Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[yorksrob]

The other major political consideration in Devon and Cornwall is the number of Con / Lib Dem marginal seats so we get Patrick McLoughlin saying what a marvellous scenic line Dawlish is and he would be sorry to see it close - code for supporting Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot - maj 523). Cornwall is frequently mentioned (all seats are marginal) whilst Plymouth hardly gets a shout. There has been no reaction from Geoffrey Cox (West Devon - covers Tavistock) or Mel Stride (Central Devon - covers Okehampton) - relatively safe seats and never known to be interested in railways. Ben Bradshaw (Lab Exeter) took a swipe at 'armchair experts' proposing alternative routes - but he hinted at favouring a new inland route - cue for supporting Labour in Plymouth. Cynical I know but sadly that is how things work. Dawlish will reopen, the furore will die down and that will that I'm afraid.

I'm not sure I'm too convinced about a labour MP complaining about "armchair experts". Where has his party been for the past sixty years ?" With the honourable exception of Miss Castle instigating the social railway, labour haven't been much use at all. A line whooshing past everyone wouldn't do much for the people of Teignmouth or Dawlish (however long the suggested branch might survive).

As for the rest, It's the local councils who need to drive change. MP's are too sucked into Westminster to make a difference.

 

[455driver]

AFAICR Tavistock to Plymouth is a twenty minute bus service, so that suggests there's a (smaller) market for a train service.

Try it during the rush hours!

The queues on Tavistock road are horendous and it can take well over an hour to get from Tavistock to Plymouth hence the need for the train service.

 

[HSTEd]

More damage to the seawall tonight apparently.


It appears there is going to have to be a breakwater if this carries on much longer.
Perhaps an artificial reef?

 

[The Ham]

The big difference is that a double tracked line from (Waterloo - Basingstoke - ) Salisbury to Exeter is going to be pretty busy every day of the year - there's a big enough everyday demand to justify investment on that route - its not *just* a diversionary route...

...whilst an inland route via Okehampton is really only going to be busy at times of diversion. It could probably cope with a handful of 153s a day for most weeks in the year.

At the moment, we've got enough problems meeting everyday demand on some existing lines that we don't have resources for spare lines everywhere that would be nice to have just in case.

Yes, Salisbury to Exeter could do with money being spent on it and if there were to be problems which meant that it became the main route for three or four weeks you could expect people on a rail forum to argue that the money should be spent on it. Likewise there will be some who will say that it would be better to invest in the GW route as it serves a much bigger population and it rarely closes anyway, so you might as well spend less money and ensure that it closes less often.

One of the big problems with investment to improve services is that there are often problems with improving the services between A & B because the main reason for the capacity issues is that the majority of people from A & B want to go to London and their services have to compete for paths into London. Take for instance Exeter to Plymouth, there is proberbly a good case for there to be more services as the majority of services have a good number of people on them. Problem is, when a local service is run between the two it is less well used as a lot of the people on the trains are traveling longer distances.

Meaning when more services are looked at it means that the capacity issue is found to be Reading, Reading is upgraded. Then when new services are looked at it is found that it is more profitable to run services to Oxford or Bristol. Those new services are provided and there are no new paths left for Exeter. The capacity issue is then between Reading and London and then you start looking at mega bucks to find a few more paths (which againg would likely be used up by Thames Valley or Bristol services if they were to exist).

All the while services between Exeter and Plymouth get bussier. A fairly cheap option is found to reopen a missing link joining two branch lines and when events highlight that it could be of use not just for serving the population along the route people use this to highlight the benefits of it again. However, even without knowing the BCR (as far as I know no one has done one), there are those who argue that it shouldn't be built as it's not x or y which would do more to improve journey times or increase resliance for another section of line.

Yes there are other projects which will benefit the SW more, yes these projects may have better BCR, does that mean that they shouldn't be built. No.

Does building an alternitive route mean that these other schemes don't get built. No, infact if such a scheme leads to more passengers it could make it more likely that they are built.

Does it mean that those who think that such a route is a good idea when they are told that the BCR is very low (say 0.5 or less) means that they will carry on shouting that it should be built. No, some may do, but most will accept that it will not happen and move on without it causing them any long term problems.

Does the breaching of the Dawlish line give supporters of an alternitive route a good reason to shout so that central government pays for a report ot look at the BCR's for the various options. Yes, and subject to the findings of such a report it will determine what then happens.

Does it mean that if the BCR is found to be (say) 2 that even then that it would be built. No, but it then gives the supporters of the scheme a chance to argue more strongly that it should be built.

Does it mean that if the BCR were to be (say) 0.9 that the route isn't built. No, as the government may determine that it is worth the investment anyway as it makes the network more resliant and could saves a whole lot more money on an alteritive scheme which is just as poor (or even only slightly better) in terms of BCR, but double or tripple the cost. If for instance the BCR for Okehampton is 0.9 and a new avoiding line was 1.4 (without taking into account any diversion advantage), the extra level of benefit may still not be worth the extra expenditure (say £250m vs £400m) and the lower cost scheme could be built.

Would the (for instance) redoubling Yoevil to Exeter be a better BCR than the route through Okehampton. Who knows, but given one of the recent e-petition's for the redoubling scheme got the sum total of 156 after the anouncement that it wouldn't be going ahead and depending on which one you look at curremtly there are about double or about ten times that number for the reopening of the line through Okehampton there is likely to be more (current) support for the latter (not that will make it any more or less likely to happen).

Until there are known BCR's done (and not one person saying it would be a good idea and one person discounting it out of hand because they feel that other schemes are more worthy), then a lot of the discussion will be IF this happens there would be this benefit. IF it could be built what would be needed. IF it were to be built what services could be run to provide the most benefit. IF it were to be built what sort of costs are we looking at. IF the BCR is marginal what ways could there be to reduce costs and/or increase benefits.

Yes there is a place for those who say that it will not happen, which may well be the case, but without the BCR they are just as much saying IF. IF the BCR is poor (which is what they think that it proberbly is) then it shouldn't be built; and most of those who support the reopening would say the same, even though they hope that the BCR would not be poor.

 

[Trainbuff]

Just found an article posted online in 'New Civil Engineer'

There is talk of all options here but about half way down an engineer is quoted as saying that the Okehampton route could be reopened for less than £150million. The whole article is worth a read. Link below.

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/transport...icle?blocktitle=News-In-Depth&contentID=204:D

 

[47802]

I love this thread. Such polarised views.

I have today commended it to the chap who will be studying the case.

Personally I hope that is looked at a lot more objectively than on here, and is about providing a robust route to serve Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, and not about providing a service to such as Okehampton and Dawlish

I really do not understand this Obsession with Okehampton should it not be about a 1 time fix to produce a more resilient mainline.

 

[ianhr]

Personally I hope that is looked at a lot more objectively than on here, and is about providing a robust route to serve Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, and not about providing a service to such as Okehampton and Dawlish

I really do not understand this Obsession with Okehampton should it not be about a 1 time fix to produce a more resilient mainline.

The amount of passion this thread has generated is most impressive and it seems to reflect perfectly the old GWR/LSWR rivalry, all the more remarkable in that there can be few contributors on here old enough to have an adult memory of through trains on the SR route from Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton. The SO Plymouth-Brighton lasted a bit longer. (I can still remember the Plymouth Friary terminus, but only just!...I was 10 years old when it closed).

I think two separate issues have become confounded here:-
(1) development of a robust high speed (125 mph) line to Exeter, Torbay, Plymouth, South & West Cornwall which are undeniably the main centres of population and demand.
(2) the improvement of access to/from Mid Devon and East Cornwall, which have a much smaller total population and suffer badly from poor public transport.

In the case of (2) there are local and regional needs as well as access to the main network, as someone has mentioned it can take well over an hour to drive from Tavistock to Plymouth. Okehampton to Plymouth and Tavistock to Exeter are probably difficult to contemplate as daily journeys to work.

I would be surprised if DfT were to be persuaded by the diversionary route need. I think the only real chance of substantial rail investment in the South West will come through greater political devolution. With the growing discontent with the 'Westminster Establishment' let us hope we don't have to wait too long. It will be interesting to see what 'Rail North' comes up with, but don't hold your breath since DfT seem to be determined to maintain their 'dead hand'!

 

[LateThanNever]

Personally I hope that is looked at a lot more objectively than on here, and is about providing a robust route to serve Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, and not about providing a service to such as Okehampton and Dawlish

I really do not understand this Obsession with Okehampton should it not be about a 1 time fix to produce a more resilient mainline.

As you cannot foretell the future there won't be any objectivity by anyone whoever looks at it! Just best endeavour supposition. What this thread is all about really.
The people who look at it for the government dress it up as a science with an extra helping of jargon and hey presto! they con some of the people that it is objective...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yes, Salisbury to Exeter could do with money being spent on it and if there were to be problems which meant that it became the main route for three or four weeks you could expect people on a rail forum to argue that the money should be spent on it. Likewise there will be some who will say that it would be better to invest in the GW route as it serves a much bigger population and it rarely closes anyway, so you might as well spend less money and ensure that it closes less often.

One of the big problems with investment to improve services is that there are often problems with improving the services between A & B because the main reason for the capacity issues is that the majority of people from A & B want to go to London and their services have to compete for paths into London. Take for instance Exeter to Plymouth, there is proberbly a good case for there to be more services as the majority of services have a good number of people on them. Problem is, when a local service is run between the two it is less well used as a lot of the people on the trains are traveling longer distances.

Meaning when more services are looked at it means that the capacity issue is found to be Reading, Reading is upgraded. Then when new services are looked at it is found that it is more profitable to run services to Oxford or Bristol. Those new services are provided and there are no new paths left for Exeter. The capacity issue is then between Reading and London and then you start looking at mega bucks to find a few more paths (which againg would likely be used up by Thames Valley or Bristol services if they were to exist).

All the while services between Exeter and Plymouth get bussier. A fairly cheap option is found to reopen a missing link joining two branch lines and when events highlight that it could be of use not just for serving the population along the route people use this to highlight the benefits of it again. However, even without knowing the BCR (as far as I know no one has done one), there are those who argue that it shouldn't be built as it's not x or y which would do more to improve journey times or increase resliance for another section of line.

Yes there are other projects which will benefit the SW more, yes these projects may have better BCR, does that mean that they shouldn't be built. No.

Does building an alternitive route mean that these other schemes don't get built. No, infact if such a scheme leads to more passengers it could make it more likely that they are built.

Does it mean that those who think that such a route is a good idea when they are told that the BCR is very low (say 0.5 or less) means that they will carry on shouting that it should be built. No, some may do, but most will accept that it will not happen and move on without it causing them any long term problems.

Does the breaching of the Dawlish line give supporters of an alternitive route a good reason to shout so that central government pays for a report ot look at the BCR's for the various options. Yes, and subject to the findings of such a report it will determine what then happens.

Does it mean that if the BCR is found to be (say) 2 that even then that it would be built. No, but it then gives the supporters of the scheme a chance to argue more strongly that it should be built.

Does it mean that if the BCR were to be (say) 0.9 that the route isn't built. No, as the government may determine that it is worth the investment anyway as it makes the network more resliant and could saves a whole lot more money on an alteritive scheme which is just as poor (or even only slightly better) in terms of BCR, but double or tripple the cost. If for instance the BCR for Okehampton is 0.9 and a new avoiding line was 1.4 (without taking into account any diversion advantage), the extra level of benefit may still not be worth the extra expenditure (say £250m vs £400m) and the lower cost scheme could be built.

Would the (for instance) redoubling Yoevil to Exeter be a better BCR than the route through Okehampton. Who knows, but given one of the recent e-petition's for the redoubling scheme got the sum total of 156 after the anouncement that it wouldn't be going ahead and depending on which one you look at curremtly there are about double or about ten times that number for the reopening of the line through Okehampton there is likely to be more (current) support for the latter (not that will make it any more or less likely to happen).

Until there are known BCR's done (and not one person saying it would be a good idea and one person discounting it out of hand because they feel that other schemes are more worthy), then a lot of the discussion will be IF this happens there would be this benefit. IF it could be built what would be needed. IF it were to be built what services could be run to provide the most benefit. IF it were to be built what sort of costs are we looking at. IF the BCR is marginal what ways could there be to reduce costs and/or increase benefits.

Yes there is a place for those who say that it will not happen, which may well be the case, but without the BCR they are just as much saying IF. IF the BCR is poor (which is what they think that it proberbly is) then it shouldn't be built; and most of those who support the reopening would say the same, even though they hope that the BCR would not be poor.

Agree 100% with this what is needed is for the government undertake a cost benefit analysis (using the revised methods developed for HS2) for both the reopening of Okehampton - Tavistock vs an inland diversion away from Dawlish. However my fear is that the government will fudge the criteria to make the issue go away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personally I hope that is looked at a lot more objectively than on here, and is about providing a robust route to serve Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, and not about providing a service to such as Okehampton and Dawlish

I really do not understand this Obsession with Okehampton should it not be about a 1 time fix to produce a more resilient mainline.

I agree that an inland diversion to avoid Dawlish is the better option as it will serve a greater population but it will cost more than reopening Okehampton - Tavistock which while not an ideal solution for Newton Abbot, Torquay and Paignton would still allow rail services to continue to Plymouth and into Cornwall.

Also reopening a disused rail rote is less controversial than building a new route from scratch, look at the fuss over HS2.

 

[Woody]

BBC Radio Devon reports this morning that Network rail had told them that following a preliminary inspection of the sea wall this morning that a further section of the sea wall has been “badly damaged” around the curve near Dawlish Warren (red rock café area I suppose), and that a helicopter was taking off from Exeter airport to do a full aerial assessment of the entire sea wall. I live in Plymouth and its really was bad down here last night, worse I would say that the storm that initially breached the sea wall, at least here in Plymouth. I have never seen seas like it. Even within the confines of the relatively sheltered Plymouth Sound the entrance to which is protected by the mother of all breakwaters build for the Navy which is over 200ft wide at its base and a mile long and which took 30 years and 20,000 French prisoners of War to build. http://www.plymouthdata.info/Breakwater.htm A clear message there for Dawlish I think.
As to a comment for it only taking 20 minutes to drive from Tavistock to Plymouth, you clearly don’t know much about Plymouth (Britain’s 15th largest city) and judging from some of the other uninformed comments your not the only one. If this situation with rail links had happened to say Portsmouth or Southampton both smaller than Plymouth incidentally, we all know that all hell would have broken loose politically and in the media generally. The rail situation in the south west west of Exeter now is nothing short of a national disgrace. Don’t forget even before Dawlish the south west was well and truly off the national rail agenda. Check out Network Rails spending plans for its latest 2014/19 spending plans. Electrification to Bristol/Newbury and new IEP trains for Bristol/South Wales corridor leaving us in the south west with the same old 40 years old HSTs and a timetable that has changed little since BR days. The coalition will pay a heavy political price for in Devon and Cornwall is the nettle is not grasped here. It really is a case of now or never for the far south west. End off.

 

[The Planner]

Check out Network Rails spending plans for its latest 2014/19 spending plans. Electrification to Bristol/Newbury and new IEP trains for Bristol/South Wales corridor leaving us in the south west with the same old 40 years old HSTs and a timetable that has changed little since BR days.

Get rid of the HSTs or open a diversionary route, imagine the hand wringing that would cause

 

[TheKnightWho]

As you cannot foretell the future there won't be any objectivity by anyone whoever looks at it! Just best endeavour supposition. What this thread is all about really.
The people who look at it for the government dress it up as a science with an extra helping of jargon and hey presto! they con some of the people that it is objective...

Or perhaps they actually know what they're doing..?

Yes, it's still conjecture, but not all conjecture is alike. Me predicting that the world will end in 5 minutes, and also predicting that I'll go get my lunch in about an hour are both still conjecture, but one is obviously much more reliable than the other.

Saying that the experts don't know absolutely everything and therefore should be ignored just seems a bit anti-intellectual.

 

[455driver]

Even within the confines of the relatively sheltered Plymouth Sound the entrance to which is protected by the mother of all breakwaters build for the Navy which is over 200ft wide at its base and a mile long and which took 30 years and 20,000 French prisoners of War to build. http://www.plymouthdata.info/Breakwater.htm A clear message there for Dawlish I think

Wait for Scottish independance, invade them and force them to build it!


Or is that not what you meant!

 

[JohnB57]

...the mother of all breakwaters build for the Navy which is over 200ft wide at its base and a mile long and which took 30 years and 20,000 French prisoners of War to build.

I was assuming it was because concrete was in short supply.

 

[DarloRich]

Seriously though, the BCR methodology is lousy though. Lets not forget, it manages to pluck some mythical figure from the air for road tax "lost" from the treasury not to mentioncounting abstraction from another route as a negative, even if that other route is crowded and justifies investment to enhance capacity in its own right, yet it can't monetise the positive effects of alleviating the massive disruption when the line is blocked, either planned or unplanned.

It's a joke really.

But neither can you build a business case on the fact that once or twice in 60 years the line via Dawlish has been subject to such terrible damage.

I think there needs to be a real political will from the top to build this line. Sadly I dont think that, really, there is.

 

[JohnB57]

But neither can you build a business case on the fact that once or twice in 60 years the line via Dawlish has been subject to such terrible damage.

And critically, even after recent weather, Dawlish hasn't been "cut off" from the rest of the UK. Where rail routes like this are concerned, the contingency solution is road.

 

[yorksrob]

But neither can you build a business case on the fact that once or twice in 60 years the line via Dawlish has been subject to such terrible damage.

I think there needs to be a real political will from the top to build this line. Sadly I dont think that, really, there is.

Oh, I agree that there needs to be political will.

I also agree that a business case that relies on resilience during closure of the mainline, alone, wouldn‘t stack up (Incidentally which is a reason why I'm sceptical about an inland diversion as I suspect that resilience plus marginal improvements in timings is also ublikely to justify the cost alone).

However, I believe that when looking at the various connectivity and congestion alleviation benefits of the Okehampton coridoor, not having a way to account for resilience during severe weather (not to mention improved operation during planned closures of the main route - something which seems to be forgotten) is a serious omission which undermines the credibility of the methodology.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And critically, even after recent weather, Dawlish hasn't been "cut off" from the rest of the UK. Where rail routes like this are concerned, the contingency solution is road.

Road is an unsatisfactory contingency in terms of speed, comfort and convenience for such a large population, particularly where proximity to the sea and climate change are likely to make the main line even more vulnerable in future.

 

[Bald Rick]

Road is an unsatisfactory contingency in terms of speed, comfort and convenience for such a large population, particularly where proximity to the sea and climate change are likely to make the main line even more vulnerable in future.

Indeed, it is such an unsatisfactory option that - to use one local example - the A380 from Newton Abbot to Torquay carries twice as many people per day as all the rail services west of Exeter put together.
(Sources - South Devon relief road website for road usage and ORR station usage stats)

Like it or not, only a tiny fraction of journeys in Devon and Cornwall rely on the Dawlish rail route, it is irrelevant to everyone else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If for instance the BCR for Okehampton is 0.9 and a new avoiding line was 1.4 (without taking into account any diversion advantage), the extra level of benefit may still not be worth the extra expenditure (say £250m vs £400m) and the lower cost scheme could be built.

But it would.

If the BCR of a £250m scheme is 0.9, it means you are spending £250m of public money to get £225m of benefit over the 60 year assessment period, ie society is £25m worse off.

If the BCR of a £700m scheme is 1.4, it means you are spending £400m of public money to get £560m of benefit, ie society is £160m better off.

So clearly the extra benefit is worth the expenditure.

(Pedants' note - this isn't quite how BCRs work, but is sufficient for this example)

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, it is such an unsatisfactory option that - to use one local example - the A380 from Newton Abbot to Torquay carries twice as many people per day as all the rail services west of Exeter put together.
(Sources - South Devon relief road website for road usage and ORR station usage stats)

Like it or not, only a tiny fraction of journeys in Devon and Cornwall rely on the Dawlish rail route, it is irrelevant to everyone else.

Not quite the same thing though. The majority of those travellers are probably travelling door to door in the comfort of their own car, rather than piling off of a train with their luggage, waiting in the rain for an rrb, piling on to a crampt slow coach then back off with the luggage and onto the train again.

What's good for the motorist isn't necessarily good for the rail traveller.

The numbers game isn't necessarily good for the railway unfortunately, however, those of us who do use the train do still add to the local economy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not quite the same thing though. The majority of those travellers are probably travelling door to door in the comfort of their own car, rather than piling off of a train with their luggage, waiting in the rain for an rrb, piling on to a crampt slow coach then back off with the luggage and onto the train again.

Indeed. But the point I was making is that compared with all the other transport use in Devon and Cornwall, rail via Dawlish is a rather small proportion. Which suggests (but does not prove) that a diversionary route would offer benefit to a relatively small number of people, for a small proportion of the time, compared to other projects which could benefit more people all the time.

Also, not all RRBs are slow and cramped, not everyone has luggage, and it's not always raining.* Just checked the Exeter - Plymouth RRBs, and they seem be to broadly matching the train journey time. So for passengers to/from Plymouth - which I guess is a decent proportion of those affected - the inconvenience is limited to the change and wait at Exeter.

So on the assumption that the sea wall has to be repaired immediately and most likely strengthened at its weakest spot, for the sake of the residents of Dawlish as much as anything else, is it worth spending a lot of cash on a rail diversionary route? Especially if the current contingency plans, although inconvenient to many, are not actually that bad?

This is the question the study will be answering.


* last 3 months excepted

 

[yorksrob]

Fair points all, (although you've probably guessed by now that in my personal opinion, that the risk to the route is too great to be borne by a single main line, regardless of how many people use other modes of transport.

I just hope that the study is not undermined by:

1) The inability to include diversionary and resilience benefits in the BCR of the Okehampton route - as seems to be the case in the standard BCR calculation, and;

2) An artificial inability to consider all of the potential benefits of the Exeter - Plymouth route as a whole, rather than having to consider each section in its own silo, as some on here have suggested should be the case.

If such a study takes account of these two concerns, then it will be fit for purpose.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair points all, (although you've probably guessed by now that in my personal opinion, that the risk to the route is too great to be borne by a single main line, regardless of how many people use other modes of transport.

I just hope that the study is not undermined by:

1) The inability to include diversionary and resilience benefits in the BCR of the Okehampton route - as seems to be the case in the standard BCR calculation, and;

2) An artificial inability to consider all of the potential benefits of the Exeter - Plymouth route as a whole, rather than having to consider each section in its own silo, as some on here have suggested should be the case.

If such a study takes account of these two concerns, then it will be fit for purpose.

The raison d'etre of the study is to examine the diversionary case, so both will be included.

 

[MarkyT]

Also, not all RRBs are slow and cramped, not everyone has luggage, and it's not always raining.* Just checked the Exeter - Plymouth RRBs, and they seem be to broadly matching the train journey time. So for passengers to/from Plymouth - which I guess is a decent proportion of those affected - the inconvenience is limited to the change and wait at Exeter.

So on the assumption that the sea wall has to be repaired and most likely strengthened at its weakest spot, for the sake of the residents of Dawlish as much as anything else, is it worth spending a lot of cash on a rail diversionary route? Especially if the current contingency plans, although inconvenient to many, are not actually that bad?

This is the question the study will be answering.* last 3 months excepted

That the buses can match express rail journey times despite having to drive through city traffic from fast roads to get to stations demonstrates how comparatively slow those rail timings are on the existing route, and a shorter faster new inland route, able to improve the rail times might stack up a significant total of positive benefits, attracting new business especially on local flows within Devon (where the time savings could be most dramatic as a proportion of total - i.e perhaps halving the journey time from Newton Abbot to Exeter St. Davids), getting better use out of rolling stock and train crew, etc.

 

[yorksrob]

The raison d'etre of the study is to examine the diversionary case, so both will be included.

If that is the case (and if it is, it would be quite a deviation from the current methodology), then all well and good, However, I'll believe it when I see it - particularly with regard to including congestion alleviation and other economic benefits from the Okehampton route.

 

[tbtc]

Yes but that argument is becoming increasingly political, HS2 needs to gain enough votes from MP's to become a reality. At the moment a significant number of MP's from the south west are threatening to vote against the project because of the issues at Dawlish so the government has a calculation to make, does it risk a vote without the support of south western MP's or does it cave to their demands for a devisionary route

We keep seeing hype about "rebellions" against HS2, then we see every vote being carried through without bother (and court cases rejected). I don't think that the Government has much to worry about in terms of MPs in the south west "derailling" HS2.

as I have previously pointed out would cost a fraction of HS2 (about 0.6% of the total HS2 or 2% of the £14 billion contingency fund). £250 million may be small change for the government to secure enough votes to stave off a rebellion over HS2

The fact that its "small change" doesn't matter - gold plating Denton station would be small change compared to HS2 - the question is "is it good value for money".

And the south west is a large area - Tavistock is about an hour and a half/ two hours from Bridgewater, which means its as far away from Bridgewater as somewhere in the Thames Valley.

If you want to spend money on something to benefit "the south west" then you're probably better focussing on something further north/east than Tavistock (which would benefit connections between the south west and the rest of the country - like the redoubling of the Yeovil route?).

If we look at all of the routes in the South West, they are undergoing a renaissance. There isn't one of them that isn't doing well. It is purely by bad planning and poorly thought out policy that towns such as Okehampton and Tavistock have been left off of the map for all of these years. Had they still been linked, they would be undergoing a renaissance as well. All the route needs is a boost to get over the malaise and Okehampton and Tavistock could be sharing in the bonanza. The extra resilience of having an additional through route is the icing on the cake that could make it possible, and Plymouth and Cornwall could enjoy life without being cut off by rail during ordinary works let alone whatever is happening now.

There is nothing to suggest that Okehampton and Tavistock would be any different from the other settlements in Devon in generating passenger usage. Just because we don't always have the resources at a given time, doesn't mean that we shouldn't agitate for them.

Look at the Todmorden Curve. We don't have the resources for that, yet it has been built, and you can be sure that the resources will follow.

Railway lines everywhere have been undergoing a renaissance in recent years. Virtually every station has seen an increase in passenger numbers - the only exceptions being places that have lost trade for other reasons (like Stranraer, post ferries) and places that have lost passenger numbers due to an accounting exercise (like the way that the revenue split between "Thorne Stations" changed, meaning Thorne North lost half its passenger numbers in one year - with them being attributed to Thorne South).

So, as far as I know, there's nothing unique about the south west of England in this respect.

But you're going to have to have a better business case than "if you build it, they will come". Gunnislake, Bere Alston and Credit have around 50,000 passengers each a year (entries plus exists), which sounds a lot but works out at around a single 153 worth of passengers a day - these seem a reasonable benchmark for expected passenger numbers at Tavistock/ Okehampton.

If you want to build a new line/ new station somewhere then there are much bigger places that should expect much bigger passenger numbers - Washington T&W for example.

So are you quite happy to have half a million people including Britain's biggest Naval port cut off intermittently without notice from the UK rail network. Where else is this an annual occurrence? What is their alternative?

Is it an annual occurrence now?

If anywhere is an annual occurrence, isn't Cowly Bridge Junction more of a priority? But nobody is suggesting a diversionary rout there.

Yes there are other projects which will benefit the SW more, yes these projects may have better BCR, does that mean that they shouldn't be built. No.

Does building an alternitive route mean that these other schemes don't get built. No, infact if such a scheme leads to more passengers it could make it more likely that they are built.

Does it mean that those who think that such a route is a good idea when they are told that the BCR is very low (say 0.5 or less) means that they will carry on shouting that it should be built. No, some may do, but most will accept that it will not happen and move on without it causing them any long term problems

If its good a good BCR, build it. If its got a very good BCR then build it faster/ sooner. I just happen to think that there are routes with better cases than building a line from Okehampton to Tavistock.

reopening a disused rail rote is less controversial than building a new route from scratch, look at the fuss over HS2.

I've said before that if HS2 were on the line of the disused London Toton & Meadowhall railway, enthusiasts would be a lot more excited about it. Sadly building a brand new line seems to be A Bad Thing whilst reopening something closed fifty years ago is generally A Good Thing.

In comparison, the bus frequency from Stirling to Alloa was seven or eight commercial services an hour along the main road (plus three an hour via Stirling University and the back road via Menstrie etc), which is why it isn't surprising that the train line has attracted a decent number of passengers.

AFAICR Tavistock to Plymouth is a twenty minute bus service, so that suggests there's a (smaller) market for a train service. But the Tavistock to Okehampton service... doesn't look like natural rail territory

As to a comment for it only taking 20 minutes to drive from Tavistock to Plymouth, you clearly don’t know much about Plymouth (Britain’s 15th largest city) and judging from some of the other uninformed comments your not the only one

The twenty minute service was my understanding of the frequency from Tavistock to Plymouth (having checked it, a link is here - http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/dev...3A/86/84&routeid=9026871&operator=6&source=sp ) - i.e. its not as busy a route as Stirling - Alloa was, but it seems a reasonably frequent route to suggest that there'd be some demand for a railway.

The commercial bus frequency between two places isn't a scientific guide, but it does show some indication of where demand might be.

Tavistock to Okehampton doesn't seem to be a very busy corridor, in comparison, hence me suggesting that Tavistock to Plymouth might justify a railway in the longer term but the route to Okehampton might not.

Sorry if this looks uninformed.

Don’t forget even before Dawlish the south west was well and truly off the national rail agenda. Check out Network Rails spending plans for its latest 2014/19 spending plans. Electrification to Bristol/Newbury and new IEP trains for Bristol/South Wales corridor leaving us in the south west with the same old 40 years old HSTs and a timetable that has changed little since BR days

The south west, home of 220s and 221s, an area which will be getting 165s and 166s in the next few years?

An area which has seen some frequency / capacity enhancements on branchlines to cope with increased demand?

An area that has got rid of its 142s (to be replaced by greater numbers of Sprinters)?

Its certainly not all forty year old HSTs.

The coalition will pay a heavy political price for in Devon and Cornwall is the nettle is not grasped here. It really is a case of now or never for the far south west. End off.

The coalition will keep the vast majority of their seats in the south west - in most seats the second placed party is the other member of the coalition - there's not a great deal for them to worry about here (compared to say the East Midlands where Labour has a good chance of fighting for seats like Amber Valley, so it may help the coalition to award the Crossrail rolling stock contract to a Derby firm to show that the current Government is investing in Britain).

The Tories might win a seat off the LibDems and the LibDems might win a seat off the Tories, but there's going to be no rebellion against the coalition in the south west at the 2015 election.

Get rid of the HSTs or open a diversionary route, imagine the hand wringing that would cause

But neither can you build a business case on the fact that once or twice in 60 years the line via Dawlish has been subject to such terrible damage.

I think there needs to be a real political will from the top to build this line. Sadly I dont think that, really, there is.

Agreed

And critically, even after recent weather, Dawlish hasn't been "cut off" from the rest of the UK. Where rail routes like this are concerned, the contingency solution is road.

Agreed

Indeed, it is such an unsatisfactory option that - to use one local example - the A380 from Newton Abbot to Torquay carries twice as many people per day as all the rail services west of Exeter put together.
(Sources - South Devon relief road website for road usage and ORR station usage stats)

Like it or not, only a tiny fraction of journeys in Devon and Cornwall rely on the Dawlish rail route, it is irrelevant to everyone else

Tsch, you and your facts, spoiling everyone's fun

 

[duffield]

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the possible tourist/hiker potential of trains from Exeter to Tavistock. Yes, this would be very seasonal but might be very lucrative if well marketed. This might tip the balance in favour of a full Exeter/Okehampton/Tavistock/Plymouth reopening.

 

[Xavi]

Indeed, it is such an unsatisfactory option that - to use one local example - the A380 from Newton Abbot to Torquay carries twice as many people per day as all the rail services west of Exeter put together.
(Sources - South Devon relief road website for road usage and ORR station usage stats)

Like it or not, only a tiny fraction of journeys in Devon and Cornwall rely on the Dawlish rail route, it is irrelevant to everyone else.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But it would.

If the BCR of a £250m scheme is 0.9, it means you are spending £250m of public money to get £225m of benefit over the 60 year assessment period, ie society is £25m worse off.

If the BCR of a £700m scheme is 1.4, it means you are spending £400m of public money to get £560m of benefit, ie society is £160m better off.

So clearly the extra benefit is worth the expenditure.

(Pedants' note - this isn't quite how BCRs work, but is sufficient for this example)

The average length of a car journey in the UK is under 7 miles. The Dawlish rail debate is about the thousands of passengers every day who choose the quality option of rail travel to access south Devon, Plymouth and Cornwall from Birmingham, Bristol, London etc. We're talking about an entirely different market than the car trips to Sainsbury's or M&S. Those using rail should not regularly (the wall route gets closed for several hours much more often than when a headline breach in the wall happens) be subjected to road transport when travelling to / from this vast region, which has a population of 500,000+ (Plymouth + Cornwall) and is the most popular destination for holidaying Brits in the UK, by rail. The region needs 2 routes, we all know Newton Abbot and Torbay wouldn't be served the reinstated Tavistock option, but it represents the easiest, quickest and cheapest fix, and would open up travel options in west Devon and north Cornwall. It should never have been closed 50 years ago - a regional asset wasted. So let's not talk Cost Benefit for once, if you go down that route forever spending outside London would in all likelihood decrease even further with more spent in London and with that the unsustainable economy that's been created in London over the past 20 - 30 years would implode even sooner than it's likely to at the present.

 

[The Planner]

It closed 50 years ago, and until now has never made it to the top of the agenda (however short lived and politically motivated), if it is so important I will ask again why has nothing happened since?

 

[455driver]

if it is so important I will ask again why has nothing happened since?

Because its necessary for the Political mob to look like they are serious about the need for a diversion etc.

Once the wall is open it will go back to the bottom of the pile ready to be dusted off in 20 years when there is another issue with the seawall.

 

[HowardGWR]

It closed 50 years ago, and until now has never made it to the top of the agenda (however short lived and politically motivated), if it is so important I will ask again why has nothing happened since?

You are wrong, it has (two schemes currently) been lobbied for consistently by all sustainable transport action groups in the SW. Just because it hasn't reached your attention does not mean to say that nothing has been happening. If you are northern based (I don't know that), compare it with a regional rural scheme (such as perhaps SELRAP)?

The strategic argument was consistently put forward in the SW Regional Assembly, but Gordon Brown abolished that, as you probably know.

I am not saying it is the most important scheme in the country but it certainly enjoys big support in the two SW counties it affects.