewE]

I was told that trains were disrupted due to a landslip "between Exeter and Newton Abbot" and guessed at the cliffs east of Dawlish. Looked for a thread here to get better info, but no luck... What does surprrise me on the NR website is GWR saying
Great Western Railway Customer Advice:

You can use your ticket on the following:

• CrossCountry via any reaosnable route
• South Western Railway between Exeter St Davids and London Waterloo via Basingstoke
• London Underground between London Waterloo and London Paddington
• Stagecoach Buses between:
  • Route 2: Exeter (Bus Station), Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot (Sherborne Rd)
  • Route 12: Severn Beach (Station), Bristol Parkway

 

[swt_passenger]

Fixed now, but apparently it was south of Dawlish, between there and Teignmouth, (so the area being currently worked on by BAM Nuttall).

I think the alternative travel options are just the usual suggestions for any disruption in the wider Exeter and Bristol area.

 

[david1212]

I was told that trains were disrupted due to a landslip "between Exeter and Newton Abbot" and guessed at the cliffs east of Dawlish. Looked for a thread here to get better info, but no luck... What does surprise me on the NR website is GWR saying
Great Western Railway Customer Advice:

You can use your ticket on the following:

• CrossCountry via any reaosnable route
• South Western Railway between Exeter St Davids and London Waterloo via Basingstoke
• London Underground between London Waterloo and London Paddington
• Stagecoach Buses between:
  • Route 2: Exeter (Bus Station), Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot (Sherborne Rd)
  • Route 12: Severn Beach (Station), Bristol Parkway

Stagecoach Route 12: Newton Abbot - Brixham
would be more relevant so logically the wrong route 12 picked out.
Also relevant would be
Route 22: Dawlish Warren - South Devon College
for travel Dawlish Warren - Dawlish - Teignmouth - Torquay - Paignton

I wonder where in the UK the person making the post was based ?

 

[Amlag]

Fixed now, but apparently it was south of Dawlish, between there and Teignmouth, (so the area being currently worked on by BAM Nuttall).

I think the alternative travel options are just the usual suggestions for any disruption in the wider Exeter and Bristol area.

With Cliff falls/ landslips possible anywhere between Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren there is a case for the Down line to be made reversible ( the Up line is Reversible between these places)

It has been a very bad day for rail services between Exeter and Plymouth today, firstly N.Abbot to Plymouth was closed for about FIVE hours from about 0715 due a body seen on line near Totnes and then from about 1600 serious disruption, late running and many cancellations for several hours due Landslip between Teignmouth and Dawlish.
All made worse by no diversionary route since 1968 between Exeter and Plymouth.
Some rail passengers from Cornwall today were instead railheading to Okehampton for trains to Exeter for services to London and the North.

 

[IanXC]

Stagecoach Route 12: Newton Abbot - Brixham
would be more relevant so logically the wrong route 12 picked out.
Also relevant would be
Route 22: Dawlish Warren - South Devon College
for travel Dawlish Warren - Dawlish - Teignmouth - Torquay - Paignton

I wonder where in the UK the person making the post was based ?

I'd bet on Swindon.

 

[JN114]

Stagecoach Route 12: Newton Abbot - Brixham
would be more relevant so logically the wrong route 12 picked out.
Also relevant would be
Route 22: Dawlish Warren - South Devon College
for travel Dawlish Warren - Dawlish - Teignmouth - Torquay - Paignton

I wonder where in the UK the person making the post was based ?

Swindon for the initial “post” made by GWR; then copied/pasted by various agencies based in various UK and even non-UK offices for the likes of NRE, news outlet travel pages etc.

I’m also almost certain it is a simple case of wrong “route 12” picked from a list when creating the line problem; not enough time to properly proof read and nobody else fed back to them to get it corrected before the problem was fixed. Putting these line problems out is only a tiny fraction of their job, which encompasses customer (both in the normal and also internal sense) messaging for all goings-on Swindon and Westward on GWR’s network.

 

[Deafdoggie]

All made worse by no diversionary route since 1968 between Exeter and Plymouth.

Most routes have no alternatives. It's just that enthuiasts get excited if they can make even a vague justification for needing an inland line diversion away from Dawlish.

 

[AndrewE]

Most routes have no alternatives. It's just that enthuiasts get excited if they can make even a vague justification for needing an inland line diversion away from Dawlish.

I'll be polite and just say "Really...?"

London to Scotland? 2 routes at least. London to Manchester? Bristol to Birmingham or Crewe? Edinburgh to Manchester? Swindon to Shrewsbury? Peterborough to Carlisle? Swansea to Manchester? Peterborough to Chester? Liverpool to Dundee?

I think the point is that most of the UK is served by a railway network which gives lots of options for alternative routes when one has a serious problem. (And quite a lot of the alternative routes can also fairly be described as trunk routes, with quite good services. If you use something like FastJP and ignore the cheapest/most direct routes there are often lots of options for journeys not much worse than the fastest.)

If you (we, I) want to support our provincial economies you can fully justify apparently excessive "duplicated" infrastructure provision to ensure that isolated bits of the country don't suffer any more than they already have in the last century or so. You could argue that the slavish devotion to "efficient" or minimum-possible infrastructure has driven them to where they are now.

 

[The Planner]

I'll be polite and just say "Really...?"

London to Scotland? 2 routes at least. London to Manchester? Bristol to Birmingham or Crewe? Edinburgh to Manchester? Swindon to Shrewsbury? Peterborough to Carlisle? Swansea to Manchester? Peterborough to Chester? Liverpool to Dundee?

I think the point is that most of the UK is served by a railway network which gives lots of options for alternative routes when one has a serious problem. (And quite a lot of the alternative routes can also fairly be described as trunk routes, with quite good services. If you use something like FastJP and ignore the cheapest/most direct routes there are often lots of options for journeys not much worse than the fastest.)

If you (we, I) want to support our provincial economies you can fully justify apparently excessive "duplicated" infrastructure provision to ensure that isolated bits of the country don't suffer any more than they already have in the last century or so. You could argue that the slavish devotion to "efficient" or minimum-possible infrastructure has driven them to where they are now.

How many examples of those were by design to have a secondary route?

 

[AndrewE]

How many examples of those were by design to have a secondary route?

None, but what has that got to do with it? They were built to advance a totally different - mostly agricultural - economy and population distribution that was only intended to upgrade what existed (the canals.) Most of our current trunk routes are amalgams of a dog's breakfast of local/parochial lines!

What we have now are the thinned-out remnants of that (grossly over-provided) network which have been re-purposed to serve our current needs, and are showing the strain, often where demand has grown between places that were barely connected at all before the industrial revolution.

I think it is fair to say that alternative routes do have a value beyond just serving the normal local/point-to-point users, and losing a second route west of Exeter is one of the biggest losses. I wonder if even the one vulnerable route through Exeter is a bit precarious... it would only take a catastrophic flood of the Exe and all the work at Cowley Bridge would be wasted! (I am aware of the flood channel parallel to the Exe, but you never know nowadays!)

 

[Topological]

Is alternative transport not what buses on the A38 do? The investment would really be to have more buses ready to go in disruption.

I know we are supposed to be advocating for the railways, but the railways do not live in isolation.

Should it be the case that neither buses on the A38, nor Dawlish can operate, but the route via Okehampton could, then maybe it is time to get that route back open.

 

[zwk500]

I think it is fair to say that alternative routes do have a value beyond just serving the normal local/point-to-point users, and losing a second route west of Exeter is one of the biggest losses. I wonder if even the one vulnerable route through Exeter is a bit precarious... it would only take a catastrophic flood of the Exe and all the work at Cowley Bridge would be wasted! (I am aware of the flood channel parallel to the Exe, but you never know nowadays!)

By this logic shouldn't the second route bypass the single point of failure of Exeter? That seems like it's just undermining it's own case.

Ultimately there will always be some places where simple geography means provision of multiple routes aren't viable.

 

[AndrewE]

By this logic shouldn't the second route bypass the single point of failure of Exeter? That seems like it's just undermining it's own case.

Ultimately there will always be some places where simple geography means provision of multiple routes aren't viable.

I agree. It occurred to me that a chord from the GW main line to the former LSWR route going north-west would allow West Devon and Cornwall to stay connected if Exeter went beneath the waves. If we had one railway with common rolling stock there would be no "the drivers that know this route don't know the traction" reason for abandoning services.
Building a resilient railway (i.e. ultimately reliable for the customer, even if things are in disarray) will need to adopt policies like this.

 

[HSTEd]

Should it be the case that neither buses on the A38, nor Dawlish can operate, but the route via Okehampton could, then maybe it is time to get that route back open.

Hard to think of a catastrophe that could knock out the A38, the A30 and possibly even the A39 without taking out a hypothetical railway via Okehampton!

 

[zwk500]

I agree. It occurred to me that a chord from the GW main line to the former LSWR route going north-west would allow West Devon and Cornwall to stay connected if Exeter went beneath the waves.

If flooding has taken out the bridge south of Exeter St. Davids, the chances are it'd take out either the bridge for this new chord, or the line where the junction is. To say nothing of the engineering and signalling feasibility of installing such a chord.

If we had one railway with common rolling stock there would be no "the drivers that know this route don't know the traction" reason for abandoning services.

New infrastructure would still need route knowledge though, and the issues with signing stock/routes are policy- and training-driven, not infrastructure based.

Building a resilient railway (i.e. ultimately reliable for the customer, even if things are in disarray) will need to adopt policies like this.

Why can't the road network be the alternative route for when things go up the swanny?

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately there will always be some places where simple geography means provision of multiple routes aren't viable.

Yes, but that shouldn't necessarily be the entire route between Exeter and Plymouth.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The vast majority of journeys are relatively short distance, to a major city or centre of employment. Although there are some places, such as Dartford or Croydon, blessed with a variety of routes most places are stuck with one for practical purposes. E.g. Exmouth, Torquay, Chelmsford, Huntingdon, Luton, Maidenhead, Sutton Coldfield, Ilkley, Glossop, Gourock, Rhymney and so on.

 

[david1212]

Is alternative transport not what buses on the A38 do? The investment would really be to have more buses ready to go in disruption.

If outside Exeter, Plymouth & Newton Abbot stations buses are lined up and run either as full or at short intervals for both direct Exeter <> Plymouth, Exeter <> Newton Abbot then all stations Exeter <> Newton Abbot and Plymouth <> Newton Abbott plus unless a rail shuttle running also Newton Abbott <> Paignton not ideal but there would be continuity of travel.

The reality is that even for planned work sourcing enough buses and drivers is now often difficult and some have to be drafted in from well out of the area. At short notice they are simply not available.

The bottom line is that Exeter <> Newton Abbot is a vulnerable main line with no Plan B with adequate capacity that can be made available quickly.

Having a depot full of buses and a mess room full of drivers / drivers on call with no scheduled work is never going to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

Having a depot full of buses and a mess room full of drivers / drivers on call with no scheduled work is never going to happen.

And an Okehampton route with more than a homeopathic capability for diversions would cost billions and is never going to happen.

A bus fleet would likely be cheaper!

 

[yorksrob]

And an Okehampton route with more than a homeopathic capability for diversions would cost billions and is never going to happen.

A bus fleet would likely be cheaper!

What's a "homeopathic" capability for diversions, how would you describe Salisbury - Exeter's capacity ?

 

[HSTEd]

What's a "homeopathic" capability for diversions, how would you describe Salisbury - Exeter's capacity ?

Salisbury-Exeter has rather more capacity than the Tamar Valley Line!
To run even one train per hour you'd be looking at a major reconstruction of a large part of the Tamar Valley line, plus 33km of new railway from Bere Alston to the Meldon Viaduct. Plus likely significant structural work on the viaduct and the section from there to Okehampton.

If you want more than one train per hour it will be a total rebuild along pretty much the entire route from Exeter St Davids to Keyham.
I make it something like six trains per hour per direction on the line through Dawlish.

 

[yorksrob]

Salisbury-Exeter has rather more capacity than the Tamar Valley Line!
To run even one train per hour you'd be looking at a major reconstruction of a large part of the Tamar Valley line, plus 33km of new railway from Bere Alston to the Meldon Viaduct. Plus likely significant structural work on the viaduct and the section from there to Okehampton.

If you want more than one train per hour it will be a total rebuild along pretty much the entire route from Exeter St Davids to Keyham.
I make it something like six trains per hour per direction on the line through Dawlish.

Wouldn't it more likely be a case of a single line with loops - there's one more or less already in existence in Okehampton, with perhaps another in the Tavistock area. Another could be created in the area where it runs alongside the Barnstaple line at Yeoford. This would surely bring it in line with Exeter - Salisbury ?

 

[Deafdoggie]

This comes up every few years. Every time the answers are the same. See numerous threads over the years.

But the answers remains Meldon viaduct can't take the weight of trains and is a listed structure. Building a new one means the scheme is too expensive before it starts.

A single line with passing loops wouldn't cope with all the trains currently passing through Dawlish, so would be no use at all as a diversionary line.

The only possible (and even then it's tenuous) way a budget for all this would get passed, is if it replaced the Dawlish line and that was shut to save maintenance.

Very few lines the length of Exeter-Newton Abbot have diversionary routes.

 

[Benjwri]

would allow West Devon and Cornwall to stay connected if Exeter went beneath the waves.

Exeter is not going to go 'under the waves'. You are talking about floods which are just impossible, especially with it's proximity to the sea. Yes plan for worst case scenario, but detailed models are undertaken of these kind of things, and we plan for a bad scenario but not something as drastic as you suggest, because quite simply great swathes of the country would be underwater and running the railways would be a small isue.

 

[Topological]

And an Okehampton route with more than a homeopathic capability for diversions would cost billions and is never going to happen.

A bus fleet would likely be cheaper!

Indeed.

I appreciate that no one is creating a fleet of buses, or recruiting the drivers to run them. However, that would be by far the most cost-effective way to achieve resilience if resilience is really being sought.

I suspect most are happy to carry on with trying to scramble buses when problems arise. The rights, or wrongs, of that do not make a case for opening Okehampton to Plymouth again.

 

[yorksrob]

A single line with passing loops wouldn't cope with all the trains currently passing through Dawlish, so would be no use at all as a diversionary line.

An assertion which is disproved every time trains are diverted via Yeovil Junction.

The only possible (and even then it's tenuous) way a budget for all this would get passed, is if it replaced the Dawlish line and that was shut to save maintenance.



Very few lines the length of Exeter-Newton Abbot have diversionary routes.

Take a look at a rail map - you'll find that most of them do in some form.

 

[richw]

Stagecoach Route 12: Newton Abbot - Brixham
would be more relevant so logically the wrong route 12 picked out.
Also relevant would be
Route 22: Dawlish Warren - South Devon College
for travel Dawlish Warren - Dawlish - Teignmouth - Torquay - Paignton

I wonder where in the UK the person making the post was based ?

As a stagecoach driver we were given a list of routes that acceptance had been authorised on, and it was more than GWR advertised.

2
12
22
38
39
B
Gold.

 

[Deafdoggie]

An assertion which is disproved every time trains are diverted via Yeovil Junction.

And the massive service cuts that go with it. No XC, no Exmouth-Paignton locals. Just a handful of trains diverted. Not a comparison at all.

Take a look at a rail map - you'll find that most of them do in some form.

London-Milton Keynes
Stafford-Birmingham
Crewe-Warrington
Lancaster-Penrith
The list goes on and on and on and on. Far more railways have no diversion than have a useable diversion. And Lancaster-Carlisle via Selafield isn't a useable diversion for example, as the stock doesn't fit. And Stafford-Nuneaton-Birmingham isn't a useable diversion as it takes too long. There are only a handful of places (if that) with useable diversionary routes.

 

[Benjwri]

There are only a handful of places (if that) with useable diversionary routes.

Although an agree with the majority of what you’re saying, I think a handful is a fairly major exaggeration. You just have to look at GWR’s network to see that. Between Reading and Taunton, Newport and Worcester the majority of long distance route have diversionary routes, and the same goes for the ‘middle’ section of a lot of long distance routes.

However these diversionary routes all exist on the basis that they are justified routes with services running anyways. The railway is already being deemed to cost too much money, we cannot build empty routes and maintain them just to use every now and then.

As an aside, on the proposals from this thread on reopening the line from Okehampton, regardless of already mentioned bridge issues, using it for diversion would be totally impractical, because of both the double reversal at Exeter and Plymouth, but also because I am totally unconvinced an IET could be cleared, especially if it linked with the Gunislake branch, which already has issues with coach length around the bends on a 150.

 

[yorksrob]

Although an agree with the majority of what you’re saying, I think a handful is a fairly major exaggeration. You just have to look at GWR’s network to see that. Between Reading and Taunton, Newport and Worcester the majority of long distance route have diversionary routes, and the same goes for the ‘middle’ section of a lot of long distance routes.

However these diversionary routes all exist on the basis that they are justified routes with services running anyways. The railway is already being deemed to cost too much money, we cannot build empty routes and maintain them just to use every now and then.

As an aside, on the proposals from this thread on reopening the line from Okehampton, regardless of already mentioned bridge issues, using it for diversion would be totally impractical, because of both the double reversal at Exeter and Plymouth, but also because I am totally unconvinced an IET could be cleared, especially if it linked with the Gunislake branch, which already has issues with coach length around the bends on a 150.

Indeed, one only has to look at the Midland main line, ECML etc. most main journeys have some sort of alternative route.

And resilience doesn't just mean diverting trains. People who really need to travel can divert onto existing services if need be.

On the points about Devon, reversals aren't really an issue for modern rolling stock, and I would have thought that any serious guage issues would be on the light railway section beyond Bere Alston.