Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[LateThanNever]

Cockword is unlikely to be anywhere near as vulnerable as Dawlish, since it is facing the other side of the Estuary instead of directly at the open sea.

The wave power at Dawlish is orders of magnitude greater than at Cockword or Starcross.

Okehampton and tavistock is a sticking plaster that will not do anything to improve journey opportunities beyond the branch line reinstatements at each end which would cost a tiny fraction as much. (It will almost certainly be even slower than the current route - which at least has some major straights on it).

Even assuming rising sea levels had been taken into account, if the Dawlish Warren sand bar ends up on the way to Exmouth - it is already thought to be split in two - you can throw out all the CURRENT calculations because more reinforcement will be needed. See the study thesis by David A. Dawson from way back in 2010 'The Impact of Sea-Level Rise on the London to Penzance Railway Line'. Post 625.

 

[HSTEd]

Even assuming rising sea levels had been taken into account, if the Dawlish Warren sand bar ends up on the way to Exmouth - it is already thought to be split in two - you can throw out all the CURRENT calculations because more reinforcement will be needed. See the study thesis by David A. Dawson from way back in 2010 'The Impact of Sea-Level Rise on the London to Penzance Railway Line'. Post 625.

Then perhaps some of this enormous pile of money you are proposing to throw at the Tavistock route woudl be better spent..... stopping the sand bar from splitting off?

Hell, you could build a tidal barrier at Exmouth for not that much money.

EDIT:

Tavistock also doesn't help the 130,000 at Torbay, or the even more people along the coastal communities.
The railway via Dawlish simply has to stay open regardless.

 

[richw]

Its now being reported on BBC Radio Cornwall as costing £20 million a day Cornwall and Plymouth's economy. 13 days of closure at Dawlish and the Okehampton route has effectively paid for itself.
Initially they reported just £20m without stating timescales, the fact its costing £20m a day to be closed highlights the importance of an alternative.
BBC reported that being closed over Easter weekend will lose the region approximately £150m in the weekend alone.
If we say closed for 10 weeks which takes us to the mid April day being quoted,
£20m a day for 10 weeks is £1,400,000,000 lost to the economy with a quoted £250,000,000 to instate an alternative Via Okehampton. Sounds a no brainer for the amount of money lost to the region.

These figures don't include the loss to South Devon as the Okehampton route wouldn't really help them.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Then perhaps some of this enormous pile of money you are proposing to throw at the Tavistock route woudl be better spent..... stopping the sand bar from splitting off?

Hell, you could build a tidal barrier at Exmouth for not that much money.

EDIT:

Tavistock also doesn't help the 130,000 at Torbay, or the even more people along the coastal communities.
The railway via Dawlish simply has to stay open regardless.

If the Okehampton route was open at the moment, the sleeper train could have run, and even reversed at Newton Abbot (calling at Plymouth twice!) That would serve Torbay. Business customers would be delighted with that!

(If the Settle Carlisle route had closed, and the Ribbleshead viaduct deteriorated further/ demolished, would that have had a case for reopening)

In the short term (-15yrs) they must do something.
Breakwater/ Haldon Hill route/ Okehampton.

In the long term (30yrs) hopefully a faster route will be in operation.

Imo not just because of Dawlish, the Okehamton route should be open as a through route.
Another advantage is bringing green tourism to the Dartmoor area. City dwellers could enjoy a day out without the car. (A lot don't own a car) Stations at Brent Tor etc. In conjunction with the cycleway, and suitable trains it could become a victim of its own success! lol

In any event Dawlish should continue to receive a decent service.
Probably a breakwater is the eventual answer for the railway & the town

 

[HowardGWR]

Cockword is unlikely to be anywhere near as vulnerable as Dawlish, since it is facing the other side of the Estuary instead of directly at the open sea.

The wave power at Dawlish is orders of magnitude greater than at Cockword or Starcross.

Okehampton and tavistock is a sticking plaster that will not do anything to improve journey opportunities beyond the branch line reinstatements at each end which would cost a tiny fraction as much. (It will almost certainly be even slower than the current route - which at least has some major straights on it).

It's Cockwood. HTH

 

[The Ham]

Then perhaps some of this enormous pile of money you are proposing to throw at the Tavistock route woudl be better spent..... stopping the sand bar from splitting off?

Hell, you could build a tidal barrier at Exmouth for not that much money.

EDIT:

Tavistock also doesn't help the 130,000 at Torbay, or the even more people along the coastal communities.
The railway via Dawlish simply has to stay open regardless.

No one is saying close Dawlish (at least not this century), nor is anyone saying don't protect Dawlish. Rather, for a modest budget, reopen a line which would be able to provide an alternative when it is needed but would also potentially open up parts of Devon which have poor public transport links. Alternatively build an alternative route away from Dawlish for a bit more money, but with the journey time improvements for the about 25 intercity services a day that would use it.

 

[LateThanNever]

No one is saying close Dawlish (at least not this century), nor is anyone saying don't protect Dawlish. Rather, for a modest budget, reopen a line which would be able to provide an alternative when it is needed but would also potentially open up parts of Devon which have poor public transport links. Alternatively build an alternative route away from Dawlish for a bit more money, but with the journey time improvements for the about 25 intercity services a day that would use it.

Agree but have doubts that the Dawlish route will last all this century! - but at least with the Okehampton solution there is a 'quick' alternative to give time for the doubtless lengthy research on inland from Dawlish or direct to Plymouth or whatever so that the sea route can by-passed. And most of the £0.5m upkeep budget can be spent elsewhere.

 

[Bald Rick]

Its now being reported on BBC Radio Cornwall as costing £20 million a day Cornwall and Plymouth's economy.

So it must be true! Has the economy completely shut down? I bought some Doom Bar in Sainsbury's today, so at least something is still getting through...

(This figure, if believed, also means means every single trip on the line affected generates over £2000 for the Devon and Cornwall economy. If the same rate applies to all rail journeys in GB, then it appears the railway is single handedly generating the UK economy, with an extra £600bn disappearing down the back of a presumably large sofa).

 

[LateThanNever]

So it must be true! Has the economy completely shut down? I bought some Doom Bar in Sainsbury's today, so at least something is still getting through...

(This figure, if believed, also means means every single trip on the line affected generates over £2000 for the Devon and Cornwall economy. If the same rate applies to all rail journeys in GB, then it appears the railway is single handedly generating the UK economy, with an extra £600bn disappearing down the back of a presumably large sofa).

That £2000 is just the price of the rail fare

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even assuming rising sea levels had been taken into account, if the Dawlish Warren sand bar ends up on the way to Exmouth - it is already thought to be split in two - you can throw out all the CURRENT calculations because more reinforcement will be needed. See the study thesis by David A. Dawson from way back in 2010 'The Impact of Sea-Level Rise on the London to Penzance Railway Line'. Post 625.

Sandbars were a hazard to navigation in the Exmouth sea area even in the Middle Ages, so we are not talking about a recent occurrence.

 

[HSTEd]

No one is saying close Dawlish (at least not this century), nor is anyone saying don't protect Dawlish.

And where is the money coming from?
You seem to be assuming we have unlimited money and can afford to reopen a new route without gutting the Dawlish Flood Defence improvement budget.

Rather, for a modest budget, reopen a line which would be able to provide an alternative when it is needed but would also potentially open up parts of Devon which have poor public transport links.

We are looking at over a hundred million pounds on top of the cost of reopening the branch lines that are justified by the demand for journeys in the area.
The middle section provides little in the way of local transport opportunities.
And that is assuming £100m even gets you the improvements required to said branch lines to support a meaningful service during diversionary periods.

Spending that money on Dawlish flood defences gets you a railway that closes no more often than any other railway would, and we know that diversionary routes for normal engineering delays most certainly are not worth it.

 

[yorksrob]

So it must be true! Has the economy completely shut down? I bought some Doom Bar in Sainsbury's today, so at least something is still getting through...

(This figure, if believed, also means means every single trip on the line affected generates over £2000 for the Devon and Cornwall economy. If the same rate applies to all rail journeys in GB, then it appears the railway is single handedly generating the UK economy, with an extra £600bn disappearing down the back of a presumably large sofa).

You can argue how much the amount is, but the fact remains that this closure will be costing the economy money. The day to day costs of closure don‘t even innclude the effect on potential investment in the region of the perception that transport links are not robust and can be easily cut off.

 

[455driver]

If you reread your post #669 you might understand why Latethannever responded in that way.

Nope cant see it.

XC have no booked work that way, there are no paths for them over that way even if they wanted to run that way!
What would be the costs (monetary and staff) of keeping enough crews conversant with the route when/if it is needed and available?

Easier just to bitch about it, isnt it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its now being reported on BBC Radio Cornwall as costing £20 million a day Cornwall and Plymouth's economy. 13 days of closure at Dawlish and the Okehampton route has effectively paid for itself.
Initially they reported just £20m without stating timescales, the fact its costing £20m a day to be closed highlights the importance of an alternative.
BBC reported that being closed over Easter weekend will lose the region approximately £150m in the weekend alone.
If we say closed for 10 weeks which takes us to the mid April day being quoted,
£20m a day for 10 weeks is £1,400,000,000 lost to the economy with a quoted £250,000,000 to instate an alternative Via Okehampton. Sounds a no brainer for the amount of money lost to the region.

These figures don't include the loss to South Devon as the Okehampton route wouldn't really help them.

These figures are conjecture at best and <deleted> at worst!

Exactly where have these figures come from?
How have they been collated?

Bearing in mind more than 99% of the consumables are brought in by road where the hell is all this lost income gone?

Tourism at this time of year probably acounts for about 50p a day not £20million a day!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can argue how much the amount is, but the fact remains that this closure will be costing the economy money. The day to day costs of closure don‘t even innclude the effect on potential investment in the region of the perception that transport links are not robust and can be easily cut off.

How much money is actually being lost in February though?
Okay some of the day trippers/weekenders who travel by rail wont bother but most would be travelling by car anyway so the effect will be negligible compared to the same weather patterns if the seawall was open.

If the storms were blowing in and the line open would people bother travelling? I dont think so!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nope cant see it.

XC have no booked work that way, there are no paths for them over that way even if they wanted to run that way!
What would be the costs (monetary and staff) of keeping enough crews conversant with the route when/if it is needed and available?

Easier just to bitch about it, isnt it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


These figures are conjecture at best and <deleted> at worst!

Exactly where have these figures come from?
How have they been collated?

Bearing in mind more than 99% of the consumables are brought in by road where the hell is all this lost income gone?

Tourism at this time of year probably acounts for about 50p a day not £20million a day!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How much money is actually being lost in February though?
Okay some of the day trippers/weekenders who travel by rail wont bother but most would be travelling by car anyway so the effect will be negligible compared to the same weather patterns if the seawall was open.

If the storms were blowing in and the line open would people bother travelling? I dont think so!

You know, I do wonder why it is we bother with so-called experts, when we have geniuses like you able to provide us with all the answers.

There are far more to the costs than tourism and commuting, which funnily enough the experts actually know about (because they study this sort of thing). Something is not rubbish just because it doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas.

 

[The Ham]

50p per day in lost tourist revenue is far too low, as there's lots of winter tourists in Cornwall and you only need one pasty to be sold and that basicly £4. One lost weekend booking for a hotel and that could be £200 just in accommodation.

Likewise £20m could be far too high, but just because that figure is too high doesn't mean that it isn't into the millions. Especially as this week is half term.

 

[richw]

455driver, unfortunately I can't answer your questions as only repeating Radio Cornwall. I assume the story will be somewhere on the BBC website, but can't look on this device.

I'd say all the extra income to the local coach operators might boost the economy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

50p per day in lost tourist revenue is far too low, as there's lots of winter tourists in Cornwall and you only need one pasty to be sold and that basicly £4. One lost weekend booking for a hotel and that could be £200 just in accommodation.

Likewise £20m could be far too high, but just because that figure is too high doesn't mean that it isn't into the millions. Especially as this week is half term.

Cornwall has been deserted for half term even for February, but I'd put this down to the weather in general.

 

[LateThanNever]

Bearing in mind more than 99% of the consumables are brought in by road where the hell is all this lost income gone?

Tourism at this time of year probably acounts for about 50p a day not £20million a day!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How much money is actually being lost in February though?
Okay some of the day trippers/weekenders who travel by rail wont bother but most would be travelling by car anyway so the effect will be negligible compared to the same weather patterns if the seawall was open.

If the storms were blowing in and the line open would people bother travelling? I dont think so!

If the storms are blowing most would opt for train travel rather than car and Plymouth and Cornwall (0.75million souls) will undoubtedly be very conscious of their poor communications - particularly Plymouth with no airport (and with a very poor connection to Exeter airport). If you run a business it makes life very difficult for you and your customers because businesses thrive on contact. We aren't all tourists!

 

[The Ham]

And where is the money coming from?
You seem to be assuming we have unlimited money and can afford to reopen a new route without gutting the Dawlish Flood Defence improvement budget.



We are looking at over a hundred million pounds on top of the cost of reopening the branch lines that are justified by the demand for journeys in the area.
The middle section provides little in the way of local transport opportunities.
And that is assuming £100m even gets you the improvements required to said branch lines to support a meaningful service during diversionary periods.

Spending that money on Dawlish flood defences gets you a railway that closes no more often than any other railway would, and we know that diversionary routes for normal engineering delays most certainly are not worth it.

Where the money is coming from is a good question, however that is one for the politicians to work out. It doesn't mean that the reopening will deplete the sea defence fund, and even if it does it would only be very marginal as the sea defences would still be needed.

However, I disagree that the middle section would generate very few extra passengers. As anyone on the southern section wanting to head north or east would find that it was quicker to go directly to Exeter. Likewise anyone on the northern section and most people on the existing Barnstaple line wishing to head south or west would be best to go via Okehampton to Plymouth.

 

[LateThanNever]

455driver, unfortunately I can't answer your questions as only repeating Radio Cornwall. I assume the story will be somewhere on the BBC website, but can't look on this device.

I'd say all the extra income to the local coach operators might boost the economy.

Dangerous ground there! And I doubt it. Has to be offset against the connection difficulties of doing business.
There must also be a lot of spare capacity if coaches are able to provide the ongoing regular service at short notice?

 

[MarkyT]

Dangerous ground there! And I doubt it. Has to be offset against the connection difficulties of doing business.
There must also be a lot of spare capacity if coaches are able to provide the ongoing regular service at short notice?

Not spare, but tour coaches are usually relatively idle at this time of year although that will change significantly approaching Easter. Big bus operators have massive fleets and can move resources and drivers all over the country for short term contracts if the money's in it. In the case of the Olympics, buses and drivers were drafted in from all over Britain, and older Stagecoach buses were kept running longer than previously planned in Torbay for example, to be replaced by new ones from London following the games.

 

[richw]

A lot of coaches would be sitting idle this time of year, not earning any money. They've now been sprung into action earning money. A majority of the coaches operating are local companies, there fore increasing revenue for those local coach companies and effectively improving the economy of that sector.

 

[tbtc]

I suppose that the good news is that the debate (here and elsewhere) has moved away from the "HS2 is getting billions therefore we deserve a share" argument and people are becoming more aware of the large population on the south Devon coast who rely on the railway all year round.

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

Wait a minute - I thought people were discussing Tavistock being a "railhead" for this vast population in northern Cornwall/ northern Devon? In which case the population of one town over another isn't relevant - all we need is a car park in one of them?

11,000 and 5,500 are pretty low down on the list of "towns without stations" - and even so both Tavistock and Okehampton are a shortish drive from a local station (so nothing like the case of somewhere like Hawick currently is)

There might be larger towns that don't yet have a station

There are larger towns lacking rail connections. Much larger towns. But there's no sentimental lobby worrying about places like Washington T&W (over 50,000 - ten times bigger than Okehampton)...

it is comparatively unusual in this country to have such a large area of population dependent on only one main line

Devon and Cornwall are on a peninsula - no getting away from it - but does that mean we build a second route to Penzance?

There's only one line from Newport to Cardiff, only one route from Dundee to Aberdeen...

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.

I don't think UKIP will be an issue at the General Election in that part of the country. The only place they've got a realistic chance would be Boston (Lincolnshire).

They'll win Euro seats, because of the different voting system, and the fact that this is their "big issue" - but that seems less of a concern to the major parties.


Post 197 of this thread>> http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2014/dawlish-rail-disruption/

When was it closed?

Winter 1846 – 3 days

Winter 1852/53 – 2 blockages of 7 and 3 days respectively)

Feb 1855 – blockage of 12 days continuously (longest in period 1846 – 1986)

Oct 1859 – blockage for 3 days

Jan – Feb 1869 – blockage for 5 days

Winter 1872/73 – 4 blockages of 1 day, 3 days, 3 days and 1 day respectively

Nov 1908 – damage to walkway only

March 1923 – blockage of 3 days

Jan 1930 – blockage of 5 days

Feb 1936 – blockage of 3 days

March 1962 – ballast wash outs, services suspended for several hours, then Single Line Working (SLW) was instituted over the Up line

February 1974 – major damage to down platform at Dawlish station, line completely closed for 2 hours, then up line reopened

Feb/March 1986 – blocked 26/02/86 to 03/3/86 – serious damage to wall at Smugglers Cove. The Up line (eastbound) was still useable for engineers trains (and a few freight services on 1 March only). SLW commenced on 03/3/86 with the Down Main Line (Westbound) remaining shut until reopened on 11/3/86

In the last 20 years, January 1996 saw a major incident when the wall was damaged between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren at Rockstone with further severe damage at Sprey Point. Here, the down line (nearest the sea) was suspended over a washed out void, which reached to sleeper ends of Up line. Both lines closed several days were closed for about a week.

The Winter of 2000/2001 following prolonged heavy rain, saw many cliff falls and again Sprey Point featured with a big fall with the line closed for a few days and some more damage to the sea wall. Railtrack then Network Rail then carried out some major cliff stabilisation work in the mid-2000s at a cost of around £15 million.

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?

Oh, is it an annual occurrence now?

And how many trains are there for the docks?

In the end the Teignbridge [Dawlish Teignmouth & Newton Abbot] population is 125k, Torbay 130k, Plymouth 260k, Cornwall 500k, so on the basis of greatest happiness of the greatest number for an affordable price, the Okehampton route, being half built, has to be a pretty obvious win

You're making the massive assumption that all of these people use the railway in equal number.

People in Cornwall still have their services (on the branches and as far as Plymouth), so most people who use the train daily (commuting, college etc) have a train. Plus there's big areas of Cornwall that the train doesn't serve.

Those in Torbay/ Dawlish etc are cut off from their regional centre (the place that many of them will use the train to for work/ college etc).

The simple maths doesn't work.

shouldn't be that hard to knock an hour off Plymouth-London, but which bottlenecks are the biggest benefit for the smallest cost?

Interesting question - what would be of more benefit to the south west economy - improved links towards the rest of the UK like the one you suggest, or a diversionary route between Exeter and Plymouth for "one week a year"?

I am still not sure how any of you think Okehampton is short term???? It will take at least 5 years if we started the process now! That is not short term. Short term for me would be reinforcing the sea defenses. Gabions at the base big lumps of Cornwall granite etc etc etc

Sounds a reasonable timescale

I don't think you are. The evidence so far seems to be that the sea wall was breached at a particular section that was always much narrower than the rest, (for reasons already pointed out earlier in the thread)

I fear that this point will go over the head of many

It's only weak if you think severing the rail connections with the quarter of a million people of Plymouth and the half a million of Cornwall is weak

How often are they being "severed"?

On what is normally a pro railway forum, I am amazed at the tone of some of the posts opposing the restoration of the line between Bere Alston and Okehampton. Presumably you have something far more important that could be done with the money

Yes - lots of better things could be done with the money - even if we restrict "alternatives" to south west England - you could reopen the Portishead line (Portishead is bigger than Okehampton and Tavistock combined), you could redouble the SWT line through Yeovil, you could electrify the B&H...

...spending "£250m" to serve two small towns and to act as a slow diversionary route on limited occasions would be a waste (when you consider the alternatives).

Building new houses around a re-opened rail link is a sure-fire way to improve the business case, particularly if you require the developer to make significant financial contributions.

That was what was meant to happen at Blackridge (on the Airdrie - Bathgate line). A property company was going to stump up £2m of the £5m cost of the station - but then pulled out leaving the council to pay the full amount.

There was a similar story in Private Eye recently about Heathrow promising to pay a significant part of the cost of extending Crossrail to their airport - but then deciding not to once the building started.

I'm a bit cynical about the intentions of private companies who suggest that they want to help pay for something...

When Dawlish is mended, and the rails are shiny again, will we all feel it's over and done, now? (then). But as autumn merges into winter will we anxiously scan the weather forecast, looking out for more gales? Stopping traffic for safety's sake on that pictureque but so vulnerable bit of railway once again, mending it once more, again and again. Or do we think it's over now? - a once in hundred year (or whatever it is) event, not to be repeated until, say, 2114. I'd guess that something like this, the last few weeks, will become an annual event

We've just had the wettest winter in 100 years/ 250 years (depending on which paper you read/ which records you believe) - with a disproportionate impact upon south west England.

The coastal route may well close for periods in the future (just like many lines are temporarily closed for emergency engineering), but I don't buy the received wisdom that the current level of disruption will now happen every year.

The railway via Dawlish simply has to stay open regardless.

Agreed

Like a lot of things/proposals I hope the idea that the cost-benefit ratio is highly in favour of reopening the line, especially with economic costs of £1-2 million per day for Devon and Cornwall while the line is closed.

Its now being reported on BBC Radio Cornwall as costing £20 million a day Cornwall and Plymouth's economy

That's gone up pretty quickly then... hope George Osbourne realises how quickly inflation gets out of hand.

You can argue how much the amount is, but the fact remains that this closure will be costing the economy money

Of course closure costs the economy money (just like the landslip by Dronfield costs the economy money, just like the flooded lines through Somerset costs the economy money, just like the broken down freight between Sheffield Midland and Meadowhall on Wednesday cost the economy money), but coming up with daft unsubstantiated figures like BBC Radio Cornwall have doesn't help the debate. Anyone can come up with a big number, but it doesn't strengthen the case.

XC have no booked work that way, there are no paths for them over that way even if they wanted to run that way!

Presumably the lack of paths for XC is because of the single track sections that way - but redoubling this busy line isn't as popular on here are reopening something closed fifty years ago, sadly.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose that the good news is that the debate (here and elsewhere) has moved away from the "HS2 is getting billions therefore we deserve a share" argument and people are becoming more aware of the large population on the south Devon coast who rely on the railway all year round.

I'm not against HS2, but if regions can use it to extract funding to areas that have been traditionally neglected, all well and good. It's a political world and the fact is that the West Country has been neglected for sixty years. This point needs to be made.

Wait a minute - I thought people were discussing Tavistock being a "railhead" for this vast population in northern Cornwall/ northern Devon? In which case the population of one town over another isn't relevant - all we need is a car park in one of them?

11,000 and 5,500 are pretty low down on the list of "towns without stations" - and even so both Tavistock and Okehampton are a shortish drive from a local station (so nothing like the case of somewhere like Hawick currently is)

Of course it is. Have you never travelled on the Settle Carlisle tbtc ? (I'm genuinely interested). The intermediate settlements of Settle and Appleby are much smaller than Tavistock and Okehampton, yet they generate a very healthy passenger traffic.

I'm glad you talk about those larger towns without a railway station. The sooner we have a strategic policy to re-link those towns to the railway network, the better. The only people who would reject, are those who are against railway reopenings as a matter of ideology.

There are larger towns lacking rail connections. Much larger towns. But there's no sentimental lobby worrying about places like Washington T&W (over 50,000 - ten times bigger than Okehampton)...

Actually, there are fairly sensible campaigns to bring places like Washington back to the network (be it as part of a re-invigorated Lemside line, or part of the Tyneside Metro). Also Skelmersdale in Lancs. These will come at some stage. Why does this automatically detract from a sensible campaign in the South West ?

Devon and Cornwall are on a peninsula - no getting away from it - but does that mean we build a second route to Penzance?

There's only one line from Newport to Cardiff, only one route from Dundee to Aberdeen...

Yes, Devon and Cornwall are a peninsular. Could Penzance and the West Country do with a second route to Plymouth - Yes. You shoulld understand this as much as anyone tcbc as you've been arguing for upgrading secondary routes all through this thread.

I don't think UKIP will be an issue at the General Election in that part of the country. The only place they've got a realistic chance would be Boston (Lincolnshire).

They'll win Euro seats, because of the different voting system, and the fact that this is their "big issue" - but that seems less of a concern to the major parties.

Come the election, Liberals and Tories will be competing against eachother, as well as UKIP. There will be no cosy consensus in the South West as you predict. Transport will be a live issue.

Oh, is it an annual occurrence now?

You're making the massive assumption that all of these people use the railway in equal number.

People in Cornwall still have their services (on the branches and as far as Plymouth), so most people who use the train daily (commuting, college etc) have a train. Plus there's big areas of Cornwall that the train doesn't serve.

It's not an annual occurance, but it has happened several times in living memory, and it is likely to become more common with global warming.

Interesting question - what would be of more benefit to the south west economy - improved links towards the rest of the UK like the one you suggest, or a diversionary route between Exeter and Plymouth for "one week a year"?

So having a diversionary route between Plymouth and Exeter, which effectively means a robust train service between those towns isn't an improved link ?

I fear that this point will go over the head of many

We've all read the forum and we all know why this part of the wall was a bit lower (a bolshy home owner). We also know that this wasn't the only bit of the wall that has had problems on this occasion

Yes - lots of better things could be done with the money - even if we restrict "alternatives" to south west England - you could reopen the Portishead line (Portishead is bigger than Okehampton and Tavistock combined), you could redouble the SWT line through Yeovil, you could electrify the B&H...

...spending "£250m" to serve two small towns and to act as a slow diversionary route on limited occasions would be a waste (when you consider the alternatives).

Portishead is most probably a deserving case in it's own right, even though it won't have the added benefit of providing additional resilience to another route. That is the point that you ignore. Okehampton - Tavistock aren't on a branch independent of themselves, the route has the opportunity of providing resillience to the rest of the West Country. That is different from the Portishead case, however much you may wish it was otherwise.

Your alternative cases, bringing marginal improvements to already existing services simply don't add up to the same benefit to the West Devon area.

That was what was meant to happen at Blackridge (on the Airdrie - Bathgate line). A property company was going to stump up £2m of the £5m cost of the station - but then pulled out leaving the council to pay the full amount.

There was a similar story in Private Eye recently about Heathrow promising to pay a significant part of the cost of extending Crossrail to their airport - but then deciding not to once the building started.

I'm a bit cynical about the intentions of private companies who suggest that they want to help pay for something...

Well, perhaps we ought to make the developers stump up before they cut the first sod. Even then, in the case of the Airdrie line, if it hadn't been worthwhile, the council wouldn't have stepped in and funded it.

We've just had the wettest winter in 100 years/ 250 years (depending on which paper you read/ which records you believe) - with a disproportionate impact upon south west England.

The coastal route may well close for periods in the future (just like many lines are temporarily closed for emergency engineering), but I don't buy the received wisdom that the current level of disruption will now happen every year.

This stuff will happen more and more often with climate change.

That's gone up pretty quickly then... hope George Osbourne realises how quickly inflation gets out of hand.

He'll probably respond by putting up interest rates and screwing up working people rather than property speculators and the like as always seems to be the case.

Of course closure costs the economy money (just like the landslip by Dronfield costs the economy money, just like the flooded lines through Somerset costs the economy money, just like the broken down freight between Sheffield Midland and Meadowhall on Wednesday cost the economy money), but coming up with daft unsubstantiated figures like BBC Radio Cornwall have doesn't help the debate. Anyone can come up with a big number, but it doesn't strengthen the case.

Dronfield, Somerset, Meadowhall. These all have alternative routes which mean that they will not be devestating, even though they are unlikely to be cut off as long as Dawlish.

Presumably the lack of paths for XC is because of the single track sections that way - but redoubling this busy line isn't as popular on here are reopening something closed fifty years ago, sadly.

I'm all for redoubling. Just provide an alternative for a route which doesn't have an alternative before you improve an already existing alternative route.

 

[The Ham]

I thought that Portishead was due to reopen at the end of 2018and has a secure funding stream, so saying that we should be funding that rather than the reopening through Okehampton is really not relevant to the discussion.

Yes, there are lots of larger populations which are not on the network, and guess what if they are to get built they too have to have a good BCR in their own right. Just as anything which is done in response to Dawlish..

 

[jmc100]

As the purpose of this thread is to explore the possibilities of another route avoiding the South Devon coastal line here is some more reference information that you may find of interest.

http://www.devonnewscentre.info/further-plans-bring-growth-to-okehamptons-economy/

http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/railway-consultation/

http://www.devon.gov.uk/tavistock-bere-alston-railway.htm

 

[HSTEd]

'Resilience' isn't actually worth all that much.

 

[tbtc]

Have you never travelled on the Settle Carlisle tbtc ? (I'm genuinely interested). The intermediate settlements of Settle and Appleby are much smaller than Tavistock and Okehampton, yet they generate a very healthy passenger traffic

It's a very scenic line, but its a lot of double track railway for just one two-coach DMU every couple of hours. It's not particularly fast - at most times the best way of getting between Leeds and Carlisle is changing at Manchester/ Preston - and as HSTed has pointed out its not always used for passenger diversions (sometimes it seems much simpler to put people on coaches at Preston than divert Virgin services via the S&C).

The reason that it justified its existence is freight. Plymouth and Cornwall don't have that volume of freight, so there's not the same justification for a slow scenic diversionary route through Devon.

If it wasn't a through route from Leeds to Carlisle then I'd imagine that there would still be a service from Leeds to Settle (just like there's services from Plymouth to Bere Alston/ Gunnislake, and from Exeter to Crediton/ Barnstaple).

The intermediate places between Settle and Carlisle don't generate that many passengers on average though (e.g. compared to the capacity of a single 153) - Appleby is the obvious exception:

Horton-in-Ribblesdale 26.0 passengers per day
Ribblehead 28.6 passengers per day
Dent 14.9 passengers per day
Garsdale 20.3 passengers per day
Kirkby Stephen 43.9 passengers per day
Appleby 94.4 passengers per day
Langwathby 36.5 passengers per day
Lazonby and Kirkoswald 25.5 passengers per day
Armathwaite 13.1 passengers per day

I'm glad you talk about those larger towns without a railway station. The sooner we have a strategic policy to re-link those towns to the railway network, the better. The only people who would reject, are those who are against railway reopenings as a matter of ideology

I like how you damn opponents as being driven by "ideology" whilst you have your own "ideology" of reopening old routes (rather than focussing resources on maximum passenger benefit).

Actually, there are fairly sensible campaigns to bring places like Washington back to the network (be it as part of a re-invigorated Lemside line, or part of the Tyneside Metro). Also Skelmersdale in Lancs. These will come at some stage. Why does this automatically detract from a sensible campaign in the South West ?

It detracts because of the way that supporters of the Okehampton route are giving the impression that Okehampton and Tavistock are large places without a train station - if that was the criteria that we were basing spending on then there are much bigger places (esp depending on how you count political boundaries etc). The "large places without train stations" argument doesn't work here.

Come the election, Liberals and Tories will be competing against eachother, as well as UKIP. There will be no cosy consensus in the South West as you predict. Transport will be a live issue

Oh, I'm sure they'll be at each other's throats on some issues where there's been argument between the two coalition parties (e.g. the arguments over tax/ spending), but they aren't going to be arguing about transport policies (something that the coalition has been in agreement on), so there's no votes to be won in arguing that "we are the half of the coalition that decided to rebuild a railway line that the other half of the coalition also wanted".

So having a diversionary route between Plymouth and Exeter, which effectively means a robust train service between those towns isn't an improved link ?

Taken in isolation then of course it'd be an improvement, but that's not how things work - spending money on an inland route would be at the cost of doing something else.

Its not just a question of "would it be better if we bought X" but "what else could we buy with X".

Portishead is most probably a deserving case in it's own right, even though it won't have the added benefit of providing additional resilience to another route. That is the point that you ignore. Okehampton - Tavistock aren't on a branch independent of themselves, the route has the opportunity of providing resillience to the rest of the West Country. That is different from the Portishead case, however much you may wish it was otherwise

"Resilience" sounds great - there's a time and place for a risk based assessment of what "resilience" you want to justify. For example, a spare wheel in your car is a reasonable "Plan B" for most people, but they wouldn't take four spare wheels at all times (even though clearly four spare wheels would be more resilient than just one).

How much money do you want to spend on an alternative route that may only be needed 1% of the time? There's a limit to these things.

Your alternative cases, bringing marginal improvements to already existing services simply don't add up to the same benefit to the West Devon area

Marginal improvements to existing services? Meaning a more reliable service 52 weeks a year, meaning scope for extra services, meaning a faster journey for existing passengers, making the service more attractive to potential new passengers.

If that adds 100,000 extra passengers a year to the rail network and speeds up journeys for existing passengers then that has to be seen against the potential passenger numbers you'd expect at Okehampton and Tavistock. What do you reckon you'd see at those two stations? Over 100,000? Under 100,000?

Dronfield, Somerset, Meadowhall. These all have alternative routes which mean that they will not be devestating, even though they are unlikely to be cut off as long as Dawlish

Obviously.

But you were using the "Dawlish closure is costing the economy money" argument, when clearly any closure/ diversion/ engineering works/ breakdown costs the economy money. The difference is that nobody comes up with a hysterical "£20 MILLION A DAY" headline about other lines.

'Resilience' isn't actually worth all that much.

Agreed - there are much bigger fish to fry. We've enough problems on existing lines without the luxury of being able to worry about having a spare line on every route.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a very scenic line, but its a lot of double track railway for just one two-coach DMU every couple of hours. It's not particularly fast - at most times the best way of getting between Leeds and Carlisle is changing at Manchester/ Preston - and as HSTed has pointed out its not always used for passenger diversions (sometimes it seems much simpler to put people on coaches at Preston than divert Virgin services via the S&C).

The reason that it justified its existence is freight. Plymouth and Cornwall don't have that volume of freight, so there's not the same justification for a slow scenic diversionary route through Devon.

If it wasn't a through route from Leeds to Carlisle then I'd imagine that there would still be a service from Leeds to Settle (just like there's services from Plymouth to Bere Alston/ Gunnislake, and from Exeter to Crediton/ Barnstaple).

The intermediate places between Settle and Carlisle don't generate that many passengers on average though (e.g. compared to the capacity of a single 153) - Appleby is the obvious exception:

Horton-in-Ribblesdale 26.0 passengers per day
Ribblehead 28.6 passengers per day
Dent 14.9 passengers per day
Garsdale 20.3 passengers per day
Kirkby Stephen 43.9 passengers per day
Appleby 94.4 passengers per day
Langwathby 36.5 passengers per day
Lazonby and Kirkoswald 25.5 passengers per day
Armathwaite 13.1 passengers per day

It generates busy trains which in turn generate custom for local businesses. I'm sure the local chambers of commerce and Councils in Appleby and Settle will have a very strong view of the route's value, both to the local economy and to local people.

You probably could run a stub to Settle, but I suspect those trains wouldn't be anywhere near as busy as the through service.

I take your point that there seems to be less scope for freight in the West Country, but then again the Okehampton route doesn't necessarily need to be double track all the way through.

I like how you damn opponents as being driven by "ideology" whilst you have your own "ideology" of reopening old routes (rather than focussing resources on maximum passenger benefit).

But it is a matter of ideology isn't it. I really don't see how the approach that you outline does focus resource on maximum passenger benefit. Sixty million on redoubling a route which already has a decent interval service (and I've traveled on the route from Waterloo to Exeter many times and I know that it has a very good service most of the time) cannot possibly provide the same level of benefit as reintroducing towns like Okehampton and Tavistock which currently do not have a rail link.

It really annoys me that finally we have an ambitious and forward thinking attitude to the railway in this country in every way except when it comes to serving new areas.

It detracts because of the way that supporters of the Okehampton route are giving the impression that Okehampton and Tavistock are large places without a train station - if that was the criteria that we were basing spending on then there are much bigger places (esp depending on how you count political boundaries etc). The "large places without train stations" argument doesn't work here.

There might be an element of that if there were one pot of money for reopenings with the various schemes vying for money from it, but you know as well as I do that that isn't the case. If this funding does materialise, it will be inextricably linked to the particular geographical circumstances of the isolated main line in Devon, so there's no way it's going to be offered to Leamside or any other reopening project. Because of this, this case doesn't detract from Washington or any other reopening proposal in any way, shape or form.

I also don't think anyone is pretending that Okehampton and Tavistock are huge settlements. Their economic importance in the local area, and geographical considerations such as local tourism and road congestion etc mean that they are likely to be good generators of passenger traffic.

Oh, I'm sure they'll be at each other's throats on some issues where there's been argument between the two coalition parties (e.g. the arguments over tax/ spending), but they aren't going to be arguing about transport policies (something that the coalition has been in agreement on), so there's no votes to be won in arguing that "we are the half of the coalition that decided to rebuild a railway line that the other half of the coalition also wanted".

Ultimately this is a local project which is likely to prove popular with local people. If it does get off of the ground, both of the coalition partners are going to be vying for the credit.

Taken in isolation then of course it'd be an improvement, but that's not how things work - spending money on an inland route would be at the cost of doing something else.

Its not just a question of "would it be better if we bought X" but "what else could we buy with X".

The fact is, this funding (if it does materialise) is being mooted specifically in relation to the West Country's unusual situation of having one very long, somewhat more vulnerable than most, main line in isolation. It simply will not be available for other rail projects such as improving other lines East of Exeter, so there's no point fantasising that it will be. The mainline will be reconstructed, probably with better sea defences anyway, so it won't be detracting from that. The only other project that would be vying for this cash would be the proposed Dawlish avoiding line (and I've given my views why I don't think that is as good an option). If neither of these projects go ahead, any funding will be off the table unfortunately.

"Resilience" sounds great - there's a time and place for a risk based assessment of what "resilience" you want to justify. For example, a spare wheel in your car is a reasonable "Plan B" for most people, but they wouldn't take four spare wheels at all times (even though clearly four spare wheels would be more resilient than just one).

How much money do you want to spend on an alternative route that may only be needed 1% of the time? There's a limit to these things.

I agree that spending hundreds of millions of pounds on an alternative route that would only be needed 1% of the time would be tricky to justify. This is why I think the case for the Dawlish avoider doesn't stack up (and why incidentally I think the case for redoubling diversionary routes which sustain a good level of service throughout the rest of the year isn't as good either).

Fortunately, the route through Okehampton wouldn't just be needed 1% of the time. Okehampton, Tavistock and the Dartmoor national park will ensure that the route is of value all year round. That is why it's so good

Marginal improvements to existing services? Meaning a more reliable service 52 weeks a year, meaning scope for extra services, meaning a faster journey for existing passengers, making the service more attractive to potential new passengers.

If that adds 100,000 extra passengers a year to the rail network and speeds up journeys for existing passengers then that has to be seen against the potential passenger numbers you'd expect at Okehampton and Tavistock. What do you reckon you'd see at those two stations? Over 100,000? Under 100,000?

Yes, but will they add an extra 100,000 passengers a year. Obviously there is a place for such improvements, but with an already well served market, there's a limit to how many more passengers you're going to attract.

273 passengers a day on the route including Okehampton and Tavistock ? Yeah I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

Obviously.

But you were using the "Dawlish closure is costing the economy money" argument, when clearly any closure/ diversion/ engineering works/ breakdown costs the economy money. The difference is that nobody comes up with a hysterical "£20 MILLION A DAY" headline about other lines.

But it is. People come up with these sort of figures all the time. Days lost to work, day's lost to strikes etc. I'm not entirely sure how they come up with them either, but they must have a reason to.

 

[LateThanNever]

Oh, is it an annual occurrence now?

Why does your history end in the mid 2000s?

I call being unexpectedly cut off in 2012, 2013 and 2014 annual occurrences - what do you call them?
And how many trains are there for the docks?
Beyond an occasional nuclear train not very many but this seems to presume that neither naval ratings or marine engineers need the train.
In the end the Teignbridge [Dawlish Teignmouth & Newton Abbot] population is 125k, Torbay 130k, Plymouth 260k, Cornwall 500k, so on the basis of greatest happiness of the greatest number for an affordable price, the Okehampton route, being half built, has to be a pretty obvious win

You're making the massive assumption that all of these people use the railway in equal number.

It is a working assumption - and not "massive" - which, in basic terms, is the only credible assumption. If the railway isn't connected it certainly will not be used!
People in Cornwall still have their services (on the branches and as far as Plymouth), so most people who use the train daily (commuting, college etc) have a train. Plus there's big areas of Cornwall that the train doesn't serve.

Those in Torbay/ Dawlish etc are cut off from their regional centre (the place that many of them will use the train to for work/ college etc).

The simple maths doesn't work.

If we are splitting hairs numbers of Teignbridge households are so close to Exeter they have Exeter phone numbers so by no stretch could realistically be deemed to be affected, but as a working assumption they have been included as among those disadvantaged by the breach.

The coastal route may well close for periods in the future (just like many lines are temporarily closed for emergency engineering), but I don't buy the received wisdom that the current level of disruption will now happen every year.

If you look at the figures the Western part of the Dawlish sea wall - still basically intact - was in 2010 already too low to protect against the then 'normal' maximum wave crest height. Tide levels have since increased and are likely to in the future.

It is no longer sustainable running a railway atop a sea wall. The Okehampton route would be the quickest and simplest alternative and then an inland Dawlish alternative can be sought.

And no, the South West is not taking this as a set amount of money as perhaps being suitable for reconstructing, say the Portishead branch. Why should the peninsula be subsidising other areas by receiving less rail spending per head of population than others - and less than a third of the money than received by a resident of the South East. There has been substantial infrastructure investment in railways elsewhere and now good quantities of electrification coming on stream but Devon Cornwall and Somerset gets virtually nothing. Except of course the drip, drip, drip of astronomical spending on a short section of track atop a sea defence in Dawlish. All that is being proposed is something to prevent the rail connectivity for 0.75m people being lost so regularly and unexpectedly. Realising that we are not the most populous area of the UK we have even gone for the cheapest solution!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, is it an annual occurrence now?

Why does your history end in the mid 2000s?

I call being unexpectedly cut off in 2012, 2013 and 2014 annual occurrences - what do you call them?

And how many trains are there for the docks?
Beyond an occasional nuclear train not very many but this seems to presume that neither naval ratings or marine engineers need the train.

In the end the Teignbridge [Dawlish Teignmouth & Newton Abbot] population is 125k, Torbay 130k, Plymouth 260k, Cornwall 500k, so on the basis of greatest happiness of the greatest number for an affordable price, the Okehampton route, being half built, has to be a pretty obvious win

You're making the massive assumption that all of these people use the railway in equal number.

It is a working assumption - and not "massive" - which, in basic terms, is the only credible assumption. If the railway isn't connected it certainly will not be used!
People in Cornwall still have their services (on the branches and as far as Plymouth), so most people who use the train daily (commuting, college etc) have a train. Plus there's big areas of Cornwall that the train doesn't serve.

Physically yes, but not in population terms where only Bude or Wadebridge really register.

Those in Torbay/ Dawlish etc are cut off from their regional centre (the place that many of them will use the train to for work/ college etc).

The simple maths doesn't work.

If we are splitting hairs numbers of Teignbridge households are so close to Exeter they have Exeter phone numbers so by no stretch could realistically be deemed to be affected, but as a working assumption they have been included as among those disadvantaged by the breaches.

The coastal route may well close for periods in the future (just like many lines are temporarily closed for emergency engineering), but I don't buy the received wisdom that the current level of disruption will now happen every year.

If you look at the figures the Western part of the Dawlish sea wall - still basically intact though often a depository for boats and stray beach huts in stormy conditions - was in 2010 already too low to protect against the then 'normal' maximum wave crest height. Tide levels have since increased and are likely to in the future.

It is no longer sustainable running a railway atop a sea wall as an only main line. The Okehampton route would be the quickest and simplest alternative and then an inland Dawlish alternative can be sought.

And no, the South West is not taking this as a set amount of money as perhaps being suitable for reconstructing, say the Portishead branch. Why should the peninsula be subsidising other areas by receiving less rail spending per head of population than others - and less than a third of the money than received by a resident of the South East. There has been substantial infrastructure investment in railways elsewhere and now good quantities of electrification coming on stream but Devon Cornwall and Somerset get virtually nothing. Except of course the drip, drip, drip of astronomical spending on a short section of track atop a sea defence in Dawlish. All that is being proposed is something to prevent the rail connectivity for 0.75m people being lost so regularly and unexpectedly. Realising that we are not the most populous area of the UK we have even gone for the cheapest solution!

 

[Goatboy]

We must immediatly divert all resources towards a massive bridge over the Somerset levels. Whilst everyone is busy arguing about Dawlish it seems to have slipped most peoples notice that it looks like even once Dawlish re-opens there will still be buses instead of trains for half the services from the Westcountry.

Obviously we must build a massive bridge, right now. Thats the Dawlish logic, right?