Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Rich McLean]

Think that is probably true- in part Exminster Marshes or even Marsh Barton could probably be four tracked to increase capacity - avoiding building out to the sea at Dawlish! But Brighton doesn't have long distance trains from Aberdeen or even Penzance (roughly 100 miles to Exeter) which gives a great deal of potential problems for delay when interspersed with all station locals. Brighton line is much more compact. If you want to go long distance from Brighton there is no choice but to change in London (regrettably!) It's a long, long time since there was a train from Brighton to Penzance..

Hence my point. With 6tph, there will be minimal scope for delays. If an express is delayed, it will end up behind a stopper, if a stopper is delayed it can hold up a RT Express and can have a knock on effect for many hours. This isn't just from Exeter to Newton Abbot, this can effect things right the way through to Plymouth until the re-signaling is completed in 2025 and also Newton Abbot re-modeled as a result . The Loops at Dawlish are fine if trains are running to time, but a stopper waiting time for its booked 7 minutes for nothing when an express is late running doesn't help capacity in that sense either. Skip stops would also be unpopular with the locals

Also 3 platforms at NTA would not be enough, especially if a late running semi fast has an Ivybridge call, with a fast booked not too far behind skips it with the current large headways can add 10 mins delay.

 

[The Ham]

Hence my point. With 6tph, there will be minimal scope for delays. If an express is delayed, it will end up behind a stopper, if a stopper is delayed it can hold up a RT Express and can have a knock on effect for many hours. This isn't just from Exeter to Newton Abbot, this can effect things right the way through to Plymouth until the re-signaling is completed in 2025 and also Newton Abbot re-modeled as a result . The Loops at Dawlish are fine if trains are running to time, but a stopper waiting time for its booked 7 minutes for nothing when an express is late running doesn't help capacity in that sense either. Skip stops would also be unpopular with the locals

Also 3 platforms at NTA would not be enough, especially if a late running semi fast has an Ivybridge call, with a fast booked not too far behind skips it with the current large headways can add 10 mins delay.

If I understand what you are saying, the problem is down to the current signaling, which is due to be replaced in 2025?

In comparison, just how much sooner than 2025 do you think that any form of addition line is going to be built? Even then there is not a lot stopping the signaling works being done sooner if by doing so it brings benefits.

 

[yorksrob]

If Exeter-Newton Abbott needs 4 tracks in the medium/long-term can hundreds of millions really be justified on a third route?

I'd love to the line via Okehampton reopened but the priority must surely be strengthening the existing route, with longer term capacity, electrification and journey time improvements catered for by an inland route in due course.

Chris

That is an interesting point. As The Ham notes, if we really do need quadroupling between Exeter and Newton, this becomes a much longer term and more expensive prospect than the cut-off routes outlined in the NR study, particularly if you include the inevitable strengthening of the existing route.

In this context, the Okehampton route becomes proportionally a much quicker and cheaper part of the overall package and possibly a "quick win" in comparison.

 

[47802]

That is an interesting point. As The Ham notes, if we really do need quadroupling between Exeter and Newton, this becomes a much longer term and more expensive prospect than the cut-off routes outlined in the NR study, particularly if you include the inevitable strengthening of the existing route.

In this context, the Okehampton route becomes proportionally a much quicker and cheaper part of the overall package and possibly a "quick win" in comparison.

That's an amazing conclusion that we should put money towards Okehampton for a quick win instead of putting that money towards the cut off routes which would also go a good way to improving capacity between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

 

[21C101]

If I understand what you are saying, the problem is down to the current signaling, which is due to be replaced in 2025?

In comparison, just how much sooner than 2025 do you think that any form of addition line is going to be built? Even then there is not a lot stopping the signaling works being done sooner if by doing so it brings benefits.

Seems to me the most worthwhile investment on that line would be four aspect signalling from Plymouth to Exeter and reinstate the four track section from Aller onto Newton A and fourth platform there, plus the reinstate the four track loops at Exminster. Reinstate the track removed in the 1980s and increase the signalling headway to 3 minutes and the problems of late running ICs catching slows largely disappear. You could then reopen Plympton too.

 

[yorksrob]

That's an amazing conclusion that we should put money towards Okehampton for a quick win instead of putting that money towards the cut off routes which would also go a good way to improving capacity between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

If you were planning a new route between Newton and exeter whilst keeping the existing route, the cut off options would be entirely supurfluous.

 

[47802]

If you were planning a new route between Newton and exeter whilst keeping the existing route, the cut off options would be entirely supurfluous.

Well quite obviously any new route would either be part of the cut off route or a new route your not going to build both and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

[yorksrob]

Well quite obviously any new route would either be part of the cut off route or a new route your not going to build both and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Well, the Okehampton route will have a value in and of itself, however, they'll have to decide on the master plan for the Newton - Exeter route and stick with it. If it is a larger scale project encompassing capacity enhancement it will imevitably be longer term and higher cost.

 

[Busaholic]

Its less about the number of trains and more about the order they go in along the wall.

Let's hope none of them 'go in' along the wall.

 

[Rapidash]

Let's hope none of them 'go in' along the wall.

Considering the Pacer I was on 'tother day was allegedly being smacked around by 90+mph winds along there, I doubt thats an issue. It was a bit harder than normal to stand up, but that was more to do with the mulled cider.....

 

[Chris125]

In this context, the Okehampton route becomes proportionally a much quicker and cheaper part of the overall package and possibly a "quick win" in comparison.

Why do we need a 'quick win'?

The existing line will remain open for the foreseeable future and will surely justify strengthening, so a new line must be justified to some extent on longer term strategic benefits - JTI, electrification, extra capacity, resilience to bad weather etc.

On strategic grounds the cut-off alignments identified by NR are surely superior, so if extra tracks between Exeter and Newton Abbott are needed that's where the investment needs to go.

There is no race to replace Dawlish and no alternative can avoid the investment needed to keep that line open, so why invest in a longer-term solution that risks becoming largely superfluous? I admit it pulls at the heartstrings but Okehampton doesn't make sense.

Chris

 

[yorksrob]

Why do we need a 'quick win'?

The existing line will remain open for the foreseeable future and will surely justify strengthening, so a new line must be justified to some extent on longer term strategic benefits - JTI, electrification, extra capacity, resilience to bad weather etc.

On strategic grounds the cut-off alignments identified by NR are surely superior, so if extra tracks between Exeter and Newton Abbott are needed that's where the investment needs to go.

There is no race to replace Dawlish and no alternative can avoid the investment needed to keep that line open, so why invest in a longer-term solution that risks becoming largely superfluous? I admit it pulls at the heartstrings but Okehampton doesn't make sense.

Chris

As the local populations in central and north Devon recognise, those areas need improved transport links anyway, so it makes sense to get this underway as soon as possible. It's inevitable that the existing route will see strengthening, but there is still a need to make sure that there is always a route to the West country, hence the need for a quick win.

The only thing that makes no sense is why so many denizens of Plymouth are so desperate not to have an improved network including links northward.

 

[MarkyT]

Just a quick comment about the capacity issues between Exeter and Newton Abbot, further to my previous comment here:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1955402&postcount=1816

I produced a small spreadsheet with graphs to illustrate the problem, the output is in this pdf:
http://www.townend.me/files/exeter-newton abbot.pdf

And the spreadsheet in .ods format can be downloaded here if anyone wants to play with it:
http://www.townend.me/files/exeter-newton abbot.ods

 

[Rich McLean]

Just a quick comment about the capacity issues between Exeter and Newton Abbot, further to my previous comment here:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1955402&postcount=1816

I produced a small spreadsheet with graphs to illustrate the problem, the output is in this pdf:
http://www.townend.me/files/exeter-newton abbot.pdf

And the spreadsheet in .ods format can be downloaded here if anyone wants to play with it:
http://www.townend.me/files/exeter-newton abbot.ods

One thing I would like to see created is the following service pattern and how it would fit down the sea wall

Hour 1 Up (not in order)
FGW Paignton - Exmouth all shacks
FGW Paignton - Emouth (all stations to Dawlish Warren, then fast to St Davids)
FGW Penzance - Bristol TM (Most station PZN - PLY, all stations to Teignmouth, fast to Exeter St D, Tiv P, Taunton, the ususal station to BRI via WSM. (New Semi Fast 158 unit)
FGW Penzance - Padd (HSS)
XC Plymouth - North East via BHM (XC Express)
FGW Paignton - Pad - calls at Torquay, NTA, Teignmouth, Dawlish, EXD then semi fast to Padd (HSS)

Hour 2 Up
FGW Paignton - Exmouth all shacks
FGW Paignton - Emouth (all stations to Dawlish Warren, then fast to St Davids)
FGW Penzance - Bristol TM (Most station PZN - PLY all stations to NTA, Dawlish, fast to Exeter St D, Tiv P, Taunton, the ususal station to BRI via WSM. (New Semi Fast 158 unit)
FGW Penzance - Padd (HSS)
XC Plymouth - North East via BHM (XC Express)
XC Paignton - Man - calls at Torquay, NTA, Teignmouth, Dawlish, EXD then normal XC Route (XC)

Hour 1 Down
FGW Exmouth - Paignton all shacks
FGW Exmouth - Paignton (Fast EXD - Dawlish Warren, then all stations to PGN)
FGW Bristol TM - Penzance . From EXD, calls at Dawlish, NTA, then stations to PZN.
FGW Pad - Penzance (HSS)
XC North East - Plymouth (XC Express)
FGW Pad - Paignton - calls at Dawlish, Teignmouth, NTA, Torquay and Paignton

Hour 2 Down
FGW Exmouth - Paignton all shacks
FGW Exmouth - Paignton (Fast EXD - Dawlish Warren, then all stations to PGN)
FGW Bristol TM - Penzance . From EXD, calls at Teignmouth, NTA, then stations to PZN.
FGW Pad - Penzance (HSS)
XC North East - Plymouth (XC Express)
XC Man - Paignton - calls at Dawlish, Teignmouth, NTA, Torquay and Paignton

I can imagine it would fit, but it would mean Starcross and Exeter St Thomas getting an hourly service, plus the new Semi Fast to Penzance may have to run fast. If someone wants to try a mock up time table, be my guest, but I may have a crack at it tomorrow

 

[Chris125]

As the local populations in central and north Devon recognise, those areas need improved transport links anyway, so it makes sense to get this underway as soon as possible.

That's a separate issue - if it's primarily being built to improve local transport links then it needs to be judged, and justified, on that basis and I can't see that happening.

It's inevitable that the existing route will see strengthening, but there is still a need to make sure that there is always a route to the West country, hence the need for a quick win.

If you strengthen the existing route why should that not suffice, at least until a second line is built between Exeter and Newton Abbott on capacity grounds?

Chri

 

[yorksrob]

That's a separate issue - if it's primarily being built to improve local transport links then it needs to be judged, and justified, on that basis and I can't see that happening.



If you strengthen the existing route why should that not suffice, at least until a second line is built between Exeter and Newton Abbott on capacity grounds?

Chri

There clearly is a feeling that there needs to be back up. Not a replacement to the main line, but back up. You can believe that there's no hurry to get something in place if you wish, but if that were the case, we wouldn't have Secretaries of state taking DMU tours of West Country branchlines.

 

[47802]

There clearly is a feeling that there needs to be back up. Not a replacement to the main line, but back up. You can believe that there's no hurry to get something in place if you wish, but if that were the case, we wouldn't have Secretaries of state taking DMU tours of West Country branchlines.

A backup is not needed, an alternate mainline probably is

 

[yorksrob]

A backup is not needed, an alternate mainline probably is

I think a back up definately is needed - so many areas of the country benefit from it.

A replacement mainline ? Maybe, but I think more likely as part of a capacity enhancement.

 

[The Ham]

A backup is not needed, an alternate mainline probably is

As I have pointed out before, even with the slower journey time the route to Exeter from Waterloo provides the quickest way to the west country. Even with an extension to Plymouth via Okehampton taking longer there will be many locations from which it will be the fastest route to Plymouth.

Therefore for those passengers it would be an attractive and viable alternative to the main line. Add in slightly cheaper fairs and there could be another group of people for whom it would be a viable route.

The risk with the route via Okehamton is that not many people use it except when there are diversions. The risk with the new lines is that a time saving of circa 5 main will not attract many new passengers and may result in a poorer long term route. (Oh and the cost)

 

[Altnabreac]

As the local populations in central and north Devon recognise, those areas need improved transport links anyway, so it makes sense to get this underway as soon as possible. It's inevitable that the existing route will see strengthening, but there is still a need to make sure that there is always a route to the West country, hence the need for a quick win.

The only thing that makes no sense is why so many denizens of Plymouth are so desperate not to have an improved network including links northward.

The issue as I've pointed out before is that you get 90% of the benefit for 10% of the cost by reopening Bere Alston to Tavistock and running regular services from Exeter to Okehampton.

The middle section has much less potential usage and much higher costs.

The potential benefits of a Newton Abbot - Exeter cutoff are bound to be much higher as the extra capacity could be used to run extra services every day, not just for occasional diversions.

 

[deltic08]

As the local populations in central and north Devon recognise, those areas need improved transport links anyway, so it makes sense to get this underway as soon as possible. It's inevitable that the existing route will see strengthening, but there is still a need to make sure that there is always a route to the West country, hence the need for a quick win.

The only thing that makes no sense is why so many denizens of Plymouth are so desperate not to have an improved network including links northward.

Sadly, we live in an unequal society of have's and have not's. There was no question when Dawlish seawall was washed away, £34m was found just like that to repair it. We all paid for it even though 99% of us didn't benefit from it. Why should Dawlish and Teignmouth have a service and Okehampton and Tavistock not have a service as they also paid for it in taxes and Devon County rates but half remain the poor relative.

For £34m, full reinstatement could be achieved to both Okehampton and Tavistock from each end but all of a sudden there isn't any money for it. Of course there is. Haven't bankers just been fined £2.1billion for fraud?

 

[Grumpy]

Therefore, whichever is built further works will be needed. It then boils down to what is better in the long run and how much it costs.

If you build the new line (£3bn) and then spend a similar amount again, to get a time saving of upto 15 minutes.

.

Well as stated upthread there should be no need to spend a tenth of that on a new cut off line of approx. 11 miles.

Comparisons quoted were the Selby diversion (£185m at 2013 prices for 14 miles of double track) and Borders (£350m for 30 miles)

 

[21C101]

As I have pointed out before, even with the slower journey time the route to Exeter from Waterloo provides the quickest way to the west country. Even with an extension to Plymouth via Okehampton taking longer there will be many locations from which it will be the fastest route to Plymouth.

Therefore for those passengers it would be an attractive and viable alternative to the main line. Add in slightly cheaper fairs and there could be another group of people for whom it would be a viable route.

The risk with the route via Okehamton is that not many people use it except when there are diversions. The risk with the new lines is that a time saving of circa 5 main will not attract many new passengers and may result in a poorer long term route. (Oh and the cost)

I think in a few peoples eyes the risk with the route via Okehampton is that a lot of people might use it for the reasons you give, plus another - that it would link Plymouth directly with Exeter Central rather than the St Davids Parkway at the bottom of the hill thick end of a mile away. Can't have that can we, after all its not part of the glorious GWR, might result in less people using the Dawlish Corkscrew.....After all its bad enough that singling the Waterloo - Exeter line didn't result in its closure....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well as stated upthread there should be no need to spend a tenth of that on a new cut off line of approx. 11 miles.

Comparisons quoted were the Selby diversion (£185m at 2013 prices for 14 miles of double track) and Borders (£350m for 30 miles)

The Selby diversion wasn't mostly in tunnels. Brunel wasn't a fool, theres a good reason he built the line along the seafront rather than inland and that the GWR didn't build a bypass at the same time they built all the other cutoffs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A backup is not needed, an alternate mainline probably is

No its not.

 

[yorksrob]

The issue as I've pointed out before is that you get 90% of the benefit for 10% of the cost by reopening Bere Alston to Tavistock and running regular services from Exeter to Okehampton.

The middle section has much less potential usage and much higher costs.

The potential benefits of a Newton Abbot - Exeter cutoff are bound to be much higher as the extra capacity could be used to run extra services every day, not just for occasional diversions.

And as I have pointed out, the costings by NR are only for relatively short sections of the route, therefore you would have to have a much larger, more expensive project to provide double the capacity between Newton and Exeter.

I am not aware of any authoritative study that has properly quantified the potential benefits of the remainder of the route, so I'm not sure where this 90/10 ratio you keep quoting
Comes from

 

[Busaholic]

Sadly, we live in an unequal society of have's and have not's. There was no question when Dawlish seawall was washed away, £34m was found just like that to repair it. We all paid for it even though 99% of us didn't benefit from it. Why should Dawlish and Teignmouth have a service and Okehampton and Tavistock not have a service as they also paid for it in taxes and Devon County rates but half remain the poor relative.

For £34m, full reinstatement could be achieved to both Okehampton and Tavistock from each end but all of a sudden there isn't any money for it. Of course there is. Haven't bankers just been fined £2.1billion for fraud?

Sadly. the bankers haven't been fined a single pfennig, just the banks, which means in the case of RBS mostly us the taxpayers plus those of us stupid enough, like me, to retain a business account with them and can expect to pay for the bankers' criminality with increased charges. Switch banks? Which unimpeachable institution do you suggest, the choice being so great?

I'm reminded by some of the comments on this thread of that famous Torquay hotelier Basil Fawlty and his 'don't mention the war'. Why should those people campaigning to re-open Tavistock to Exeter not mention Dawlish? Not to do so would be perverse, and of course it strengthens the case for an alternative route to Plymouth and Cornwall from Exeter, much though that seems to be resented by some, the more so now the creeping realisation that a pipedream could come to fruition within a few years takes effect. The obstacles are all surmountable, some very easily so, now all it needs is the political will.

 

[drinnicksiding]

I think that's absolutely right, the idea that both a new Exeter Newton Abbot line and reopening the Okehampton route would be funded is beyond belief.

Agreed. Made this point earlier. Building the Okehampton line not only provides relief to all breaches (e.g. Planned maintenance) between Exeter and Plymouth, but the Dawlish line then gets preserved too! Because Torbay and Teignbridge merit a main line. If a new Newton Abbot - Exeter line is built, the Dawlish line would be allowed to be washed away as a smaller amount of people are reliant on it.

No brainer for me. Funding for both will not happen - one option if we are lucky

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Brunel wasn't a fool, theres a good reason he built the line along the seafront rather than inland and that the GWR didn't build a bypass at the same time they built all the other cutoffs.

A bit of a rewrite of history here! The South Devon Railway was not Brunel's finest hour - it was impoverished from the start and could not afford a direct inland route. Remember his original proposal was to continue along the coast as far as Torquay before heading inland, giving an even more indirect route to Plymouth. The 'Atmospheric Caper' nearly bankrupted it and left the legacy for future generations of the ferociously graded South Devon banks. The Edwardian cutoffs for Birmingham and South Wales had a rather better business case than a Dawlish cut-off, but as tourism developed the GWR proposed the Dawlish Avoiding Line, sadly curtailed by the advent of WW2. The availability of government money to relieve unemployment also helped.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed. Made this point earlier. Building the Okehampton line not only provides relief to all breaches (e.g. Planned maintenance) between Exeter and Plymouth, but the Dawlish line then gets preserved too! Because Torbay and Teignbridge merit a main line. If a new Newton Abbot - Exeter line is built, the Dawlish line would be allowed to be washed away as a smaller amount of people are reliant on it.

No brainer for me. Funding for both will not happen - one option if we are lucky

I could see that a new direct line (Exeter - Newton Abbot) could be funded after the reopening of the route via Okehampton to provide improved capacity once the existing line is full and the line via Okehampton has taken all the extra passengers it is likely to due to cost difference in tickets. This is because such a line would bring benefits to more people than if it were to be built now.

I agree that there is a risk that if one of the new (avoiding Dawlish) routes were to be built costing about £3bn that there would be little chance of other improvements in the locality. Even the possibility of 4 lines between Exeter and Newton Abbot could likely be scaled back, either to just the avoiding lines or possibly to only to provide some dynamic loops to allow an increase in services beyond what could be provided by the expresses passing the locals by using the avoiding lines.

 

[Grumpy]

The Selby diversion wasn't mostly in tunnels. Brunel wasn't a fool, theres a good reason he built the line along the seafront rather than inland and that the GWR didn't build a bypass at the same time they built all the other cutoffs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.

Brunel wasn't able to take advantage of modern construction techniques and equipment. He was also building for trains that couldn't climb hills like modern trains can. Despite what you say, even the rigged options in the report aren't "mostly in tunnels".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that there is a risk that if one of the new (avoiding Dawlish) routes were to be built costing about £3bn .

I simply cant understand why the Okehampton lobby keep quoting £3bn for the cut off options. The report quotes £1.6bn for option C4 and there should be plenty of scope to reduce that.

 

[MarkyT]

Brunel wasn't able to take advantage of modern construction techniques and equipment. He was also building for trains that couldn't climb hills like modern trains can.

It's true early locomotives generally couldn't climb steep gradients with any significant load or speed. However on the South Devon further west the original decision to use atmospheric propulsion lead to severe gradients being engineered through the hills, saving money on earthworks but immediately becoming an operational handicap once the atmospheric system with its very lightweight trains, was abandoned rather quickly in favour of steam. Luckily locomotive performance continued to improve rapidly, although the Devon banks even today remain a constraint on train weight and performance.