Please note that new signalling cannot and will not significantly change the speed capability of the west country rail system. New signalling may be able to increase capacity marginally in places particularly in Cornwall where long absolute block sections might be divided. New signalling could also reduce operating costs by control centralisation and avoid the difficulties maintaining obsolete mechanical technology. New signalling is often an intrinsic part of electrification projects however, where older equipment is incompatible with electric traction.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)
- Thread starter John S2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
We've just had the wettest winter in around 250 years (records only began in 1766), which has disproportionately affected south west England. Maybe this will be an annual occurrence, as some are suggesting, dunno...
...but either we decide that current line through Dawlish is fit for purpose (after spending a few quid on the wall) and accept that we might have to use replacement coaches on a limited number of occasions or we build a new line from Exeter to Newton Abbott (in which case we can build one that's faster, benefitting passengers every day of the year).
I just don't buy the awkward compromise of "we patch it up a bit, but not totally, so that we can justify a second route too".
Nor do I buy the argument that we need to have a second route from Exeter to Plymouth (due to worries about frequent closures at Dawlish) but are happy for Torbay to lose its services when that happens.
Yes, of course a through route will be more use, but (again) that extra benefit comes at an extra cost - a much bigger cost. You're only doing half of the "cost benefit" equation!
I think that hundreds of millions of pounds would be a huge bill for "resilience" on the "1%" of times that this would be used as a diversionary route.
'resilience' is an obvious benefit, but it comes at a price - and I don't buy the argument that the line is going to be closed often enough to justify that price
Local people want money spending in their area? Not really a surprise, is it?
...as I say, maybe they just know the kind of people who buy their magazine and tailor their articles accordingly?
If you are suggesting that an Okehampton route should be built to provide "resilience" then it'd have to be able to cope with two/three services an hour (i.e. the current level of Plymouth - Exeter trains, plus local services, inc the Gunnislake ones), so would need to be predominantly double tracked (I did say "predominantly" in my previous post).
Whereas building enough just for an hourly Plymouth - Tavistock service would only require around seven miles of single track, plus a loop at somewhere like Bere Ferrers/ Bere Alston, so a lot less track required.
Far more valuable to who?
For the "twelve thousand people a day" who use trains from Exeter to Plymouth (using the figure quoted by The Ham), a fifteen minute saving on the journey would be very useful 99% of the time.
Would you rather save half an hour on your daily return commute 99% of the time (and use a replacement coach on the other 1% of the time), or carry on with the current journey time 99% of the time (and have a slower train journey through Dartmoor on the 1% of days when the Dawlish line is closed)?
Well, I know which *you* would prefer, admittedly, but I think that a large number of people who use the line regularly would prefer the everyday time saving.
...but either we decide that current line through Dawlish is fit for purpose (after spending a few quid on the wall) and accept that we might have to use replacement coaches on a limited number of occasions or we build a new line from Exeter to Newton Abbott (in which case we can build one that's faster, benefitting passengers every day of the year).
I just don't buy the awkward compromise of "we patch it up a bit, but not totally, so that we can justify a second route too".
Nor do I buy the argument that we need to have a second route from Exeter to Plymouth (due to worries about frequent closures at Dawlish) but are happy for Torbay to lose its services when that happens.
Yes, of course a through route will be more use, but (again) that extra benefit comes at an extra cost - a much bigger cost. You're only doing half of the "cost benefit" equation!
I think that hundreds of millions of pounds would be a huge bill for "resilience" on the "1%" of times that this would be used as a diversionary route.
'resilience' is an obvious benefit, but it comes at a price - and I don't buy the argument that the line is going to be closed often enough to justify that price
Local people want money spending in their area? Not really a surprise, is it?
...as I say, maybe they just know the kind of people who buy their magazine and tailor their articles accordingly?
If you are suggesting that an Okehampton route should be built to provide "resilience" then it'd have to be able to cope with two/three services an hour (i.e. the current level of Plymouth - Exeter trains, plus local services, inc the Gunnislake ones), so would need to be predominantly double tracked (I did say "predominantly" in my previous post).
Whereas building enough just for an hourly Plymouth - Tavistock service would only require around seven miles of single track, plus a loop at somewhere like Bere Ferrers/ Bere Alston, so a lot less track required.
Far more valuable to who?
For the "twelve thousand people a day" who use trains from Exeter to Plymouth (using the figure quoted by The Ham), a fifteen minute saving on the journey would be very useful 99% of the time.
Would you rather save half an hour on your daily return commute 99% of the time (and use a replacement coach on the other 1% of the time), or carry on with the current journey time 99% of the time (and have a slower train journey through Dartmoor on the 1% of days when the Dawlish line is closed)?
Well, I know which *you* would prefer, admittedly, but I think that a large number of people who use the line regularly would prefer the everyday time saving.
In many cases it is planned the ROCs will take over control of existing equipment. For example, as it was neccessary for the Reading Station development to demolish the old signal box, Thames Valley Signalling Centre at Didcot has already assumed control of the entire old Reading PSB area using new control screen technology interfaced to the pre-existing remote relay interlockings and trackside apparatus. Of course where significant layout alterations were carried out around Reading itself, the entire system had to be replaced, and the remainder of the remote equipment will have to be renewed in connection with electrification.
Last edited:
Or we decide that the current line is fine most of the time but it needs back up, which, frankly, the vast majority of other main lines in this country (Aberdeen, South Wales and Thirsk to Northallerton included)
No one is proposing "patching up the mainline" a bit. That is not what NR are doing (as you well know). The West Country needs a second route in addition to it's main line.
I'm not saying it won't cost more. I'm just sceptical that a line three or four times as long as another will cost nineteen times as much to build.
But it's not just for resilience. it's for the extra connections to Okehampton, Tavistock and the Dartmoor National Park.
Well, you clearly haven't read Rail magazine.
You'd need two or three loops. Certainly Okehampton and somewhere else such as Bere Alston. I'm guessing that in an emergency timetable, Gunnislake trains could connect at Bere Alston.
I'd rather have a resilient railway network that was available all year round. For me, even if my local line is closed, I can always use Wakefield (frequently do during engineering works).
By the way, Plymouth Chamber of Commerce have put figures on the loss to the economy of Devon and Cornwall during the close down. It is in the millions. The loss of Cowley bridge for 12 days in 2012 cost £60m.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, but if you were contemplating an upgrade to signalling for whatever reason, this sort of change would be the time to do it.
That saving, on a route where rail has managed to maintain a healthy market despite the historically poor journey time compared to road, would not only improve rail attractiveness significantly but also offer useful efficiencies in rolling stock and train crew utilisation, with possibly up to a 30 minute saving in a round trip.
Which would be why the publicly owned, operated and non-franchised LUL uses replacement bus services for engineering works...
We are talking about the future mainline to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall, but yet again you insist that the only option is dictated by whats best for two small little towns which don't currently even have a train a service, and frankly if there was really such a demand and money available to fund Exeter to Okehampton, it would have a service by now.
Hopefully those taking the decisions will reach a more sensible conclusion about the Okehampton route and send it into Oblivion where it belongs, maybe you should campaign and raise funds to reopen it as a Preserved Railway, except I suspect even that wouldn't be viable either.
It would seem to me that any additional route could and will only be justified as mainline replacement route with journey time improvements.
Last edited:
The problem with most new services at present is the lack of trains to run them, see the threads on Chiltern leasing trains back to TPE.
Exeter to Newton Abbot in 3 minutes. Is that likely, as that is what a 15 minute time saving would result in. By my maths that's an average speed of 300kph on a 15km length of track.
Depending on how much shorter the route is it's much more likely to be a journey time of about 9 minutes or a reduction in journey time of about 10 minutes. As highlighted before that's not going to make much in the way of benefit. As such it's likely to be a near straight race for whatever is cheaper.
We have a (potentially a bit high) quote of £500 for the reopening via Okehampton (especially as 5% of that figure is already funded), therefore if the DAL runs straight (ish) and most of the way in a tunnel then what could we (using similar coatings) expect the DAL to cost? If we take the cost per kilometre of Crossrail, which is £140m, then halve it as the tunnels are the cheaper bit then the cost of a 9km tunnel would cost £630m. In which case, even with faster journey time benefits, it would be a close run thing.
As I've said elsewhere you could probably get more time savings for less money elsewhere, if that was to be before Exeter then as it impacts more people that would also bring more benefits.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
This thread has certainly made myself re-read all about the railway history of the Okehampton area and I have just been reading an extremely old locally published booklet on the line from Okehampton to Bude that had branches leaving from it to the North Devon and Cornwall Junction Light Railway and the North Cornwall Railway.
I'd agree on about 10 minutes being a realistic saving, but think that is actually fairly significant, bringing the Plymouth - Exeter express journey down to around 50 minutes with useful and lucrative stops retained at Totnes and Newton Abbot. A straight route between NA and Exeter could reduce the distance travelled by about 1/3 of the current figure therebetween, and could allow a much higher top speed for trains able to exploit it. The existing coast route is fairly curved, and has tight clearances through tunnels leading to speed restrictions of 60MPH for a fairly long section through Dawlish and no more that 80MPH anywhere between Newton Abbot and Exminster. I'm sure the speed restrictions also serve to protect the sea wall, other structures and cliffs from excessive vibrations and also reduce the nuisance experienced by the railway's close neighbours in Dawlish and Teignmouth. For these reasons I don't believe it will ever be possible to raise speeds higher along the coast and in any case the greater journey time differential that would open up between stopping trains and expresses would actually consume more capacity.
To obtain a similar ten minute benefit east of Exeter could be more difficult than might be imagined without very significant lengths of new construction, as for the fastest trains now there are already long stretches of running at over 100 MPH on the B&H and between Taunton and Exeter. Better acceleration, possibly from electrification, could be useful, especially for the services with more stops, but for any sustained even higher speed running on existing lines the only solution would be tilting trains. They come at the cost of more rail wear on curves and possibly greater capacity eating timing differential compared to other services. There are also many places like the sea wall where speed is not limited only by curvature, with other factors such as stresses on structures or underlying earthworks also coming into play.
59CosG95
Established Member
To solve these problems of the sea wall's speed limits (and to fit in with your direct Exeter-NA route, MarkyT), I think (somewhat outside the box) that we should bore new tunnels to the west of Dawlish, with a new, underground "Dawlish Parkway" station, which could reconnect to the existing line at Newton Abbott. This could tie in well with an electrified SW Peninsula.
I note that £100 million is being spent in an effort to solve (partly) the problems on the Somerset levels. Does it really take a catastrophic event before the powers that be realise that some money has to be invested in a necessary project that should have been enacted years ago?
The same can be said for what has happened along the sea wall at Dawlish. If an alternative route had been in place and was in operation the trains would still be running between the south-west and the rest of the country. This is just what this thread is about - an alternative route should unexpected events happen on the southerly route. At the very least, a single line with passing places on the north Dartmoor route even if it was slower, would have maintained the integrity of services with the rest of the country.
The same can be said for what has happened along the sea wall at Dawlish. If an alternative route had been in place and was in operation the trains would still be running between the south-west and the rest of the country. This is just what this thread is about - an alternative route should unexpected events happen on the southerly route. At the very least, a single line with passing places on the north Dartmoor route even if it was slower, would have maintained the integrity of services with the rest of the country.
But the group of local politicians who went to parliament suggested that the most likely option was a short cut-off of 7 miles, 7 chains. Are you seriously suggesting thst this will saeve even fifteen, let alone thirty minutes?
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 804
I'd hope that the eventual decision is sensible, but it's not going to be a simple one.
If a new line is built, whether it be a DAL or re-opening Okehampton - Tavistock, it could be accompanied by a huge increase in house building for commuters along the route. This would stimulate economic development and could provide a big boost to the business case.
There is a big shortage of new houses, and a new transport route enabling people to commute into Plymouth or Exeter could be attractive for some.
Whether this would be a price worth paying for the existing residents of Tavistock or Okehampton, I really don't know.
There also needs to be electrification between Plymouth and Exeter for all sorts of reasons. The faster acceleration of electric trains should help improve journey times, business cases and enable a better mix of through trains and stopping commuter trains. It will be interesting to see how this is factored into a business case for any of the options on the table.
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
Ah but then the publicly owned, operated and non-franchised LUL also gets its share of the savings! It doesn't all get kept by the private franchisee (itself of course often publicly owned - but by a foreign government not ours).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The 'new' Okehampton Exeter service was lost in the recent franchise cock up and might conceivably have started before now if there was any stock available.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ah, thought there was something adrift with the idea that speed could be increased by improving the signalling. It was probably more to do with the idea of trains every half hour between Plymouth and Penzance.
The report by JRC consulting linked above and here https://www.google.co.uk/search?new...j1.2.0....0...1c.1.37.serp..2.0.0.KR5kf6uhJko suggests that with 'local realignment' 110 mph is possible Crediton to North Tawton on the Okehampton route - wonder if other 'local realignments' could up the speed to make this route actually faster than via Dawlish...
Last edited:
I think in ranking the attractiveness of train services, planners look at service interval as well as journey time. So frequency increase results in worst case time to reach destination being reduced at any time you wished to travel.
D1009
Established Member
Whether you agree with them or not, the local representatives are the ones who have the ears of the Government. I somehow doubt Mr Secretary McLoughlin reads this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Careful what you wish for, Virgin may have some spare Voyagers shortly.
Balderdash. You know as well as I do that our entire railway network is hydebound by poor policy and disasterous decisions taken sixty years ago.
Routes which could easily support a well used service are untenable simply pecouse of the disproportionate capital costs of reinstating them.
I'd simply hope that those making the decision have a more comprehensive strategic overview of transport needs in the region than just whether they can get back from parliament/head office five minutes earlier.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Is there not a local campaign group in the area to push the compelling case for the Okehampton route ?
Well unfortunately there is disproportionate cost in re-instating them, but it doesn't alter the fact that the bigger populations of Devon are on the existing rail route and are likely to generate the largest Rail orientated Tourist traffic, and as such should be the priority, any case for Okehampton needs to be primarly justified on the local traffic it will generate not on a Diversion case.
I would also think that you could only really justify a new rail route on the basis of it becoming the mainline rather than a diversion, on any reasonable cost benefit basis.
Last edited:
Cliveblackpool
Member
I envisage a single track railway, using the existing passing loop at Crediton, and full length loops installed at Okehamton, and Tavistock.
Running it in conjunction with the existing cycle/ walk ways, and proposed cycleways etc.
3 TPH in each direction possible, but starting with 2TPH.
(Rolling stock with space for say 30+ cycles?
Concessions for cycle hire at stations) Could bring millions of £'s to the area.
Meldon Viaduct (South) had a concrete deck installed around 1974 to enable heavy lorries access to build Meldon Resevoir. (Now a foot/ cycleway)
Imo the North one is repairable, and far preferable to constructing a new one.
I have had a look at the 1960s timetable for Exeter to Plymouth on the Dartmoor route and there is not much difference in the journey time compared with the current journey time via Dawlish. If the Okehampton route is considered for reinstatement and some track realignment is applied it could become a faster route with a stop time at stations of 1 minute.
LateThanNever
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 1,029
Quite - I think we are getting round to the view that the 'fast' trains could go non stop Exeter to Plymouth and on to Cornwall via Okehampton and the 'slow' trains would go via Dawlish to Torbay and or Plymouth.
Even better, fast trains could go non-stop from Exeter to Newton Abbot via the DAL, and stopping services going via the original route via Dawlish, which would still be available for diversions, before eventually it is forced to close.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I notice that the acronym DAL now has received universal acceptance upon this website.
Congratulations to all those forum members who know the correct spelling of Newton Abbot.
Congratulations to all those forum members who know the correct spelling of Newton Abbot.
But as the DAL was considered in the 1930s and is no longer practical unless a tunnel is constructed directly between Exeter and Newton Abbot. The route over Dartmoor is nearly intact apart from a couple of demolished bridges and other buildings that have been constructed on the original track bed. The northern route could be up and running as an alternative in a much faster time than any new construction for a southern DAL.
Yet we can afford seven miles and seven chains of brand new railway fot no additional benefit than a marginal reduction in journey times.
As an improvement to the mainline has think it considerable benefit, in terms of some reduction in journey time and removing the risk of Dawlish being closed due to storm damage etc.
Many journeys Exeter to Plymouth and beyond are uncompetitive with road, some of the current replacement buses are as fast as the train service to some destinations, and I have photographed specials in Cornwall and then easily beaten them by car to get another photo around such as Starcross, so even moderate journey time improvements would be helpful.
Okehampton route will probably require a subsidy to operate the local service, the least used section in terms of passengers is likely to be the section that costs the most to reinstate, and can we really justify such high cost of a purely diversionary route. I think it would be more cost effective to do nothing or improve sea defences than reopen Okehampton.
Eventually the Dawlish line will become impassable, so unless another route from Exeter to Newton Abbot is built, Exeter will become the railhead for South Devon - in practice, the coach companies will scoop the traffic. Furthermore, a reopened Okehampton line would not survive on Plymouth and Cornwall traffic alone.
L&Y Robert
Member
But a high-maintenance coastal route will, will it?
- Status