Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[47802]

This is not really about Okehampton. It is about a possible alternative route and Okehampton happens to be along it.

Well if there was such a massive case for Okehampton why isn't there a train service there now since it could be reinstated to Exeter for a fairly moderate cost.

Unfortunatly the whole things gets hijacked by those who want to see the old southern line reinstated in full we even get twaddle about running trains to Waterloo on it. Of course it is the most likely solution if any because it is the cheapest, however it doesn't mean its the best, if we go for this option then you are also commited to spending large amounts maintaining the Dawlish route and if that eventually becomes unsustainable then you either build a Dawlish diversion anyway or South Devon loses its rail connection, that's why a Dawlish diversion is the correct answer in my book, but I don't expect its the answer that will happen.

 

[21C101]

Well if there was such a massive case for Okehampton why isn't there a train service there now since it could be reinstated to Exeter for a fairly moderate cost.

To build Sourton Parkway, you need to get Meldon viaduct back into service. Once you've done that, and reopened Tavistock to Bere Alston (which is going to happen anyway), you might as well put the remaining 12 or so miles in the middle back.

Unfortunatly the whole things gets hijacked by those who want to see the old southern line reinstated in full we even get twaddle about running trains to Waterloo on it. Of course it is the most likely solution if any because it is the cheapest, however it doesn't mean its the best,

Theres no practicable way 8 car HSTs from Paddington can use it (except as a diversionary route). A shuttle to Exeter would be a complete flop so extending some car 159s from Waterloo is the obvious option.

if we go for this option then you are also commited to spending large amounts maintaining the Dawlish route and if that eventually becomes unsustainable then you either build a Dawlish diversion anyway or South Devon loses its rail connection, that's why a Dawlish diversion is the correct answer in my book, but I don't expect its the answer that will happen.

Do you really think NR would be allowed to close Dawlish and Teignmouth if a Dawlish Diversion was built, so it would have to be maintained anyway. In any case as Network Rail own the coastal strip they are saddled with maintaining it even if the line shuts (unless they can find some mug to buy it off them). There are also problems with the line being overhung by towering cliffs for several miles and the line west of Newton Abbot curving like a corkscrew around the sides of steep hills.

A Dawlish Diversion cannot be built for less than £1 billion. Reopening the Southern Line may cost as little as a fifth of that if Meldon Viaduct can be put back into service without being rebuilt (something I have reason to believe is now being looked at).

The Southern route being reopened would also allow nighttime/weekend diversions along it making it much easier to maintain and work on the GW route and giving a more reliable service on it.

But, yes, the ultimate goal is 159s running from Waterloo to Barnstaple and Plymouth, limited stop to Exeter every hour on a redoubled main line, then dividing at Crediton into Plymouth and Barnstaple Portions, with the current Waterloo - Salisbury services increased to twice hourly running all stations to Exeter Central then reversing and continuing to Exmouth. (Something similar has already happened once with Chiltern which was reduced to a single track line north of Princes Ris with a handful of services from London to Banbury)

Part of this would obviously be paid for by closing the Berks and Hants between Castle Cary and Taunton and singling it between Newbury and Castle Cary, with closure of the Frome and Westbury avoiding lines and, a six times a day DMU shuttle running between Newbury and Westbury once electrification to Newbury is complete until such time as the pax can be driven off it in sufficient numbers to close that too. Finally all the buildings at Exeter St Davids Station will be demolished and replaced with Bus Shelters

Then instead of the music playing at Waterloo a permanent loop of the sound of ravens crowing, alternated with chants of "Death to the Great Western" will be played on the PA system at Waterloo Station.

 

[The Ham]

Well if there was such a massive case for Okehampton why isn't there a train service there now since it could be reinstated to Exeter for a fairly moderate cost.

Lack of DMU's, it's the reason a few new services aren't running. Including Portishead.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I'm becoming a little bit tired of people who confuse pessimism for realism on this thread.

How about we allow the powers that be to do a proper feasibility study and see what arises out of it, rather than just assuming the worst. It doesn't make you clever - it just makes you contrarian.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Well if there was such a massive case for Okehampton why isn't there a train service there now since it could be reinstated to Exeter for a fairly moderate cost.
.

As The Ham points out, lack of DMU stock to operate it at the present time, but do you realise a service operates every Sunday between June & October and has done every year since 1997. Obviously it must be sucessful otherwise in the privatised world of today it would surely not exist! Infact forum members that travelled on the trains last season stated that they were well used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I'm becoming a little bit tired of people who confuse pessimism for realism on this thread.

How about we allow the powers that be to do a proper feasibility study and see what arises out of it, rather than just assuming the worst. It doesn't make you clever - it just makes you contrarian.

Agreed! Sensible comments.

 

[47802]

As The Ham points out, lack of DMU stock to operate it at the present time, but do you realise a service operates every Sunday between June & October and has done every year since 1997. Obviously it must be sucessful otherwise in the privatised world of today it would surely not exist! Infact forum members that travelled on the trains last season stated that they were well used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Agreed! Sensible comments.

The lack of DMU's is a pretty lame excuse and in any case a somewhat transient issue. A train every Sunday in the holiday season wow. I suspect this service could have been restored a number of years ago had their been the will and demand.

Even Network rail have indicated that some costal routes could become unsustainable at some point in the future and will either hove to be closed or an alternate inland route sought.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.dartmoor-railway-sa.org/news

The Dartmoor Railway Supporters Association have the passengers figures for the Sunday Rover Trains - scroll down page. The service is being reduced to 4 each way this year, and all the connecting buses (to Tavistock / Gunnislake etc.) are being withdrawn if the Devon CC budget cuts are approved.

 

[The Ham]

http://www.dartmoor-railway-sa.org/news

The Dartmoor Railway Supporters Association have the passengers figures for the Sunday Rover Trains - scroll down page. The service is being reduced to 4 each way this year, and all the connecting buses (to Tavistock / Gunnislake etc.) are being withdrawn if the Devon CC budget cuts are approved.

2014's figures (provided on the link you provided) showed 4 services each way, so there is no reduction between 2014 and 2015.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If anything the low passenger numbers (which are not very surprising given the seasonal nature and infrequent service pattern, as even in tourist locations many people who use the service are locals who rely on the trains for their daily travel requirements) would support the idea of extending the SWT's service. Why? Because by attracting a few longer distance passengers (about to 120 per day*, which isn't many each train) it could pay for the running costs of the trains so any income from the local passengers would just be a bonus.

Also, it should be noted that the number of units required to run an end to end service is not that different from that required to run each branch service. For instance a train service end to end of just over an hour run as an extension of the SWT's service would require 2 extra sets, which would be the same required to run each end as a separate branch line. However such an extension would generate more passengers than the two individual services, in fact even running end to end would generate more passengers (although not as many as the extension and could require a third unit).

* the general cost of one DMU coach is about £110,000 per year; so a 3 coach 159 would be £330,000. Leasing is generally half the cost so £660,000 and 50% just for good measure and its £1m, double that for 2 sets and it costs £2m. Divided that by 300 (a fair amount to provide the cost per day given variation in days) and it costs about £6,667 per day. Take the cost of a ticket from Woking to Exeter about £60 as a good example of the cost longer distance passengers would be paying and you end up with 112. Add a few extra to offset some shorter journeys and you end up with 120.

 

[MarkyT]

a train service end to end of just over an hour run as an extension of the SWT's service would require 2 extra sets, which would be the same required to run each end as a separate branch line. However such an extension would generate more passengers than the two individual services, in fact even running end to end would generate more passengers

If the Okehampton route is reinstated, I support operating it as a reasonably fast limited stop extension of the current hourly Waterloo - Exeter service. Even for passengers from Plymouth, this could provide a direct ride to a more central city destination in Exeter, convenient for city shoppers and commuters as well as being closer to the main bus station for easier connections to the wider city and surrounding area. Direct service would also be provided between Plymouth and Honiton, Axminster and all the other intermediate stations beyond on the LSWR route to London, and the trains could call additionally at the new Cranbrook station, which via a short shuttle bus, taxi or 'pod' link could provide a regular all day service between flightless Plymouth and Exeter's growing airport. Price competition between the LSWR and GW operators could help to keep ticket prices affordable and incentivise journeys, if neccessary, by the potentially (slightly) slower Okehampton route.

 

[Bald Rick]

* the general cost of one DMU coach is about £110,000 per year; so a 3 coach 159 would be £330,000. Leasing is generally half the cost so £660,000 and 50% just for good measure and its £1m, double that for 2 sets and it costs £2m. Divided that by 300 (a fair amount to provide the cost per day given variation in days) and it costs about £6,667 per day. Take the cost of a ticket from Woking to Exeter about £60 as a good example of the cost longer distance passengers would be paying and you end up with 112. Add a few extra to offset some shorter journeys and you end up with 120.

Plus crewing costs, station staff, fuel, track access (for infrastructure maintenance and operation).

And that's before the cost of opening / upgrading the line.

 

[yorksrob]

Well if there was such a massive case for Okehampton why isn't there a train service there now since it could be reinstated to Exeter for a fairly moderate cost.

Unfortunatly the whole things gets hijacked by those who want to see the old southern line reinstated in full we even get twaddle about running trains to Waterloo on it. Of course it is the most likely solution if any because it is the cheapest, however it doesn't mean its the best, if we go for this option then you are also commited to spending large amounts maintaining the Dawlish route and if that eventually becomes unsustainable then you either build a Dawlish diversion anyway or South Devon loses its rail connection, that's why a Dawlish diversion is the correct answer in my book, but I don't expect its the answer that will happen.

If anything, the debate has been hijacked from the start by those obsessed with speed, rather than looking at resilience for services to the South West - which is clearly best served by having two routes all the way to London, rather than having a short bypass, which will be of little use with problems or engineering works elsewhere between Exeter and Plymouth.

Of course it makes sense to extend the Waterloo service through to Plymouth. The service already stops handily at Exeter and provides the best option for increased connectivity, although those desperate to pursue an agenda against the Okehampton route will of course dismiss it as twaddle as it would be the one most likely to succeed.

I'm not sure I even trust your motives on this issue, given your position on other threads regarding the Regional Railway. Were Okehampton not on the table, would you even support the retention of Gunnislake, or would that just be another to be cut?

 

[HSTEd]

But the other question is the resilience worth the money you propose to expend.

And it most certainly is not.

Resilience alone is worth almost nothing.

 

[yorksrob]

But the other question is the resilience worth the money you propose to expend.

And it most certainly is not.

Resilience alone is worth almost nothing.

It's clearly not worth almost nothing, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

However, I can see your point that if we're to spend lots of money on it, we need to be addressing other issues as well, which is why the Okehampton option is far and away the best one, on account of the better connectivity it provides for a vast swathe of Devon, including Tavistock, Okehampton, Crediton, and Launceston as well as smaller settlements such as Bere Alston and Lydford.

 

[HSTEd]

Were are still having this discussion because some politicos are keeping the Dawlish issue alive in the hopes of wringing some votes out of it.

I am not convinced this proposal of a line via Oakhampton is really going to generate a better BCR than a minimum spec branch to Okehampton and the DAL combined.
DAL benefits large numbers of passengers day in and day out.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

But the other question is the resilience worth the money you propose to expend.

And it most certainly is not.

Resilience alone is worth almost nothing.

I'll remind you of that comment when I see you wittering on about being stuck in the middle of nowhere for ages due to a signalling failure or other incident and you could of have been diverted via an alternative route or if Beeching (spit, spit) a diversionary route that was closed by him.

 

[HSTEd]

I'll remind you of that comment when I see you wittering on about being stuck in the middle of nowhere for ages due to a signalling failure or other incident and you could of have been diverted via an alternative route or if Beeching (spit, spit) a diversionary route that was closed by him.

Diversions take so long (to set up and to travel over) that in many cases its better to simply sit tight.
And I recognise that the cost of maintaining diversionary routes is enormous and the benefits are slight.
The same logic I apply to others applies to myself also.

 

[yorksrob]

Were are still having this discussion because some politicos are keeping the Dawlish issue alive in the hopes of wringing some votes out of it.

I am not convinced this proposal of a line via Oakhampton is really going to generate a better BCR than a minimum spec branch to Okehampton and the DAL combined.
DAL benefits large numbers of passengers day in and day out.

Large numbers of passengers who already use the main line day in, day out, and who would most likely continue to use the main line day in, day out, regardless of whether the DAL gets built or not. I'm not convinced that the ten minute saving is going to be worth the expenditure in terms of increased revenue or wider social and economic benefits.

 

[HSTEd]

Large numbers of passengers who already use the main line day in, day out, and who would most likely continue to use the main line day in, day out, regardless of whether the DAL gets built or not. I'm not convinced that the ten minute saving is going to be worth the expenditure in terms of increased revenue or wider social and economic benefits.

I am not so sure - the time saving will start to make Plymouth-Exeter actually competitive with other modes of transport, and thus increase traffic on the route and thus improve the case for other route improvements down the line.
Spread your jam too thin and you will lose synergistic effects and be worse off overall.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Diversions take so long (to set up and to travel over) that in many cases its better to simply sit tight.
And I recognise that the cost of maintaining diversionary routes is enormous and the benefits are slight.
The same logic I apply to others applies to myself also.

And that's down to the stupid idea of privatisation which created a fragmented railway system which doesn't work together, but against one another!

I've been on ICXC services in the past, which were diverted "at the drop of a hat", no issues, just a walk through by the guard to tell passengers who may have been affected to change at "xxxxxxxxxxx" for their station or change here and the next thing away.

The only one's I know that do it now are FGW HSS & occasionally VWC, but only if it's South of Manchester.

 

[yorksrob]

I am not so sure - the time saving will start to make Plymouth-Exeter actually comperesilience. other modes of transport, and thus increase traffic on the route and thus improve the case for other route improvements down the line.
Spread your jam too thin and you will lose synergistic effects and be worse off overall.

You're still left with Plymouth and Cornwall at the end of a long and winding branch line though. Plus, as you point out, you would only see a real benefit in terms of speed as part of a series of improvements, so you'd be better off systematically looking at the costs and benefits of those in terms of raising line speeds, rather than trying to hang it on a project which doesn't stand alone either in terms of speed or resilience.

 

[The Ham]

Plus crewing costs, station staff, fuel, track access (for infrastructure maintenance and operation).

And that's before the cost of opening / upgrading the line.

Sorry, I wasn't clear the doubling of the leasing costs was to cover the cost of staff, fuel, etc. The extra 50% on top of that was to ensure that these were defiantly covered.

I would point out that the infrastructure costs paid in the form of track access charges should cover the cost of building the line in the first place (if it doesn't then that is the fault of the system).

However, even with the system as it is, some of the build costs would be covered by the early years where there should be very little maintenance to be done. (By my calculations a 3 coach 159 running each way on a 50 mile route, each hour for 12 hours would be over £200 per day or over £60,000 per year when little or no work should be needed on the new section for several years - yes fairly small chance for the railways but it should be a net contributer to the NR budget for the years after it is open).

As I said that is before you include any local passengers.

I wouldn't know how to come up with figures for a journey time improvement, other than over the course of a day that the TOC would likely be able to save the cost of leasing two trains and the associated costs if a journey saving of 10 minutes was achieved.

 

[47802]

Were are still having this discussion because some politicos are keeping the Dawlish issue alive in the hopes of wringing some votes out of it.

I am not convinced this proposal of a line via Oakhampton is really going to generate a better BCR than a minimum spec branch to Okehampton and the DAL combined.
DAL benefits large numbers of passengers day in and day out.

That's very true, and as I have said repeatedly doesn't fix the problem it just gives you an expensive diversionary route.

The problem of Dawlish needs to be fixed directly, either by maintaining and improving the present route, or by a DAL. As for an obsession with speed not at all but any speed improvement would be of benefit on route with a fairly uncompetitive journey time.

 

[yorksrob]

That's very true, and as I have said repeatedly doesn't fix the problem it just gives you an expensive diversionary route.

The problem of Dawlish needs to be fixed directly, either by maintaining and improving the present route, or by a DAL. As for an obsession with speed not at all but any speed improvement would be of benefit on route with a fairly uncompetitive journey time.

Whatever happens, the existing route will be maintained and improved, however, no route in the country is available 365 days a year, which is why a large City like Plymouth and the County of Cornwall require an alternative.

 

[HSTEd]

Whatever happens, the existing route will be maintained and improved, however, no route in the country is available 365 days a year, which is why a large City like Plymouth and the County of Cornwall require an alternative.

If the existing route will be maintained and improved then you are building a main line spec railway for the benefit of a few days a year.
And we long ago decided that it was beter to accept occasional closures rather build duplicate lines to every destination.

 

[yorksrob]

If the existing route will be maintained and improved then you are building a main line spec railway for the benefit of a few days a year.
And we long ago decided that it was beter to accept occasional closures rather build duplicate lines to every destination.

For the benefit of those times when the main line is closed and for all of the benefits to central Devon of having decent public transport all year round.

Most large urban centres already benefit from having duplicate routes. Even the West Country does East of Exeter. And people aren't saying these routes should be closed and run down, they are saying that they should be upgraded so that they can be even more useful during disruption - Waterloo - Exeter being a prime example.

 

[class26]

If the existing route will be maintained and improved then you are building a main line spec railway for the benefit of a few days a year.
And we long ago decided that it was beter to accept occasional closures rather build duplicate lines to every destination.

Yes, but that doesn`t factor in the probability that last years storms could happen again destroying the line frequently over the next few years and then the money spent on a new line will look like good value

 

[Chris125]

Yes, but that doesn`t factor in the probability that last years storms could happen again destroying the line frequently over the next few years and then the money spent on a new line will look like good value

I've not seen anything that suggests last years storm will be repeated 'frequently' over the next few years, that kind of weather may become relatively more common but far from an annual event and the most vulnerable section is being dealt with anyway.

 

[John S2]

If the existing route will be maintained and improved then you are building a main line spec railway for the benefit of a few days a year...

I [and some other posters] have explained previously in this thread, with evidence, why the existing stretch of line is becoming more vulnerable and that this vulnerability will increase year on year. We are definitely talking about more than just a 'few days' disruption.
Some years of course will see very little disruption due to natural variation in weather.

 

[The Ham]

If the existing route will be maintained and improved then you are building a main line spec railway for the benefit of a few days a year.
And we long ago decided that it was beter to accept occasional closures rather build duplicate lines to every destination.

I agree, however such a statement is more true of the DAL than of route via Okehampton. As the latter could provide new journey options as well as a possible increase in the frequency of London to Plymouth services (possibily double the current frequency).

Whilst the big advantage of the DAL is an up to 10 minute reduction in the journey time (which as I've said before could be achieved much cheaply by replacing the HST's with 22x's (or for that matter any new or newer suitable MU).

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, I wasn't clear the doubling of the leasing costs was to cover the cost of staff, fuel, etc. The extra 50% on top of that was to ensure that these were defiantly covered.

However, even with the system as it is, some of the build costs would be covered by the early years where there should be very little maintenance to be done. (By my calculations a 3 coach 159 running each way on a 50 mile route, each hour for 12 hours would be over £200 per day or over £60,000 per year when little or no work should be needed on the new section for several years - yes fairly small chance for the railways but it should be a net contributer to the NR budget for the years after it is open).
.

For the avoidance of doubt, the maintenance costs of a relatively simple old railway will be roughly the same as a relatively simple new railway, and you do it from day 1. You do exactly the same planned inspections, testing, patrolling, etc etc. You have the same amount of people on standby in case something does go wrong. What you don't have is renewal costs - principally for track components - for a couple of decades.

The costs of building it would be wrapped into track access charges, but assuming it was put on the Network Rail financing, it effectively goes on ALL track access charges nationwide. That's why for the business case, you have to take the construction cost separately.