Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[jmc100]

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

If that's the case then the owner of Brentor station will be able to sell his property without trains running past his kitchen window.

 

[yorksrob]

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

What points have they mentioned to support this and what is their preferred position ?

When the NR chap started mentioning £500m, I was worried whether it was a cynical repositioning exercise to influence the powers that be by suggesting costs for an unnecessarily overspecified project.

 

[34104]

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

Good to see someone trying to raise the intellectual standard of a debate.Well done sir.

Interesting comment in another post that someone has spoken to Network Rail and apparently "Okehampton won't happen".I didn't realise that NR were the decision makers in this matter,i was under the impression that they were supplying information to the government to enable a decision to be made.If it has already been decided that "it won't happen" then the implication would seem to be that any study carried out over the next few months would be a sham and waste of money,not really much point in arguing against a fait accompli.Government waste time and money in order to enhance their own "we really do care" image? Surely not.

 

[yorksrob]

I didn't realise that NR were the decision makers in this matter,i was under the impression that they were supplying information to the government to enable a decision to be made.

Surely that would depend on what information was supplied ?

 

[HSTEd]

While Okehampton might be the best of the alternative routes examined (leaving aside the question of which options were selected for analysis) I very much doubt that it can beat the BCR of simply reinforcing the existing route.

 

[starrymarkb]

What points have they mentioned to support this and what is their preferred position ?

When the NR chap started mentioning £500m, I was worried whether it was a cynical repositioning exercise to influence the powers that be by suggesting costs for an unnecessarily overspecified project.

I suspect that would include major work to Meldon Viaduct which currently can't take a trains weight - possibly a new structure alongside might be the easiest - the strengthening work required on the viaduct was one reason for the line's closure, when it was open there were restrictions on the locomotives allowed over it - How much would a single/double track modern viaduct cost?

 

[34104]

Surely that would depend on what information was supplied ?

Absolutely,which is why i made the point about the implication in terms of time and money of NR apparently already having made their minds up [if indeed that is the case].

 

[The Ham]

While Okehampton might be the best of the alternative routes examined (leaving aside the question of which options were selected for analysis) I very much doubt that it can beat the BCR of simply reinforcing the existing route.

However due to the failure of the sea wall in two locations at Dawlish it has become a political issue. If you were to ask NR 6 months ago how likely would it be for the Dawlish sea wall to fail to such an extent that it would be closed for more than a week I would expect that the answer would have been fairly unlikely and fairly improbable that it would be closed for as long as month.

However because of a highly unlikely situation the reliability of the sea route has been further called into question in a big way. As such I doubt that the politicians would look very favourably on just relying on beefed up sea defences. Given that there is a risk that we could potentially have another storm that causes the closure of the line for even a fairly short time within a short enough time frame that it would come back to haunt them.

Even a half day closure next winter would likely result in a lot more political pressure for something to be done than there is at present.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Alright then Network Rail don't make the final decision but their report is not going to favour the Okehampton option. They do think Tavistock Plymouth is important to reopen along with Okehampton-Exeter regular services but not the middle bit.

 

[tbtc]

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

Of course a train between Plymouth and Exeter via Okehampton creates many more travel opportunities than a shuttle to Tavistock - I don't know why you bother with the Strawman stuff - nobody would argue otherwise.

The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that a mainly double track line of around fifty miles length (which includes doubling bits of the existing Plymouth - Bere Alston line etc) engineered for 100mph running is going to cost a bit more than a ~seven mile single track line from Tavistock to Bere Alston engineered to maybe 50mph running. If it was a case of both options costing the same money then of course the longer route offers more travel opportunities, but that doesn't mean its better value for money. And that "difference" could be spent on something else.

A ~seven mile line from Bere Alston to Tavistock and a spare 153 would allow Tavistock a connection with all Gunnislake - Plymouth services. As/when the passenger numbers grow then pay for a bit of signalling at Bere Alston and another 153 and start running through services from Tavistock to Plymouth (either portion worked with existing Gunnislake services or as a seperate service, subject to the single track constraints).

Going straight for the "biggest and best" option isn't always the best solution. Why not see whether Tavistock can sustain a service 365 days of the year to Plymouth before we start worrying about that Tavistock to Okehampton market?

You're desperate to go straight to your "solution", rather than focussing on the actual problems.

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

...both will act as a "railhead" for a larger area though - as has been pointed out to me on this thread - so its not just about the marginal difference between the two settlements.

It is more than just increasing passenger numbers, it's about resilience, regeneration, all those things that you also dismiss as "unquantifiable"

Go on then, quantify.

If you were arguing that unemployment in Alloa has gone down by twice the rate of unemployment in Grangemouth/ Menstrie/ Kincardine since the railway reopened then you'd have a case to say that one may have caused the other... or are you just guessing?

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"

You'd have to look at how often things are going to happen.

In your example above, relieving congestion in the town centre is something with an everyday benefit. But "providing a diversionary route every ~five years" is a much weaker case.

For example, if you wanted to electrify the G&SW from Glasgow to Carlisle (or the Cumbrian Coast from Carlisle to Lancaster) then it'd be fair to use the benefit of a diversionary route if the line through Lockerbie (or Penrith) was closed on a regular basis. It wouldn't be fair to use the diversionary benefits if the Lockerbie (or Penrith) line wasn't closed very often though.

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.

The difference being that extra capacity on the Yeovil route would be required a lot more often than a diversionary line through Okehampton, based on the past decade?

I'm suggesting practical everyday benefits of a redoubled Yeovil route though - more services, faster services, better range of through journeys - rather than any "once in a blue moon" stuff.

While Okehampton might be the best of the alternative routes examined (leaving aside the question of which options were selected for analysis) I very much doubt that it can beat the BCR of simply reinforcing the existing route.

Agreed.

Let's do a proper job of fixing the issues at Dawlish first.

 

[D1009]

If that's the case then the owner of Brentor station will be able to sell his property without trains running past his kitchen window.

I think I'd find the property more attractive WITH the trains running past.

 

[34104]

Alright then Network Rail don't make the final decision but their report is not going to favour the Okehampton option. They do think Tavistock Plymouth is important to reopen along with Okehampton-Exeter regular services but not the middle bit.

So what exactly is the point of NR actually carrying out the study if they've already made up their minds as to the content of it? If your statement is correct,then it would appear to be no more than a cosmetic publicity exercise,slanted so much that it precludes even the possibility that the Okehampton line could be helpful in solving the problems of a reliable train service to Plymouth and Cornwall.

 

[LateThanNever]

Of course a train between Plymouth and Exeter via Okehampton creates many more travel opportunities than a shuttle to Tavistock - I don't know why you bother with the Strawman stuff - nobody would argue otherwise.

The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that a mainly double track line of around fifty miles length (which includes doubling bits of the existing Plymouth - Bere Alston line etc) engineered for 100mph running is going to cost a bit more than a ~seven mile single track line from Tavistock to Bere Alston engineered to maybe 50mph running. If it was a case of both options costing the same money then of course the longer route offers more travel opportunities, but that doesn't mean its better value for money. And that "difference" could be spent on something else.

A ~seven mile line from Bere Alston to Tavistock and a spare 153 would allow Tavistock a connection with all Gunnislake - Plymouth services. As/when the passenger numbers grow then pay for a bit of signalling at Bere Alston and another 153 and start running through services from Tavistock to Plymouth (either portion worked with existing Gunnislake services or as a seperate service, subject to the single track constraints).

Going straight for the "biggest and best" option isn't always the best solution. Why not see whether Tavistock can sustain a service 365 days of the year to Plymouth before we start worrying about that Tavistock to Okehampton market?

There are very few UK rail services that run 365 days a year! Let's hope Plymouth Tavistock is one of them!

You're desperate to go straight to your "solution", rather than focussing on the actual problems.

The problem is annual severance of rail services to Plymouth and Cornwall on an annual basis! And all this on a line that was supposed to be well maintained and good for the next 5-10 years I believe according to Network Rail. Well now the sh** has hit the fan and their predictions have been found wanting so they've got to produce a report by July on an alternative route.


...both will act as a "railhead" for a larger area though - as has been pointed out to me on this thread - so its not just about the marginal difference between the two settlements.



Go on then, quantify.

Foretelling the future is impossible however it's dressed up (as even Network Rail have found). Best guess is all we can do.

If you were arguing that unemployment in Alloa has gone down by twice the rate of unemployment in Grangemouth/ Menstrie/ Kincardine since the railway reopened then you'd have a case to say that one may have caused the other... or are you just guessing?



You'd have to look at how often things are going to happen.

In your example above, relieving congestion in the town centre is something with an everyday benefit. But "providing a diversionary route every ~five years" is a much weaker case.

For example, if you wanted to electrify the G&SW from Glasgow to Carlisle (or the Cumbrian Coast from Carlisle to Lancaster) then it'd be fair to use the benefit of a diversionary route if the line through Lockerbie (or Penrith) was closed on a regular basis. It wouldn't be fair to use the diversionary benefits if the Lockerbie (or Penrith) line wasn't closed very often though.

The difference being that extra capacity on the Yeovil route would be required a lot more often than a diversionary line through Okehampton, based on the past decade?

I'm suggesting practical everyday benefits of a redoubled Yeovil route though - more services, faster services, better range of through journeys - rather than any "once in a blue moon" stuff.

Annually is not once in a blue moon and probably accords fairly closely with the no of diversions via Yeovil, though the majority of those are planned.

Let's do a proper job of fixing the issues at Dawlish first.

Fixing Dawlish is happening. But Janners and the Cornish feel that is no longer sufficient. You are in danger of trying to argue that because we shouldn't be ever so slightly ambitious we should just go home and shut up.
What would Mr Brunel say?

 

[The Ham]

The difference being that extra capacity on the Yeovil route would be required a lot more often than a diversionary line through Okehampton, based on the past decade?

The difference being that the services though Okehampton and Tavistock would be required a lot more than a diversionary line along the Yeovil route, based on the past decade.

The "problem" with diversion routes is that if they are there they tend to get used. If there is no alternative then NR & the TOC's would be more inclined to programme works so as to not need to use replacement buses and possibly even take a slightly more relaxed view on running trains along the only route.

Therefore, if there was a route avoiding Dawlish (what that will look like and if it happens is still up for debate) then I would expect that we could witness more times when the trains don't run on the sea wall (even though they would have run under similar conditions when it was the only route).

 

[YorkshireBear]

So what exactly is the point of NR actually carrying out the study if they've already made up their minds as to the content of it? If your statement is correct,then it would appear to be no more than a cosmetic publicity exercise,slanted so much that it precludes even the possibility that the Okehampton line could be helpful in solving the problems of a reliable train service to Plymouth and Cornwall.

Well considering they are actually researching 5 things.... id say that still leaves it pretty open. It may change, at the end of the day the government don't listen to everything Network Rail say.

 

[ironstone11]

"Network Rail could complete Dawlish repair early"

See:- http://www.nce.co.uk/home/transport...rticle?blocktitle=News-In-Depth&contentID=204

 

[Cliveblackpool]

"Network Rail could complete Dawlish repair early"

See:- http://www.nce.co.uk/home/transport...rticle?blocktitle=News-In-Depth&contentID=204

can't view the article on my device, is it possible to paste it on this page, thanks.

 

[jmc100]

I suspect that would include major work to Meldon Viaduct which currently can't take a trains weight - possibly a new structure alongside might be the easiest - the strengthening work required on the viaduct was one reason for the line's closure, when it was open there were restrictions on the locomotives allowed over it - How much would a single/double track modern viaduct cost?

No need for a new viaduct. I don't think there will be any weight problems with the viaducts at Meldon as they are two independent structures built side-by-side. The viaducts had no problems carrying the weight of some very heavy steam locomotives with coaches right up to the closure of that particular section of the route.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No need for a new viaduct. I don't think there will be any weight problems with the viaducts at Meldon as they are two independent structures built side-by-side. The viaducts had no problems carrying the weight of some very heavy steam locomotives with coaches right up to the closure of that particular section of the route.

They have deteriorated since then....

 

[ironstone11]

If you go from here it works.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=6a0QU6faLYzH7Aai44EQ

Network Rail could complete Dawlish repair early

27 February, 2014 | By Alexandra Wynne

Network Rail is to review whether it can bring forward the date for reopening the storm-damaged line at Dawlish next week.

Speaking to MPs on the transport select committee this week, Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne said there was a chance the repairs would be complete before the mid-April date given last week.

“I’m very hopeful we will be able to bring that date [mid-April] forward,” said Carne, adding that he remained cautious because high spring tides were expected next week.

“We could suffer some setbacks,” he told the committee. “We’re not out of the woods yet.”

The rail operator and owner also said it would be kicking off a study in the next fortnight to look at ways of increasing resilience in the medium term including the potential installation of a breakwater to diminish wave energy. This would either lie adjacent to the sea wall or further out to sea.

Alongside this work Carne said Network Rail would continue to collect all suggestions proposed for rerouting the vulnerable line with the aim of making “pretty firm” recommendations about routes that should be studied in more detail in June. This further work would be completed by September or October, said Carne.

Network Rail and its principal contractor Bam Nuttall are working to reinstate the line that was washed away earlier this month (see box).

Select committee chairman Louise Ellman said that Network Rail had got its assessment “very wrong” when in 2010 it said that the Dawlish flood defences were suitable.

“In 2010 Network Rail got it very wrong when it told the under-secretary of state for transport that the flood defences at Dawlish would be sustainable for the foreseeable future – it didn’t happen,” she said.

Carne replied that the approach to using historical weather data to assess the future resilience of railway infrastructure would need to be revised.

“There’ve been quite a few studies done on the Dawlish wall over the years using the wave and weather data from the Met Office and those have consistently shown that the wall was quite resilient,” he said. “Indeed, over 120 years the wall has never been breached.

“However, we recognise that with climate change and rising sea levels and increasing storm forces that [the wall] was not likely to exist forever, so the study had shown that within the next five to 10 years we would need to do some extra works to Dawlish and that was in the plan. It’s fair to say the weather conditions we saw in February were really the worst that have been experienced in living memory and beyond.

“We used historical data… to do the analysis and I think what we all have to recognise that historical analysis is not an accurate predictor of future weather patterns. Given that, we need to reconsider the flood defences and coastal defences we have across the country.”
Flood and storm damage repairs at Dawlish

Network Rail has now fully assessed the damage the winter storms in February caused to the South Coast Mainline south of Exeter. A 6km stretch of track is affected from Dawlish Warren to Teignmouth. A total of 256m of sea wall is extensively damaged, including the main 105m long breach north of Dawlish. Plus, 525m of granite parapets have failed, causing track ballast to collapse behind them, and Network Rail has 32 separate landslips and cliff failures to deal with.

The storm on 5 February washed away 80m of sea wall and ground, leaving track suspended over a gaping hole up to the houses of Riviera Terrace. After removing the track, contractor Bam Nuttall shored up the hole with sprayed concrete and formed a temporary breakwater of sea containers filled with rock, which were placed on the lower walkway at the foot of the breach.

This line of defence held firm during the second storm on 14 February, which has been described as the most severe in living memory by local residents. A further 20m of sea wall was breached extending the length of the hole. Many more individual wall, parapet and cliff failures also occurred.

The repair work has now been split into sections north and south of Kennaway Tunnel. Contractors Bam Nuttall, Amco, Sisk and Dyer & Butler are working 24 hours in two shifts to get the work finished.

At the main breach, Amco has now backfilled the hole with 5,000m3 of mass concrete to a depth of 3m against a shutter of concrete vehicle barriers. These have been tied together vertically and horizontally into the concrete with steel bars.

This week Amco was pouring a reinforced concrete strip footing and taking delivery of 120 bespoke precast concrete L units.

These will be placed on the strip footing and mass concrete to form a track bed channel with a 2m high wall to the front and a 3m high retaining wall on the landward side. Ballast will be placed in the channel to take sections of track which are being prefabricated at a nearby site inland.

Jon Masters

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

“I’m very hopeful we will be able to bring that date [mid-April] forward,” said Carne, adding that he remained cautious because high spring tides were expected next week. We could suffer some setbacks,” he told the committee. “We’re not out of the woods yet.”

Having seen what havoc that Nature can wreak, I note the carefully added mention of high spring tides in that part of the statement.

 

[yorksrob]

Well considering they are actually researching 5 things.... id say that still leaves it pretty open. It may change, at the end of the day the government don't listen to everything Network Rail say.

So what option are they likely to take ?

I really don't see the point of turning Dawlish into a swiss cheese of tunnels as their diagram seems to suggest as you're not going to get the extra journey benefits of Okehampton or the shorter journey benefits of the Dawlish avoider. It'll be millions wasted. they'd be better off sticking with the wall.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Absolutely,which is why i made the point about the implication in terms of time and money of NR apparently already having made their minds up [if indeed that is the case].

It goes back to my point that the spec of whatever NR come up with needs to be scrutinised.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect that would include major work to Meldon Viaduct which currently can't take a trains weight - possibly a new structure alongside might be the easiest - the strengthening work required on the viaduct was one reason for the line's closure, when it was open there were restrictions on the locomotives allowed over it - How much would a single/double track modern viaduct cost?

Beautiful though Meldon is, there are times when I wish the L&SWR had put up one of their innovative concrete viaducts, or even a trad stone one instead. They seem to have fewer issues.

Incidentally, in the town museum in Settle, there is a large model of a huge single span structure that I believe BR were intending to replace Ribblehead viaduct with. I wonder if it came to it, they could put something similar alongside the existing structure at Meldon.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly I would prefer a Belah style steel one.

Much more impressive looking.

 

[LateThanNever]

Honestly I would prefer a Belah style steel one.

Much more impressive looking.

As any new structure would be next to what would undoubtedly become a Parkway station at Sourton Cross on the A30 (nearest to North Devon & East Cornwall) perhaps the new structure could be combined with the new station! Am I dreaming?

 

[PHILIPE]

"Network Rail could complete Dawlish repair early"

See:- http://www.nce.co.uk/home/transport...rticle?blocktitle=News-In-Depth&contentID=204

There is a separate thread for Dawlish Sea wall itself set up specially by the Moderators to separate it from the "Alternative Route".

 

[Graiser]

If you go from here it works.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=6a0QU6faLYzH7Aai44EQ

Network Rail could complete Dawlish repair early

27 February, 2014 | By Alexandra Wynne

Network Rail is to review whether it can bring forward the date for reopening the storm-damaged line at Dawlish next week.

Speaking to MPs on the transport select committee this week, Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne said there was a chance the repairs would be complete before the mid-April date given last week.

“I’m very hopeful we will be able to bring that date [mid-April] forward,” said Carne, adding that he remained cautious because high spring tides were expected next week.

“We could suffer some setbacks,” he told the committee. “We’re not out of the woods yet.”

The rail operator and owner also said it would be kicking off a study in the next fortnight to look at ways of increasing resilience in the medium term including the potential installation of a breakwater to diminish wave energy. This would either lie adjacent to the sea wall or further out to sea.

Alongside this work Carne said Network Rail would continue to collect all suggestions proposed for rerouting the vulnerable line with the aim of making “pretty firm” recommendations about routes that should be studied in more detail in June. This further work would be completed by September or October, said Carne.

Network Rail and its principal contractor Bam Nuttall are working to reinstate the line that was washed away earlier this month (see box).

Select committee chairman Louise Ellman said that Network Rail had got its assessment “very wrong” when in 2010 it said that the Dawlish flood defences were suitable.

“In 2010 Network Rail got it very wrong when it told the under-secretary of state for transport that the flood defences at Dawlish would be sustainable for the foreseeable future – it didn’t happen,” she said.

Carne replied that the approach to using historical weather data to assess the future resilience of railway infrastructure would need to be revised.

“There’ve been quite a few studies done on the Dawlish wall over the years using the wave and weather data from the Met Office and those have consistently shown that the wall was quite resilient,” he said. “Indeed, over 120 years the wall has never been breached.

“However, we recognise that with climate change and rising sea levels and increasing storm forces that [the wall] was not likely to exist forever, so the study had shown that within the next five to 10 years we would need to do some extra works to Dawlish and that was in the plan. It’s fair to say the weather conditions we saw in February were really the worst that have been experienced in living memory and beyond.

“We used historical data… to do the analysis and I think what we all have to recognise that historical analysis is not an accurate predictor of future weather patterns. Given that, we need to reconsider the flood defences and coastal defences we have across the country.”
Flood and storm damage repairs at Dawlish

Network Rail has now fully assessed the damage the winter storms in February caused to the South Coast Mainline south of Exeter. A 6km stretch of track is affected from Dawlish Warren to Teignmouth. A total of 256m of sea wall is extensively damaged, including the main 105m long breach north of Dawlish. Plus, 525m of granite parapets have failed, causing track ballast to collapse behind them, and Network Rail has 32 separate landslips and cliff failures to deal with.

The storm on 5 February washed away 80m of sea wall and ground, leaving track suspended over a gaping hole up to the houses of Riviera Terrace. After removing the track, contractor Bam Nuttall shored up the hole with sprayed concrete and formed a temporary breakwater of sea containers filled with rock, which were placed on the lower walkway at the foot of the breach.

This line of defence held firm during the second storm on 14 February, which has been described as the most severe in living memory by local residents. A further 20m of sea wall was breached extending the length of the hole. Many more individual wall, parapet and cliff failures also occurred.

The repair work has now been split into sections north and south of Kennaway Tunnel. Contractors Bam Nuttall, Amco, Sisk and Dyer & Butler are working 24 hours in two shifts to get the work finished.

At the main breach, Amco has now backfilled the hole with 5,000m3 of mass concrete to a depth of 3m against a shutter of concrete vehicle barriers. These have been tied together vertically and horizontally into the concrete with steel bars.

This week Amco was pouring a reinforced concrete strip footing and taking delivery of 120 bespoke precast concrete L units.

These will be placed on the strip footing and mass concrete to form a track bed channel with a 2m high wall to the front and a 3m high retaining wall on the landward side. Ballast will be placed in the channel to take sections of track which are being prefabricated at a nearby site inland.

Jon Masters

Very accurate with one exception, the new sections of track have been built on the Down Main and are stored between Kennaway and Coryton tunnels

 

[najaB]

The rail operator and owner also said it would be kicking off a study in the next fortnight to look at ways of increasing resilience in the medium term including the potential installation of a breakwater to diminish wave energy. This would either lie adjacent to the sea wall or further out to sea.

That makes sense - it should be reasonably quick to build an offshore breakwater that can take a significant portion of the wave energy. That then gives them a few years to make a considered decision about an alternative route (if one is even needed) and the construction doesn't need to be hurried.

Looking at the aerial map of the Dawlish area, it looks like the water doesn't get deep very quickly so a breakwater a hundred metres or so offshore is feasible -the existing pier next to Dawlish station is about 100m long. Google Maps link

 

[Bald Rick]

It is too early for NR to have a preference, the study has yet to start. There are however plenty of NR employees with an opinion.

 

[LateThanNever]

That makes sense - it should be reasonably quick to build an offshore breakwater that can take a significant portion of the wave energy. That then gives them a few years to make a considered decision about an alternative route (if one is even needed) and the construction doesn't need to be hurried.

Looking at the aerial map of the Dawlish area, it looks like the water doesn't get deep very quickly so a breakwater a hundred metres or so offshore is feasible -the existing pier next to Dawlish station is about 100m long. Google Maps link

Sure it's feasible - it's just there must be little confidence that anyone knows what the currents of the estuary will do to the shoreline as a result. Sidmouth has lost most of its beach as a result of a 'no problem' breakwater and that doesn't have any significant estuary. North Devon river outlets have had similar problems. The Exe estuary is complex with changing currents and moving sands. I'd be very surprised breakwaters will have the effect desired and even then it is unlikely to be consistent!

 

[yorksrob]

Of course a train between Plymouth and Exeter via Okehampton creates many more travel opportunities than a shuttle to Tavistock - I don't know why you bother with the Strawman stuff - nobody would argue otherwise.

If you didn't try to pass off some sort of spurious argument that a shuttle from Plymouth to Tavistock was somehow comparable in value to a through route then I wouldn't have to state the bleedin' obvious in the first place.

The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that a mainly double track line of around fifty miles length (which includes doubling bits of the existing Plymouth - Bere Alston line etc) engineered for 100mph running is going to cost a bit more than a ~seven mile single track line from Tavistock to Bere Alston engineered to maybe 50mph running. If it was a case of both options costing the same money then of course the longer route offers more travel opportunities, but that doesn't mean its better value for money. And that "difference" could be spent on something else.

No one has said that both options would cost the same amount. My whole argument is that the through route will cost more but it will also provide more benefits.

A ~seven mile line from Bere Alston to Tavistock and a spare 153 would allow Tavistock a connection with all Gunnislake - Plymouth services. As/when the passenger numbers grow then pay for a bit of signalling at Bere Alston and another 153 and start running through services from Tavistock to Plymouth (either portion worked with existing Gunnislake services or as a seperate service, subject to the single track constraints).

Going straight for the "biggest and best" option isn't always the best solution. Why not see whether Tavistock can sustain a service 365 days of the year to Plymouth before we start worrying about that Tavistock to Okehampton market?

If I were open minded and had faith that we had a system that could look at an existing link and progress to a future improvement then all well and good. Sadly, I don't think that is the case. It will just be:

"oh, we know the Tavistock and Okehampton branches are doing well, and we know the the link between the two would be good for the economy, but the link between them is just too expensive, plus there's a roundabout in Croydon that is cheaper and thus has a better cost benefit ratio".

The key additional factor is the diversionary capability, and that relies on the central section.

You're desperate to go straight to your "solution", rather than focussing on the actual problems.

The problems are:

We have a resilience issue with the GW main line through Dawlish
We have congestion/connectivity problems in West and North Devon that have been recognised as requiring a rail solution.

Do you have a more fitting problem ?

...both will act as a "railhead" for a larger area though - as has been pointed out to me on this thread - so its not just about the marginal difference between the two settlements.

A "marginal" difference between a population of 2,000 and one of 11,000

Go on then, quantify.

If you were arguing that unemployment in Alloa has gone down by twice the rate of unemployment in Grangemouth/ Menstrie/ Kincardine since the railway reopened then you'd have a case to say that one may have caused the other... or are you just guessing?

Firstly, there are economists whose job it is to calculate these things, and secondly, if you are so sceptical about the value of resilience, why on earth have you been arguing on this very thread that redoubling the Yeovil route is worthwhile (at least partially) because of its diversionary capabilities ?

You'd have to look at how often things are going to happen.

In your example above, relieving congestion in the town centre is something with an everyday benefit. But "providing a diversionary route every ~five years" is a much weaker case.

For example, if you wanted to electrify the G&SW from Glasgow to Carlisle (or the Cumbrian Coast from Carlisle to Lancaster) then it'd be fair to use the benefit of a diversionary route if the line through Lockerbie (or Penrith) was closed on a regular basis. It wouldn't be fair to use the diversionary benefits if the Lockerbie (or Penrith) line wasn't closed very often though.

The difference being that extra capacity on the Yeovil route would be required a lot more often than a diversionary line through Okehampton, based on the past decade?

"things" happen a lot more often on the Dawlish route than Yeovil. Plus, extra capacity is still extra. It is not capacity where none existed before.

You may have avoided the Settle Carlisle in your comparison, but its use as a diversion certainly featured in opposing the closure campaign.

I'm suggesting practical everyday benefits of a redoubled Yeovil route though - more services, faster services, better range of through journeys - rather than any "once in a blue moon" stuff.

I'm suggesting all of those things. In an area that doesn't have them already rather than one that does.

Agreed.

Let's do a proper job of fixing the issues at Dawlish first.

For once tbtc, I agree entirely with you. Getting Dawlish fixed first. As NR have said, the route needs back up rather than replacement at the moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is too early for NR to have a preference, the study has yet to start. There are however plenty of NR employees with an opinion.

Now there's a poll I would be genuinely interested in seeing.