Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[HowardGWR]

One is the Network Rail page on Dawlish repairs which has a different webcam that takes pictures of the site. The photo at top of page changes.

The other is RailCams Dawlish beach Cam which is not focused exactly on the site.

I cannot link as i am in uni, but if you have not found them, or no one else links them i will do when i get home.

Ta.

With your descriptive help, I found them both, thanks very much.

They are

https://www.facebook.com/dawlishbeach/app_142371818162

and

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetables-and-travel/storm-damage/dawlish/

 

[LateThanNever]

Buses only go so far at indicating whether a rail service is viable. Especially if, as has been pointed out, a bus to Exeter and then to Plymouth is faster than the direct bus was (although over half the bus services take between 2.25 hours and 3 hours with there being about a 2 hour gap between those being as quick as 2 hours).

If there was a service which got people from Okehampton to Plymouth in (say) 45 minutes then that would mean that it would be quicker to use the train than drive (even 55 minutes would make it comparable) whilst going by bus is at least twice as long. That would attract a lot more people to use the train than currently use the bus.

Again, although the DAL is likely to be faster than the existing route, it is not going to be by very much. Therefore you do not need many people making a significant time saving to offset that advantage. If the route through Okehampton can achieve a journey time of comparable to that of the existing route then, even on the two hour bus journey to Plymouth from Okehampton that could be a journey time saving of about 1.25 hours.

As I said previously it is unlikely to offset all the benefit of a 10 minutes* saving on the DAL. However it could make enough of a difference that the route through Okehampton has a better business case than the case for the DAL, especially given the other advantages which the route through Okehampton could have (including the possibility that it could give the DAL a run for its money).


*Although that is assuming that 10 minutes is achievable. Given that an average speed of 90mph over 8 miles is a time saving of 2 minutes over a train travelling an average speed of 60mph over the same length. Even an average speed of 120mph only saves 4 minutes. Therefore for the just over 7 miles of new track to save 10 minutes of journey time the trains would have to be timetabled to run at 120mph AND cut 6 miles off the length of existing route.

This could be achievable if the DAL went almost straight between Exeter and Newton Abbot, however this is not one of the options listed by NR in their documentation about the options being looked at. As such it is likely that any journey time savings from the schemes being looked at by NR would be less than this.

Agree time saving would be negligible without a direct route and it's a bit ironic to swish you to Newton Abbot at 120mph only to have to throw out the parachute for the 40mph grind up, down and round about the Devon banks! A ten minute saving on what is now an hour's journey would bring Plymouth Exeter timings down to what is reliably possible by car.
But you'd still be keeping the Dawlish route open for local traffic so to me it would make better sense all round to open a Northern alternative route which actually goes somewhere as well and, given the will, can (I surmise) be made significantly faster than the Dawlish route.

 

[Gadfly]

Agree time saving would be negligible without a direct route and it's a bit ironic to swish you to Newton Abbot at 120mph only to have to throw out the parachute for the 40mph grind up, down and round about the Devon banks! A ten minute saving on what is now an hour's journey would bring Plymouth Exeter timings down to what is reliably possible by car.
But you'd still be keeping the Dawlish route open for local traffic so to me it would make better sense all round to open a Northern alternative route which actually goes somewhere as well and, given the will, can (I surmise) be made significantly faster than the Dawlish route.

We seem to be going round in circles here - surely the point is that if it is thought that the sea-wall route will eventually become impassable, a replacement route will be needed, even though the old route will be kept for as long as practicable. The new route will have to be from Exeter to Newton Abbot, so a reopened Okehampton line would be irrelevant.

 

[po8crg]

If people are throwing money around to avoid places that regularly cause problems, why not Cowley Bridge Junction?

The line follows the route of the Culm and the Exe for rather a long distance, which is surely part of why it's so vulnerable to flooding.

How about a connection along the M5 from the old Hele and Bradnich station to the ex-LSWR line near Pinhoe? You'd have to double the section of the ex-LSWR line from the new junction into Exeter, and you'd have the problem of reversing at St Davids, but you'd certainly avoid that flooding problem at Cowley Bridge.

You certainly have the advantage of building entirely along an existing transport corridor.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . Therefore for the just over 7 miles of new track to save 10 minutes of journey time the trains would have to be timetabled to run at 120mph AND cut 6 miles off the length of existing route.

This could be achievable if the DAL went almost straight between Exeter and Newton Abbot, however this is not one of the options listed by NR in their documentation about the options being looked at. As such it is likely that any journey time savings from the schemes being looked at by NR would be less than this.

See this NR document -

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

(page 12)
Alternative route options (1)

We need to be thorough and provide long-term solution for the railway.
Currently we are taking views and exploring all options.

Suggested options include:

a) Reinstate the Okehampton line (between Plymouth-Exeter, via Okehampton), which closed in 1967
b) Create a new line connecting existing freight lines from Alphington (near Exeter) and Heathfield (near Newton Abbot)
c) Options between Newton Abbot and Exeter (with new tunnels) –
but current level of trains via Dawlish route could be maintained
i) Exminster – Newton Abbot
ii) Starcross – Newton Abbot
iii) Dawlish Warren – Newton Abbot
d) Make the coastal railway more resilient

Option (b) suggest a direct new route between the remaining former Teign Valley stubs, although the accompanying diagram on page 13 traces the old Teign Valley route.

Note that the qualification stated in (c) about local trains remaining on the Dawlish route could apply equally to the more direct route.

 

[LateThanNever]

We seem to be going round in circles here - surely the point is that if it is thought that the sea-wall route will eventually become impassable, a replacement route will be needed, even though the old route will be kept for as long as practicable. The new route will have to be from Exeter to Newton Abbot, so a reopened Okehampton line would be irrelevant.

I would say that the point is we need an alternative that can be delivered quickly which is the Okehampton route as it is half built already! A new route to Newton Abbot- if it's going to help speed up journeys at all - would need to avoid Dawlish and Teignmouth, which I think would survive as a local route with local trains driven effectively as trams during bad weather, whilst another local solution is found.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If people are throwing money around to avoid places that regularly cause problems, why not Cowley Bridge Junction?

The line follows the route of the Culm and the Exe for rather a long distance, which is surely part of why it's so vulnerable to flooding.

How about a connection along the M5 from the old Hele and Bradnich station to the ex-LSWR line near Pinhoe? You'd have to double the section of the ex-LSWR line from the new junction into Exeter, and you'd have the problem of reversing at St Davids, but you'd certainly avoid that flooding problem at Cowley Bridge.

You certainly have the advantage of building entirely along an existing transport corridor.

Cowley Bridge has already had £6 -12m allocated for its solution!

 

[jmc100]

We seem to be going round in circles here - surely the point is that if it is thought that the sea-wall route will eventually become impassable, a replacement route will be needed, even though the old route will be kept for as long as practicable. The new route will have to be from Exeter to Newton Abbot, so a reopened Okehampton line would be irrelevant.

As I have said previously the long-term solution is a tunnel between Exeter and Newton Abbot but how long would it take to complete the structure?

In the short-term the Okehampton route is the most viable proposition as the majority of the route is intact with only a few bridges missing and some structures in the way at Tavistock.

Another consideration is the safety issue. I have been searching for photos of the Dawlish sea wall going back to the time Brunel constructed it and the area has always been subject to overwash from rough weather. I would think at times it must have been very scary travelling along that route with huge waves hitting the sea wall and then washing over the train.

 

[yorksrob]

We seem to be going round in circles here - surely the point is that if it is thought that the sea-wall route will eventually become impassable, a replacement route will be needed, even though the old route will be kept for as long as practicable. The new route will have to be from Exeter to Newton Abbot, so a reopened Okehampton line would be irrelevant.

I don't think it's at all agreed that the Dawlish Route will become impassable. The only point of agreement is that severe weather events are likely to become more frequent and this is likely to mean that Dawlish may be out of action more frequently.

Whether the line becomes impassable would depend on whether it was decided to give up defending that location from the sea, and that would involve deciding whether to give up Dawlish as a settlement altogether.

 

[Gadfly]

As I have said previously the long-term solution is a tunnel between Exeter and Newton Abbot but how long would it take to complete the structure?

In the short-term the Okehampton route is the most viable proposition as the majority of the route is intact with only a few bridges missing and some structures in the way at Tavistock.

Another consideration is the safety issue. I have been searching for photos of the Dawlish sea wall going back to the time Brunel constructed it and the area has always been subject to overwash from rough weather. I would think at times it must have been very scary travelling along that route with huge waves hitting the sea wall and then washing over the train.

So you seem to be agreeing that the sea-wall section will need to be replaced. I am baffled however why you think the Okehampton route is worth considering when it is obviously no use at all for Newton Abbot and Torbay, the major traffic centres in south Devon.

 

[MarkyT]

I don't think it's at all agreed that the Dawlish Route will become impassable. The only point of agreement is that severe weather events are likely to become more frequent and this is likely to mean that Dawlish may be out of action more frequently.

Whether the line becomes impassable would depend on whether it was decided to give up defending that location from the sea, and that would involve deciding whether to give up Dawlish as a settlement altogether.

Very well said. The line has only been in existence for around 160 years and should persist, along with the towns it developed and now protects, for the foreseeable future. The fact that trains could be diverted elsewhere or that traffic could be reduced substantially by an inland bypass could potentially allow easier access for future routine and preventive maintenance, strengthening and reconstructing the assets repeatedly over the next 160 years.

 

[yorksrob]

Very well said. The line has only been in existence for around 160 years and should persist, along with the towns it developed and now protects, for the foreseeable future. The fact that trains could be diverted elsewhere or that traffic could be reduced substantially by an inland bypass could potentially allow easier access for future routine and preventive maintenance, strengthening and reconstructing the assets repeatedly over the next 160 years.

Quite.

Of course, how far inland that diversion should be, and what additional benefits should flow thereof are the interesting questions.

 

[simon.exd]

If you are in part referencing my suggestion to provide a chord from Hele to Pinhoe, then perhaps you've misunderstood one of the objectives. The flooding from Stoke Canon to Cowley Bridge that you refer to is the very problem I am proposing provide a means of avoiding!

Do I think my proposal will happen? No (this is Devon). Is this a forum? Yes. Do I think my proposal would have low environmental impact alongside the M5? Yes. Would it bring benefits greater than could currently be offered (eg the access to Exeter Central on a through service) to reopened stations at the rapidly expanding Wellington and Cullompton, which are already proposed? Yes.

Not at all friend.. its a fair suggestion.. stations at Cullompton and Wellington is a wonderful idea... that had to happen..

But an avoiding line to miss out the Cullompton to Exeter section wouldnt be needed if the rivers were dredged.. most of the streams and gullys are silted up, there is all kinds if debris in the local rivers... Everytime there is heavy rain more silt and crap is washed down the Exe.. if you look at the route of the Exe, around Stoke Canon and Cowley there are a number of twists and turns.. everytime the river bends, the water slows down and deposits the aforementioned silt and crap..
the riverbed proper is no longer visible..

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think it's at all agreed that the Dawlish Route will become impassable. The only point of agreement is that severe weather events are likely to become more frequent and this is likely to mean that Dawlish may be out of action more frequently. Whether the line becomes impassable would depend on whether it was decided to give up defending that location from the sea, and that would involve deciding whether to give up Dawlish as a settlement altogether.

One needs to remember what exactly was the level of coastal devastation caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, when looking at what future damage may be caused to the Dawlish coastline and its coastal settlements.

I do not recall any recent images of large sea-going cargo ships being left beached in the middle of the town of Dawlish after the recent winter storms.

 

[jmc100]

We seem to be going round in circles here - surely the point is that if it is thought that the sea-wall route will eventually become impassable, a replacement route will be needed, even though the old route will be kept for as long as practicable. The new route will have to be from Exeter to Newton Abbot, so a reopened Okehampton line would be irrelevant.

But a re-opened Okehampton route would not become irrelevant. It would still remain as an alternative to the main southern route as it would serve the towns and villages north of Dartmoor and North Cornwall that at present have no rail connections where there used to be a rail infrastructure up to the 1960s. At present the easiest solution is to restore the Okehampton route. This would allow time for planning and constructing a direct Exeter tp Newton Abbot alternative.

I think one of the main problems with the sea wall is inadequate drainage. The structure under the track bed is not capable of getting rid of the water that washes over the wall fast enough and therefore builds up pressure behind the wall. The wash-outs that happened this year could have happened at any time in the past when there was a very rough sea. Looking at the livestream video when there is a high tide one can see that if there was storm-force conditions the sea would wash over the wall like it always has done in the past. Even Mr. Brunel was faced with similar wash-out problems back in the 1800s so it is not something new.

 

[The Ham]

So you seem to be agreeing that the sea-wall section will need to be replaced. I am baffled however why you think the Okehampton route is worth considering when it is obviously no use at all for Newton Abbot and Torbay, the major traffic centres in south Devon.

...other than Plymouth!

The point being that although the route through Okehampton is of little use to Newton Abbot and Torbay no one is saying that they would be left without a railway (other than during times when the route through Dawlish is closed, in which case if that is a regular occurrence than something should have been done a long time ago).

The big problem with the DAL is that it doesn't bring that many benefits (a little bit faster, but then probably not much more so than changing the HST's to 220's or 222's and a lot less than changing them to 221's with tilting sections; either of which would be cheaper even if it required a new build of rolling stock) and it then runs the risk of the settlements loosing some of their services once it is built (i.e. how likely would it be that XC would carrying on using the existing route if they don't need to?).

By the very fact that Newton Abbot and Torbay create a lot of the passengers which go that way they will apply a lot of pressure on the TOC's to bypass the coastal route with as many of the local services as they can, especially if the coastal route isn't electrified and the line to Exmouth has a good case for electrification otherwise.

If however we wait (say) 30 years before building the DAL the number of passengers (and therefore services) could be enough that loosing a significant number of the services which run along the current line through Dawlish would still leave that line with a reasonable level of service (say still an hourly service) and also by then the existing route could have been electrified which would reduce the risk of local services being cut from the line.

 

[yorksrob]

One needs to remember what exactly was the level of coastal devastation caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, when looking at what future damage may be caused to the Dawlish coastline and its coastal settlements.

I do not recall any recent images of large sea-going cargo ships being left beached in the middle of the town of Dawlish after the recent winter storms.

Indeed. I think even though a policy of "managed retreat" may become more likely over the next century, it will consist of remote coastal areas, rather than places like Dawlish with large populations and major transport links.

Dawlish ain't going nowhere.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. I think even though a policy of "managed retreat" may become more likely over the next century, it will consist of remote coastal areas, rather than places like Dawlish with large populations and major transport links.

Dawlish ain't going nowhere.

Although the line through Dawlish may remain for some time to come there would come a point before that where maintaining it as a double mainline would become uneconomic. For instance it is one thing to be running a hourly or half hourly service just to serve the stations between Exeter and Newton Abbot, it's quite another to be running all the services west of Exeter along the line, especially if there were to be up to 10 services an hour each way (which maybe required within the next 100 years, depending on future passenger growth, as at present there are about 5 an hour).

 

[drinnicksiding]

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.

I've been reading the aspiration of the Tarka Rail Association is for the Crediton loop to be extended to, but crossing over before Yeoford and Newton St Cyres - neither stations patronage seemingly merits the cost of a second platform.

But seeing that Crediton to Eggesford is controlled by token, would the exchange not have to occur away from Crediton signal box? Or would such a change in track layout mean a signalling overhaul anyway? I'm not sure how it would work without potentially having stop at Newton, Crediton, Yeoford/coleford just to exchange tokens

 

[Gadfly]

...other than Plymouth!

The point being that although the route through Okehampton is of little use to Newton Abbot and Torbay no one is saying that they would be left without a railway (other than during times when the route through Dawlish is closed, in which case if that is a regular occurrence than something should have been done a long time ago).

The big problem with the DAL is that it doesn't bring that many benefits (a little bit faster, but then probably not much more so than changing the HST's to 220's or 222's and a lot less than changing them to 221's with tilting sections; either of which would be cheaper even if it required a new build of rolling stock) and it then runs the risk of the settlements loosing some of their services once it is built (i.e. how likely would it be that XC would carrying on using the existing route if they don't need to?).

By the very fact that Newton Abbot and Torbay create a lot of the passengers which go that way they will apply a lot of pressure on the TOC's to bypass the coastal route with as many of the local services as they can, especially if the coastal route isn't electrified and the line to Exmouth has a good case for electrification otherwise.

If however we wait (say) 30 years before building the DAL the number of passengers (and therefore services) could be enough that loosing a significant number of the services which run along the current line through Dawlish would still leave that line with a reasonable level of service (say still an hourly service) and also by then the existing route could have been electrified which would reduce the risk of local services being cut from the line.

A DAL would improve the resilience of the railway for Cornwall, Plymouth, Totnes etc as well as Torbay and Newton Abbot. Therefore it is preferable to the Okehampton route.

 

[jmc100]

A DAL would improve the resilience of the railway for Cornwall, Plymouth, Totnes etc as well as Torbay and Newton Abbot. Therefore it is preferable to the Okehampton route.

I would agree with your comment 100% but which route do you think could be implemented in the short-term to keep the trains running between Exeter and the south-west?

 

[83G/84D]

Local TV last night featured an article on the Teign Valley route from Heathfield to where it would join the existing line at Alphington.

The route has steep gradients and in most places only single track is possible. The reporter mentioned a bricked up tunnel which was closed due to flooding and a partial collapse so might be too much of a hurdle to re-open this line.

As the Heathfield branch is regularly flooded near Newton Abbot racecourse I think the cost of flood prevention measures and tunnel repairs might be prohibitive.

 

[jmc100]

Here is another snippet of information, but does anyone recognise the station?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....tory-20789960-detail/story.html#ixzz2vqPIkXwF

 

[The Ham]

A DAL would improve the resilience of the railway for Cornwall, Plymouth, Totnes etc as well as Torbay and Newton Abbot. Therefore it is preferable to the Okehampton route.

Is it still preferable if it means that the coastal stations which are bypassed by the DAL end up with a much poorer service (which was the point I was making)?

Also, if the resilience of the railway is so bad that the few settlements which would loose out a lot if the alternative route was through Okehampton then something should have been done a long time ago! Although by the time it is (possibly 30 or more years from now) there could well be a lot more passengers (35 years of 2% growth doubles the number of passengers) so the cost benefit of 5 to 10 minutes of journey saving could justify building the DAL at a later date.

 

[yorksrob]

Here is another snippet of information, but does anyone recognise the station?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....tory-20789960-detail/story.html#ixzz2vqPIkXwF

That really is excellent news.

I think the points that Mr Stride needs to hammer home to the South Devon MP's (not to mention Plymouth Council) are that:

• A short Dawlish route will not keep plymouth and the South West linked to the network during the myriad of engineering works, land slips operational incidents etc that can happen anywhere between Plymouth and Exeter

• The time improvement produced by a 7 mile, 7 chain cut-off will be marginal at best

• Connectivity benefits to the area including Tavistock and Okehampton have the potential to far outweigh those of any other route

• The infrastructure of the route largely remains in place.

Torbay area mp's are unlikely to be convinced, however there are considerable potential benefits to Plymouth in particular, so it's establishment needs to be worked on as well as Cornwall.

 

[YorkshireBear]

What is it with your obsession that the rest of the route is constantly closed? Landslips where????

 

[yorksrob]

What is it with your obsession that the rest of the route is constantly closed? Landslips where????

All routes everywhere are constantly closed. Have you never tried travelling anywhere on a weekend ?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes but we cannot duplicate every single line.... :/

If we reopened the Okehampton route then it would be around 1 hour slower for people than just changing onto buses... And i really think 300-500 million is alot for a weekend and occasional diversion route.

 

[MarkyT]

Is it still preferable if it means that the coastal stations which are bypassed by the DAL end up with a much poorer service (which was the point I was making)?

Regular calls at Dawlish and Teignmouth now (soon!) are made mostly by local FGW Paignton - Exmouth trains, with a handful of longer distance FGW and XC stops. Longer distance calls at these stations increase marginally on summer Saturdays and at other peak times, but all that could continue to be accommodated on the coast which could be retained in place exactly as it is, with double track throughout. Scheduling the local services along the corridor would become a great deal easier without fast trains continually chasing them. Likewise with no local trains to constrain them, the capacity and flexibility of the new fast lines for expresses would be a dramatic improvement over the existing arrangement.

 

[jmc100]

Yes but we cannot duplicate every single line.... :/

If we reopened the Okehampton route then it would be around 1 hour slower for people than just changing onto buses... And i really think 300-500 million is alot for a weekend and occasional diversion route.

I don't know how you work out that it would be 1 hour slower. Please explain?

The sum of 300-500 million projected over 25 or 30 years for the reinstatement of a railway line that should never have closed in the first place is peanuts compared to some other projected projects. Although the Okehampton route would be used as an alternative to the main line running along the coast it would still have its own traffic and probably some through expresses from Waterloo to Plymouth and/or Penzance that could make a return journey along the Torbay/Dawlish route if necessary.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't know how you work out that it would be 1 hour slower. Please explain?

The sum of 300-500 million projected over 25 or 30 years for the reinstatement of a railway line that should never have closed in the first place is peanuts compared to some other projected projects. Although the Okehampton route would be used as an alternative to the main line running along the coast it would still have its own traffic and probably some through expresses from Waterloo to Plymouth and/or Penzance that could make a return journey along the Torbay/Dawlish route if necessary.

I cant remember where i read it, i believe it was in that PHD paper linked to earlier in the thread which was in turn referenced from studies of the route by various parties. It was around 50 minutes slower than existing line which the bus service is 10-15 minutes quicker than. So around an hour slower.

It is not peanuts at all it is a lot of money for what i feel would be very small benefits. Okehampton does not require a rail link to Plymouth and Tavistock does not require a rail link to Exeter.