Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Xavi]

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.

I don't think anyone on this forum believes it has more than 5% chance of happening, but that doesn't mean that's the right way to go or it shouldn't be discussed.

 

[yorksrob]

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?

Because for the past sixty years, we've lived in a society where public transport users have been vieqed by central government as second class citizens.

 

[The Ham]

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

As it's behind a paywall can someone provide a slightly longer summery than given above. For instance does it provide details of what would be provided for the money?

 

[moggie]

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?

Because for the past sixty years, we've lived in a society where public transport users have been vieqed by central government as second class citizens.

Err, because unlike previous inconvenient disruption to the line the storms of the past week have shifted the political opinion sharply towards the possibility there's something in this climate change debate that might need to be taken seriously.

If the figure quoted (source FT 5th Feb 2014) that last years 10 day disruption at Cowley Bridge cost the economy of Devon and Cornwall an estimated £175M then it doesn't take a genius to work out that the current disruption is well north of that figure.

It will be a foolish politician that chooses to ignore this fact (yes I accept we have many that fit the bill) but the likelihood of a repeat scenario during a term of office , the isolated nature of this particular problem and as others have pointed out the marginal nature of the South West leads me to think that this particular problem is shouting out for a solution sooner rather than never.

What the solution is is clearly a moot point but people like their railways at the present time so who knows?

 

[johnnychips]

It will be a foolish politician that chooses to ignore this fact (yes I accept we have many that fit the bill) but the likelihood of a repeat scenario during a term of office , the isolated nature of this particular problem and as others have pointed out the marginal nature of the South West leads me to think that this particular problem is shouting out for a solution sooner rather than never.

What the solution is is clearly a moot point but people like their railways at the present time so who knows?

As Cornwall has three Lib Dem and three Con MPs and Plymouth has two Cons and one Lab, I expect all parties will have an interest in promising solutions.

 

[Woody]

As Cornwall has three Lib Dem and three Con MPs and Plymouth has two Cons and one Lab, I expect all parties will have an interest in promising solutions.

I would say that despite what they are saying to the media and local political/business leaders that the decision has already been made at the highest levels of government to maintain the Dawlish route as the sole rail connection to Plymouth/Cornwall no matter what. However the government have to be seen to be LISTENING to all views, both in Teignbridge where for obvious reasons they want to retain the existing Dawlish route as the sole rail route through Devon and also in Plymouth and Cornwall who naturally favour a faster more direct route than Dawlish. So they are SIMPLY quelling the restless natives by promising them a few beads, aka studies into alternative routes knowing that they have no real intention of implementing any of them and all will be quietly be forgotten with time once Dawlish is up and running again and things settle down to the same old do the bare minimum routine west of Exeter.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As Cornwall has three Lib Dem and three Con MPs and Plymouth has two Cons and one Lab, I expect all parties will have an interest in promising solutions.

Cynical but sadly true.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As it's behind a paywall can someone provide a slightly longer summery than given above. For instance does it provide details of what would be provided for the money?

We do see such postings as this from time to time that should clearly state a rider in them to the effect there is a paywall involved, when such postings are made.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Err, because unlike previous inconvenient disruption to the line the storms of the past week have shifted the political opinion sharply towards the possibility there's something in this climate change debate that might need to be taken seriously. If the figure quoted (source FT 5th Feb 2014) that last years 10 day disruption at Cowley Bridge cost the economy of Devon and Cornwall an estimated £175M then it doesn't take a genius to work out that the current disruption is well north of that figure.

The heavy hand of The Treasury takes no regard whatsoever of such espoused hopes and aspirations that have financial implications.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Gunnislake and Bere Alston have populations of approximately 3.5 and 2 thouseand people respectively. Tavistock and Okehampton have populations of 11 and 5.5 thousand respectively. The two are not comparable in terms of the generation of potential passenger traffic.

There might be larger towns that don't yet have a station. I believe there should be a policy from central government to address these issues across the country (and I hope Washington dies get reconnected at some stage).

However, getting back to the matter in hand, in spite of your attempts to argue that black is white and visa versa, it is comparatively unusual in this country to have such a large area of population dependent on only one main line. The proximity of the existing main line to the sea does make this route more vulnerable to extreme weather than most main routes. The close down of the main line for so long will be having a substantial negative effect on the local economy.

Any consideration of potential benefits from reopening the Okehampton route should fully take account of these factors as well as passenger potential from the intermediate stations.

Incidentally I traveled on a long rural route yesterday that is doing rather well and is considered quite important to the local economy. It has two main centres of population on its length, each with around two and a half thousand inhabitants, It is used for diversions when the main line is closed, and it gives residents access to an area of outstanding natural beauty. If anyone is uncertain as to whether the route through Okehampton could play a vital role in the local economy and the railway network as a whole, all year round, I would recommend a trip on the Settle - Carlisle railway.

 

[LateThanNever]

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.

Ah but the 'best endeavour supposition' surely doesn't include your end of the world in 5 minutes whereas it might include lunch. The experts might certainly have a contribution to make in the sense of being on tap but shouldn't being making the definitive decisions - or 'on top'. Whether these experts count as intellectuals I'm not certain but if they do I'm not cinvinced their record on predicting the future shows any better than the rest of us...

There are many definitions of an expert but knowing more and more about less and less has to be one - and that can inhibit the view of the bigger picture which is surely what investment decisions are about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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/dawlish-rail-washout-triggers-call-for-inland-lines/8659005.article?blocktitle=News-In-Depth&contentID=204[/url]

Think this is the publicly available link via Google
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...osoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&safe=active&start=10

(Click above or needs to be put in address bar not in Google search)

 

[TheKnightWho]

Ah but the 'best endeavour supposition' surely doesn't include your end of the world in 5 minutes whereas it might include lunch. The experts might certainly have a contribution to make in the sense of being on tap but shouldn't being making the definitive decisions - or 'on top'. Whether these experts count as intellectuals I'm not certain but if they do I'm not cinvinced their record on predicting the future shows any better than the rest of us...

There are many definitions of an expert but knowing more and more about less and less has to be one - and that can inhibit the view of the bigger picture which is surely what investment decisions are about.

But that completely ignores the fact that interdisciplinarity exists when it comes to things like things like this. Otherwise you could argue that because "knowing more and more about less and less" applies to experts in every field ever, that that's why we never make any progress with regards to the bigger picture on anything; however, that's patently false. We clearly make progress on a large scale in a number of areas, and so your argument doesn't seem to hold much water, as I can't see why this topic is an exception. However, bureaucracy and ulterior motives can prevent the right experts being on the case, which may explain why we constantly see short-sighted decisions in government. That's also ignoring the fact that whilst some experts might fit your definition, there are others whose very field of expertise is to look at the bigger picture.

By the way, I can't seem to find what "best endeavour supposition" means anywhere, so you'll have to explain it please.

 

[yorksrob]

Think this is the publicly available link via Google
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...osoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&safe=active&start=10

(Click above or needs to be put in address bar not in Google search)

Interesting exchange of views between the highways agency and the local chamber of commerce regarding the relative merits of a Dawlish aviding line and the Okehampton route.

Since both of these would offer additional resilience it rather boils down to whether its worth spending hundreds of millions of pounds on shaving fifteen minutes off the journey time to London, or whether that money would be better spent improving connections in the rest of Devon.

Since we know from other debates that many of the chambers own members are more likely to spend their time on train productively, the justification for the first looks increasingly shaky. Local dignitorys and government should bear that in mind.

 

[47802]

Interesting exchange of views between the highways agency and the local chamber of commerce regarding the relative merits of a Dawlish aviding line and the Okehampton route.

Since both of these would offer additional resilience it rather boils down to whether its worth spending hundreds of millions of pounds on shaving fifteen minutes off the journey time to London, or whether that money would be better spent improving connections in the rest of Devon.

.

With key difference that one is a replacement the other isn't, and one will likely improve journey time while the other will likely take longer.

In any case there needs to be some accurate assessment of costs for the various options, at the moment we have a variety of people coming out with various cost estimates which at best are probably just an educated guess and at worst are just made up.

 

[The Ham]

With key difference that one is a replacement the other isn't, and one will likely improve journey time while the other will likely take longer.

In any case there needs to be some accurate assessment of costs for the various options, at the moment we have a variety of people coming out with various cost estimates which at best are probably just an educated guess and at worst are just made up.

Neither are a replacement as the route through Dawlish would need to remain open whichever option was taken forward.

Even HS2, which has had a lot of work done on how much it'll cost is still basicly working on educated guesses. Only once a scheme is finished is the true cost known. I wouldn't be surprised if the official cost for the Okehamton route was in the £150-250 million range depending on the specification. The big unknown at this stage is how much benefit we can expect to see in return.

 

[47802]

Neither are a replacement as the route through Dawlish would need to remain open whichever option was taken forward.

Not really true a Dawlish Diversion would be a Mainline replacement which is meant to be the key issue in all this, in this situation Dawlish might have to lose its train service eventually, but the Dawlish line could be maintained as secondary route until such time it was unviable. plus other things could be considered which cannot do while its still a mainline such singling the section between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.

The overall key point being that if Dawlish was taken out for long periods the vast majority of services and centres of population would be unaffected.

Alternatively if you go for the Okehampton route, Newton Abbot and Torbay are still affected, services over the diverted are likely to be reduced frequency and longer journey time, unless you are building it as more of a mainline route which is likely to push up the cost significantly

 

[MidlandMainlie]

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.

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?).

I wish I shared your confidence on that tbtc epically now the national media are staring to catch on to the arguments about HS2 funding vs the south west

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/16/hs2-divert-cash-southwest-railway

I suppose it depends how much money could be "saved" from HS2 when David Higgins reports next month and what the government decides to do with it, hopefully some of it will make its way to the south west to improve the rail network.

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.

One factor you have missed there is the rise of UKIP, who could do significant damage to all three main parties in the European elections later this year and in the general election next year.

 

[yorksrob]

With key difference that one is a replacement the other isn't, and one will likely improve journey time while the other will likely take longer.

Or the key difference being that one widens access to rail transport in Devon and the other one doesn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not really true a Dawlish Diversion would be a Mainline replacement which is meant to be the key issue in all this, in this situation Dawlish might have to lose its train service eventually, but the Dawlish line could be maintained as secondary route until such time it was unviable. plus other things could be considered which cannot do while its still a mainline such singling the section between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.

The overall key point being that if Dawlish was taken out for long periods the vast majority of services and centres of population would be unaffected.

Alternatively if you go for the Okehampton route, Newton Abbot and Torbay are still affected, services over the diverted are likely to be reduced frequency and longer journey time, unless you are building it as more of a mainline route which is likely to push up the cost significantly

But there is nothing inherantly preferable about a replacement main line other than increased resilience (which the Okehampton route would also bring) and a shortening of journey times, which comes back to my original question, i.e. would you rather spend your millions on increasing access to rail across Devon or shaving fifteen minutes off main line journey times.

Whilst it's true that if Dawlish were taken out again, fewer settlements would be cut off with a new avoiding line, if there were an issue with the line west of Newton Abbott, Plymouth and Cornwall would be cut off again. Its swings and roundabouts really, although I agree with your point about the need for a better assessment.

 

[47802]

Or the key difference being that one widens access to rail transport in Devon and the other one doesn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But there is nothing inherantly preferable about a replacement main line other than increased resilience (which the Okehampton route would also bring) and a shortening of journey times, which comes back to my original question, i.e. would you rather spend your millions on increasing access to rail across Devon or shaving fifteen minutes off main line journey times.

Whilst it's true that if Dawlish were taken out again, fewer settlements would be cut off with a new avoiding line, if there were an issue with the line west of Newton Abbott, Plymouth and Cornwall would be cut off again. Its swings and roundabouts really, although I agree with your point about the need for a better assessment.

Well yes you could argue the above and its perfectly valid , but to me the argument is about fixing a mainline with a particular problem, its not about improving access to other parts of Devon, and OK yes you could be cut off west of Newton Abbot at some point but its less likely and not the same issue as more violent Seas and rising Sea levels.

If I was a betting man and money is spent on an alternate option I would probably put it on the Okehampton route, even though I personally don't think its the right choice, as there's clearly a groundswell of opinion who do want to use as an excuse to serve other parts of Devon. My issue with this route is if x years down the line the Dawlish route becomes more unviable, so then we have to spend a whole load more money on a Dawlish diversion.
.

 

[yorksrob]

If I was a betting man and money is spent on an alternate option I would probably put it on the Okehampton route, even though I personally don't think its the right choice

We'll have to disagree about that. It appears from the various media links on this thread that the MP for Exeter and the Plymouth chamber of commerce have come out in favour of the avoiding line rather than the Okehampton route. I personally think this is the incorrect choice.

 

[The Ham]

If I was a betting man and money is spent on an alternate option I would probably put it on the Okehampton route, even though I personally don't think its the right choice, as there's clearly a groundswell of opinion who do want to use as an excuse to serve other parts of Devon. My issue with this route is if x years down the line the Dawlish route becomes more unviable, so then we have to spend a whole load more money on a Dawlish diversion.
.

Although the opposite could also be true, if we build the direct Dawlish line we could also be building the Okehamton line in x years. It could also be true that we could be building a high speed route between Exeter and Plymouth before the Dawlish line becomes unusable.

 

[Kettledrum]

I would say that despite what they are saying to the media and local political/business leaders that the decision has already been made at the highest levels of government to maintain the Dawlish route as the sole rail connection to Plymouth/Cornwall no matter what. However the government have to be seen to be LISTENING to all views, both in Teignbridge where for obvious reasons they want to retain the existing Dawlish route as the sole rail route through Devon and also in Plymouth and Cornwall who naturally favour a faster more direct route than Dawlish. So they are SIMPLY quelling the restless natives by promising them a few beads, aka studies into alternative routes knowing that they have no real intention of implementing any of them and all will be quietly be forgotten with time once Dawlish is up and running again and things settle down to the same old do the bare minimum routine west of Exeter.

In any other political era, I would have agreed with you, but now I'm not so sure. For the first time in almost 100 years, there has been a big political swing towards investing hugely in railway infrastructure. Don't under-estimate how significant this change has been. HS2, Crossrail, The Electric Spine, East-West rail, electrification of the GWML, Midlands Main Line and the Northern routes are all happening at broadly the same time.

If a Government refuses to build an alternative route and this sort of storm or damage happens again, there would be a huge political fall out and embarrassment. If there is no intention of building an alternative, my view is they would need to build the mother of all breakwaters to protect the coast (and save political face) instead.

I wouldn't like to put money on which way this one will go. I don't think it is at all clear cut, and I've been surprised just how strong the feelings are on both sides that have been expressed on this forum.

 

[Woody]

Not really true a Dawlish Diversion would be a Mainline replacement which is meant to be the key issue in all this, in this situation Dawlish might have to lose its train service eventually, but the Dawlish line could be maintained as secondary route until such time it was unviable. plus other things could be considered which cannot do while its still a mainline such singling the section between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.

The overall key point being that if Dawlish was taken out for long periods the vast majority of services and centres of population would be unaffected.

Alternatively if you go for the Okehampton route, Newton Abbot and Torbay are still affected, services over the diverted are likely to be reduced frequency and longer journey time, unless you are building it as more of a mainline route which is likely to push up the cost significantly

Also it should be remembered that the original 1930s Dawlish avoiding line was not just a pie in the sky proposal. It was a fully funded, government backed live scheme asked for by the Great Western railway on which construction actually started in spring 1939 and was due for completion by January 1941. Only Adolf Hitler invading Poland in September 1939 and starting the 2nd World War stopped the work progressing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawlish_Avoiding_Line

Quote “The GWR started construction in Spring 1939, with surveyors poles in place along the proposed route by the summer. However, after the outbreak of World War 2, all work stopped.”

And remember this was at a time when the alternative LSWR route via Okehampton and the Teign Valley routes were still both open and used for diversions when the Dawlish route was closed.
That 1930s generation of railwayman, politicians and engineers would be very surprised today at some of this generations attitude to a similar rail investment today. In this context its so sad to read some of the uninformed comments here.

 

[HowardGWR]

Also it should be remembered that the original 1930s Dawlish avoiding line was not just a pie in the sky proposal. It was a fully funded, government backed live scheme asked for by the Great Western railway on which construction actually started in spring 1939 and was due for completion by January 1941. Only Adolf Hitler invading Poland in September 1939 and starting the 2nd World War stopped the work progressing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawlish_Avoiding_Line

Quote “The GWR started construction in Spring 1939, with surveyors poles in place along the proposed route by the summer. However, after the outbreak of World War 2, all work stopped.”

And remember this was at a time when the alternative LSWR route via Okehampton and the Teign Valley routes were still both open and used for diversions when the Dawlish route was closed.
That 1930s generation of railwayman, politicians and engineers would be very surprised today at some of this generations attitude to a similar rail investment today. In this context its so sad to read some of the uninformed comments here.

Have you posted this previously or is this discussion just going around in circles?

 

[Woody]

Have you posted this previously or is this discussion just going around in circles?

Get real mate
This from Network Rail

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetab...amage/dawlish/

Quote "Further sections of the old sea wall are destroyed as well as a lesser secondary breach closer to Dawlish Warren."

 

[HowardGWR]

Get real mate
This from Network Rail[

I don't understand your aggressive remark. When I read your post, I felt I had read it previously. My question was a genuine one. It could be you just joined in, but I swear there was an almost identical one a while back. That's why i asked.

 

[Woody]

I don't understand your aggressive remark. When I read your post, I felt I had read it previously. My question was a genuine one. It could be you just joined in, but I swear there was an almost identical one a while back. That's why i asked.

Sorry if I sounded aggressive, did not mean it that way. I tend to see things very logically thats all.

 

[K Macdonald]

This from Network Rail
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetab...amage/dawlish/

Broken link.

This might be better: www.networkrail.co.uk/Dawlish

 

[jmc100]

More damage to the sea wall and repair time extended. This is getting really serious as far as the south-west economies are concerned. I think we, as a country, have to start thinking many years in advance and planning accordingly. The amount of money required to secure rail resilience in the Dawlish region is peanuts compared to some other civil engineering projects. In the short term, maybe the reopening of the Dartmoor route could be achieved as a relief route for inter-city services should anything further happen along the length of the Dawlish sea wall. In the long term, a tunnel under Halden is the only answer that would provide for high-speed operations between Exeter and Newton Abbott - electrified of course.

These are only my opinions, but what suggestions would you advise to counter the problem in the short term?

 

[HowardGWR]

More damage to the sea wall and repair time extended. This is getting really serious as far as the south-west economies are concerned. I think we, as a country, have to start thinking many years in advance and planning accordingly. The amount of money required to secure rail resilience in the Dawlish region is peanuts compared to some other civil engineering projects. In the short term, maybe the reopening of the Dartmoor route could be achieved as a relief route for inter-city services should anything further happen along the length of the Dawlish sea wall. In the long term, a tunnel under Halden is the only answer that would provide for high-speed operations between Exeter and Newton Abbott - electrified of course.

These are only my opinions, but what suggestions would you advise to counter the problem in the short term?

Do what they are doing. At the same time get the backroom boys doing a decent feasibility report on the two measures we have discussed (which are clearly not alternative options long-term but complementary). They are doing that as well, they tell us, so I suggest we just wait and see what the results are. I cannot see any fresh points being put here that move the discussion on.

 

[The Ham]

which are clearly not alternative options long-term but complementary

Quite, we could even see both being built in the medium term if the BCR's for both are good (although I admit that it is less likely than just one of them having an acceptable BCR).

However it could be good, if the BCR for both independently are reasonable, to look at the BCR for doing both (although I would be surprised if there was much difference between the sum of the two schemes). As that could form the basis for arguing that doing the scheme that isn't built is required and therefore improving rail services in the SW further.