Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[yorksrob]

You want the line reopened - you are the one who needs to be coming up with the justifications (and not just unquantifiable things like "regeneration" and "resilience").

ditto you for your redoublings, electrifications.

...or a short re-opening single track from Bere Alston to Tavistock (fifteen miles?) to allow a 153 to connect onto Gunnislake services, so see whether Tavistock to Plymouth is much of a market (and worry about the bigger ambitions at a later stage).

Not strictly speaking the same though. A train between Plymouth and Exeter via Okehampton creates many more travel opportunities than a shuttle to Tavistock. A 153 on an existing service creates extra capacity but no additional travel opportunities.

I agree that we all pick facts that suit our arguments, but the difference is that I'm quoting from Annual rail passenger usage statistics (http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates) - with all of the pros/cons that they have - rather than "BBC Radio Cornwall came up with a headline grabbing figure of £20m a day" (for around thirty trains a day).

Maybe so, but at some stage the disruption will be totted up and monetised, and it will need to be included in the business case for the route.

In the absence of anything better, I'll trust the ORR figures. For example, they say that Bere Alston gets around 45,000 passengers a year - around sixty departures a day - which seems a reasonable benchmark to assess Tavistock against (Tavistock is bigger so should expect more passengers, but I'd expect passenger numbers there to be in the same ball park - I doubt they'd reach six figures)

Bere Aston has a population of around 2,000 whilst Tavistock has a population of around 11,000, so I'd say it's a bit ropey to assume they would be in the same ball park.

Falmouth has a population of 25,000.

2011-12 entries and exits were:
Falmouth Town 193,802
Falmouth Docks 104,468

Looe, a population of 5,000
entries and exits = 100,030

St Ives Population = 11,000
entries and exits = 258,500 (bit of an outlayer there )

Obviously rural lines like the S&C help tourism and that boost the economy - nobody is arguing otherwise - it's just about how you assess that benefit and how you compare investment on one line to investment on another (rather than a fuzzy "anything that increases passenger numbers must be good")

Isn't "anything that increases passenger numbers" similar to your argument that the greatest benefit is equivalent to assisting the most people ?

It is more than just increasing passenger numbers, it's about resilience, regeneration, all those things that you also dismiss as "unquantifiable". If this funding does materialise, it will be specifically linked to resilience in the area in spite of your reservations.

Let the reopening campaign stand on its own feet, rather than trying to mix in other things

Where does this argument come from ?

If we were building a new road, it would be saying "well, we need a new road to allow housing in this area, but it will also relieve congestion in the town centre".

It's never "well we need a new road to allow housing in the area, but you're not allowed to include any other benefits that it might have for road users and traffic in the area".

They wouldn't say "oh, we need to build a medical centre here because we have a large concentration of elderly residents who could make use of it. This area is also twice as far away from any other medical centre, but you're not allowed to make any reference to this in the business case as it must stand on the strength of the concentration of elderly residents".

It would be as silly as me saying "Let the Yeovil redoubling campaign stand on its own two feet in terms of potential extra passengers rather than trying to mix in other things such as increased resilience (in terms of extra diversionary paths)". Yet, this is effectively how you say the Okehampton case should be considered.

It makes sense to try and include all possible benefits when assessing a project.

So the Dawlish line will be open 99% of the year?

In which case the "diversion" argument for Okehampton can be forgotten about.

Maybe not 99%. I merely think a diversionary route should complement the Dawlish route rather than replace it (which seems to be NR's latest thinking on the matter.

 

[The Ham]

Bere Aston has a population of around 2,000 whilst Tavistock has a population of around 11,000, so I'd say it's a bit ropey to assume they would be in the same ball park.

Falmouth has a population of 25,000.

2011-12 entries and exits were:
Falmouth Town 193,802
Falmouth Docks 104,468

Looe, a population of 5,000
entries and exits = 100,030

St Ives Population = 11,000
entries and exits = 258,500 (bit of an outlayer there )

St. Ives has a big problem with parking, so its rail passengers are a lot higher, although a lot of them only travel one stop to Carbis Bay where they can park fairly easily.

However having said that all the above are end of the line stops with only really one way to go. Therefore in the ballpark of 100,000 is what you would expect to see under the current proposals (i.e. two branch lines).

If there were two directions with a city at each end you could expect the numbers of passengers to be higher, I doubt double, but probably close to the 150,000 mark if not a little higher. If there was a longer distance service (i.e. the trains were an extension of the SWT's service to Exeter) you could then see extra passengers to Plymouth from further a field and depending on timings (and/or ticket prices) you could even see some travellers between Exeter and Plymouth.

 

[jmc100]

Does anyone know if the A30 railway underpass between Okehampton and Meldon is suitable for double track working?

 

[Trainbuff]

Does anyone know if the A30 railway underpass between Okehampton and Meldon is suitable for double track working?

It is single track. However if there were to be reinstatement then it is likely for cost reasons that Meldon Viaduct would be single track so it may be just as convenient to leave single until after this bridge. If double then burrowing under the A30 would be called for

 

[swt_passenger]

The £31m is for a package of measures including Cowley Bridge.

To add further detail to that, the BBC have now linked to a NR paper on the Dawlish problem, and future options etc, and it includes a breakdown of that £31m into a number of individual SW resilience project costs, of which Cowley Bridge is shown as £6.5m - £12.9m. Eight other projects are included in the total, for example Hinksey track raising at £5m, and earthworks strengthening at Honiton and Crewkerne at £3m.

Info on page 10 of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf

 

[The Ham]

To add further detail to that, the BBC have now linked to a NR paper on the Dawlish problem, and future options etc, and it includes a breakdown of that £31m into a number of individual SW resilience project costs, of which Cowley Bridge is shown as £6.5m - £12.9m. Eight other projects are included in the total, for example Hinksey track raising at £5m, and earthworks strengthening at Honiton and Crewkerne at £3m.

Info on page 10 of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf

It also shows on page 13 the alternative routes being considered by NR for their report into long term options west of Exeter.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

http://railfuture.org.uk/article1435-Peninsula-Rail-Task-Force

Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Plymouth and Torbay Councils have teamed up to fight for increased rail resilience for the South-West.

They will be joined by the Heart of the South West Local Economic Partnership, the Cornwall Local Economic Partnership, the region's MPs, Travelwatch South West and South West Chambers. A delegation of council leaders from the Task Force, and business leaders from the region, gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee of MPs in Westminster today on the effect of rail disruption on the regional economy.

Councillor Tudor Evans, leader of Plymouth City Council, called the rail line through Dawlish a 'Peruvian rope bridge' to underline the parlous state of transport serving the West Country. 'It isn’t enough to simply maintain the existing rail link, or to future-proof that link. Plymouth along with Cornwall, Devon and Somerset deserve a 21st-Century rail link.'

The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport expects Network Rail’s report on alternative routes to Dawlish by July. Mark Carne, the new Network Rail Chief Executive, expects the existing line to reopen sooner than the current forecast date on 17th April.

The Task Force are calling for an urgent feasibility study into the best options for providing network resilience against disruption at Cowley Bridge/Stoke Canon, the Dawlish/Teignmouth seawall, and on the Somerset Levels. They also want commitment to fund improvements to the rail service to reflect the sharp rise in passenger numbers:

increased capacity
sufficient rolling stock
increased capability of Exeter-Waterloo line as diversionary route
reduced journey times
electrification beyond Bristol and Newbury

Railfuture support the Peninsula Rail Task Force and call for a stakeholder conference to agree the level of service required during disruption from storm damage, flooding and planned engineering work. The Government and ORR must then commission Network Rail to plan alternative routes to ensure continuous availability of a rail route to serve the South West, and commit to funding implementation of that solution.

There should be enough in that wish list to keep most people happy.

 

[yorksrob]

Report by July.

At least the agony of waiting won't be too long !

 

[jmc100]

It is single track. However if there were to be reinstatement then it is likely for cost reasons that Meldon Viaduct would be single track so it may be just as convenient to leave single until after this bridge. If double then burrowing under the A30 would be called for

Yes, I am aware that it is currently single tracked but was the bridge/tunnel constructed to accommodate two tracks as the road was built after termination of services on the Okehampton to Tavistock section?

Or, could it be that at the time the road was constructed there were two tracks in place and one of the tracks was removed at a later date?

 

[The Ham]

Yes, I am aware that it is currently single tracked but was the bridge/tunnel constructed to accommodate two tracks as the road was built after termination of services on the Okehampton to Tavistock section?

Or, could it be that at the time the road was constructed there were two tracks in place and one of the tracks was removed at a later date?

Looking at Streetview the width of the portal would lead me to think that there is probably only space for single track under the A30.
http://goo.gl/maps/SftKE
http://goo.gl/maps/hlFKJ

 

[DavidBrown]

Looking at Streetview the width of the portal would lead me to think that there is probably only space for single track under the A30.
http://goo.gl/maps/SftKE
http://goo.gl/maps/hlFKJ

Yeah it's definitely only single track under there. The parallel cycle path (built later on, of course) has to do a detour and uses a farm access tunnel under the A30.

 

[Graiser]

Yes, I am aware that it is currently single tracked but was the bridge/tunnel constructed to accommodate two tracks as the road was built after termination of services on the Okehampton to Tavistock section?

Or, could it be that at the time the road was constructed there were two tracks in place and one of the tracks was removed at a later date?

I was in charge of track maintenance at the time and there was only one track in place when the A30 by pass was built

 

[PHILIPE]

St. Ives has a big problem with parking, so its rail passengers are a lot higher, although a lot of them only travel one stop to Carbis Bay where they can park fairly easily.

However having said that all the above are end of the line stops with only really one way to go. Therefore in the ballpark of 100,000 is what you would expect to see under the current proposals (i.e. two branch lines).

If there were two directions with a city at each end you could expect the numbers of passengers to be higher, I doubt double, but probably close to the 150,000 mark if not a little higher. If there was a longer distance service (i.e. the trains were an extension of the SWT's service to Exeter) you could then see extra passengers to Plymouth from further a field and depending on timings (and/or ticket prices) you could even see some travellers between Exeter and Plymouth.

Lelant Saltings rather than Carbis Bay. There is a Car Park there more or less dedicated.

 

[richw]

Lelant Saltings rather than Carbis Bay. There is a Car Park there more or less dedicated.

Beat me to it, Leland saltings I'd estimate to be 100+ spaces! and is right by the A30. Carbis bay has a small narrow car park

 

[yorksrob]

But soon to be St Erth, if recent park and ride plans are anything to go by.

 

[richw]

But soon to be St Erth, if recent park and ride plans are anything to go by.

They've been in the pipeline for as long as I can remember, I'm not holding my breath on it happening

 

[snowball]

Looking at Streetview the width of the portal would lead me to think that there is probably only space for single track under the A30.
http://goo.gl/maps/SftKE
http://goo.gl/maps/hlFKJ

I came to the same conclusion looking at Bing Maps bird's eye view.

 

[jmc100]

I was in charge of track maintenance at the time and there was only one track in place when the A30 by pass was built

If, at the present, there is only a single track underpass then it would appear this is the only obstruction to installing a double track system throughout the whole route. I sometimes used to travel from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton in the early 60s and I cannot recall any single track working.

 

[HowardGWR]

If, at the present, there is only a single track underpass then it would appear this is the only obstruction to installing a double track system throughout the whole route. I sometimes used to travel from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton in the early 60s and I cannot recall any single track working.

What's annoying me is that I have actually walked along the cycle / foot track and passed by that construction. I think there is room for both the cycle track and the railway to the quarry, under the A30, so I think it could take double track. One would then still need to do something for the cyclists. They won't go quietly though.

 

[yorksrob]

What's annoying me is that I have actually walked along the cycle / foot track and passed by that construction. I think there is room for both the cycle track and the railway to the quarry, under the A30, so I think it could take double track. One would then still need to do something for the cyclists. They won't go quietly though.

It's an interesting point. I wonder, if you have a traditional double track railway bridge, is there room for the (single) track, necessary buffer zone and fence and cycle route ?

Of course, further south the route ran directly alongside the old GWR Launceston branch, so there's room for a long double track loop and as much cycle lane as you want. (I don't know how far south the bike track currently goes though!).

 

[jmc100]

What's annoying me is that I have actually walked along the cycle / foot track and passed by that construction. I think there is room for both the cycle track and the railway to the quarry, under the A30, so I think it could take double track. One would then still need to do something for the cyclists. They won't go quietly though.

Thanks for your reply. I have not been fortunate to survey the underpass location but that was what I was thinking. There may possibly be enough room for two-track operations without having to construct another underpass.

If the powers that be do select this route as an alternative to the Dawlish route I would hope that Network Rail would make available a trail for cyclists and walkers. This particular route, although overgrown with trees and other vegetation in many places, is practically intact and I would think that after the various permissions have been established would open up many economic possibilities for central and North Devon as well as providing positive rail resilience for many years to come whilst maintaining the coastal route as the main permanent way. It would also seem from reading various documents of the councils involved that they are in favour of reinstatement of the original L&SWR rail links in the region. In fact, there are plans for two new stations, one just south of Tavistock and another east of Okehampton.

In the longer term, a tunnel directly linking Exeter to Newton Abbot without any twists and turns may be part of the final answer in providing the South-West Peninsula with a high-speed railway that is fit for 21st century journey times. But what is needed in the very short term is an alternative route to keep the trains running. To do this, emergency planning measures may have to be implemented as a similar situation to that of Dawlish could possibly happen again in the very near future due to unpredictable weather.

 

[Buttsy]

As the LWSR route is not likely to have an intensive daily service (1tph each way), for diversionary purposes I would consider that loops from Crediton to Coleford, Okehampton station, Lydford to Mary Tavy and possibly one in the Bere Alston/Bere Ferrers area would be sufficient initially for flexibility for diversions. Possibly that may even be over provision...

 

[yorksrob]

As the LWSR route is not likely to have an intensive daily service (1tph each way), for diversionary purposes I would consider that loops from Crediton to Coleford, Okehampton station, Lydford to Mary Tavy and possibly one in the Bere Alston/Bere Ferrers area would be sufficient initially for flexibility for diversions. Possibly that may even be over provision...

With the loops, you could even have additional trains but institute an emergency timetable of one train per hour should the need for diversions arise.

 

[Graiser]

If, at the present, there is only a single track underpass then it would appear this is the only obstruction to installing a double track system throughout the whole route. I sometimes used to travel from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton in the early 60s and I cannot recall any single track working.

Just to clarify, it used to be double track, but by the time the bypass had been constructed the line had been singled to Meldon, from memory (and I may be wrong on this) I think the construction of the flyover had to still assume the potential for double track

 

[LateThanNever]

To add further detail to that, the BBC have now linked to a NR paper on the Dawlish problem, and future options etc, and it includes a breakdown of that £31m into a number of individual SW resilience project costs, of which Cowley Bridge is shown as £6.5m - £12.9m. Eight other projects are included in the total, for example Hinksey track raising at £5m, and earthworks strengthening at Honiton and Crewkerne at £3m.

Info on page 10 of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf

Very interesting report on Dawlish.

The report shows in its photos that a large section of the outer wall was also lost on the section with a high walkway such that you could not realistically have run trains there either.

Also nice to see that the Cowley Bridge improvements have already started (hopefully not just by calling out the fire service to protect the signalling) but they obviously have no clue as to really what is required because the estimate is £6.5m - itself not small change - but that they might need to spend almost double that!

There is also no sense in listing the Teign Valley route as an alternative route. Even Network Rail must surely realise that the useful bits are now roads and the rest is a pleasant rural meander. This must be window dressing surely to 'prove' they've considered five routes or whatever and therefore how deep the examination is. It is noticeable that Exeter to Plymouth direct is entirely absent!

(I reckon on this basis the Okehampton route is home and dry!)

 

[jmc100]

I think Network Rail have considered a possible tunnel route but have discounted it at the present time as construction would take far too long, whereas work on getting an alternative route up and running would take far less time. The Okehampton route is the most practical as most of the missing part of the route is intact. It would initially require an army of tree surgeons before any groundwork could take place. The modus operandi is to keep the trains running throughout the peninsula at all times with the minimum of disruptions.

 

[47802]

I think we should wait for the results of the network rail study before the Okehampton Fan Boys get too excited

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think we should wait for the results of the network rail study before the Okehampton Fan Boys get too excited

I think so too, having spoke to Network Rail i would suggest Okehampton is not going to happen!

 

[starrymarkb]

It is noticeable that Exeter to Plymouth direct is entirely absent!

You'd be looking at a lot of tunneling if you followed the A38 all the way to Marley Head.

Longer Term you'd probably put a TBM through Telegraph Hill following the A380 to Newton Abbot. It's sandstone so not sure how easy that would be to tunnel, it would probably be a sensible alternative to the slow Teign Valley route. Also Getting the Teign Valley out of Exeter would need a fair bit of demolition.

Also The £100m quoted for context is about the same as a single F35 fighter jet!

 

[HowardGWR]

I think we should wait for the results of the network rail study before the Okehampton Fan Boys get too excited

So do I (and I am such a fanboy); in fact I wrote that several times about 100 posts ago. I have read nothing since on this thread that illuminates further.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I think we should wait for the results of the network rail study before the Okehampton Fan Boys get too excited

As opposed to the avoiding line fanboys getting defensive, you mean? You're the one who's turning this into a sling-fest.