Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There won't be a big shortage of DMUs by the time anything is built, as the CP5 electrification programme will release lots of DMUs. Obviously, many of them will be used to get rid of the Pacers, but electrification is much more extensive than that.

Remember there is a difference of thought on the matter of the Class 142 Pacers and the Class 143/144 Pacers.

 

[The Ham]

If as you say the DAL only saves a few mins, and it remains to be seen, then its not going to make any difference to local services going via Dawlish or Torbay expresses for that matter, you could use that logic now to speed up local services and Torbay expresses by not calling at Dawlish and Teignmouth. etc, but there is no current justification for doing that.

I've explained why the DAL is likely to only save a few minutes for the expresses before, in that the existing services take about a minute to travel 1 mile, therefore they are travelling at about 60mph. If the speed of the DAL allows an average speed of 120mph, that's 4 minutes on the DAL (a saving of 4 minutes). There then maybe a little bit more if the route is shorter than the existing (1 minute for each mile shorter) and that would depend on the route taken.

If the existing line is a bit slower then there could be a bit more of a saving, however with the existing HST's getting an average speed of 120mph would be difficult and even if they could they wouldn't be timetabled for those speeds.

If you think that a greater journey time saving could be achieved, can you explain how it would be achieved.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has anything as yet been said "in the real world" ?

 

[MarkyT]

If a new DAL could be engineered significantly shorter than the existing line then even if average speed was no greater there would be a journey time saving. My tunnelling suggestion under the Haldon hills to Newton Abbot would save around 5 miles on the long way round via the coast, so using the mile a minute rule of thumb at average 60MPH that would save 5 minutes alone.

 

[yorksrob]

If a new DAL could be engineered significantly shorter than the existing line then even if average speed was no greater there would be a journey time saving. My tunnelling suggestion under the Haldon hills to Newton Abbot would save around 5 miles on the long way round via the coast, so using the mile a minute rule of thumb at average 60MPH that would save 5 minutes alone.

That doesn't seem to be one of the options on the table with NR though (perhaps the cost would be prohibitive ?).

Their options for a DAL seem to roughly follow the coast slightly inland.

 

[MarkyT]

That doesn't seem to be one of the options on the table with NR though (perhaps the cost would be prohibitive ?).

Their options for a DAL seem to roughly follow the coast slightly inland.

Repeating myself from an earlier post, 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.

The longer of the the 1930s-inspired options would build a similar length of new alignment as my inland route and would be constructed through a more populated landscape, possibly more sensitive to development from an environmental point of view, being nearer the coast. Since GWR surveyed the route both Teignmouth and Dawlish have expanded significantly, which could mean perhaps quite extensive compulsory purchase of residential land, not likely to be popular.

 

[K Macdonald]

Since GWR surveyed the route both Teignmouth and Dawlish have expanded significantly, which could mean perhaps quite extensive compulsory purchase of residential land, not likely to be popular.

Quite right, and there are bound to be plenty of NIMBY's on the proposed route who will inevitably moan loudly and at length in the mainstream media about environmental impact, loss of value of their property, etc. Also objecting to planning permission, causing years of public enquiries and increased costs. No wonder that NR will prefer the least cost option of reopening the LSWR route.

Fortunately the nearest AONBs in Devon are south and east, Teignmouth and Dawlish aren't in an AONB. One less reason to object.

 

[yorksrob]

Repeating myself from an earlier post, see this NR document -

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




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.

That is interesting. I had been looking at the map showing the old Teign Valley route. Whether they're envisaging something as highly engineered and direct as you assume remains to be seen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also objecting to planning permission, causing years of public enquiries and increased costs. No wonder that NR will prefer the least cost option of reopening the LSWR route.

It's also the most sensible option with the greatest potential benefits.

 

[LateThanNever]

That is interesting. I had been looking at the map showing the old Teign Valley route. Whether they're envisaging something as highly engineered and direct as you assume remains to be seen.

Think they'd be mad to rebuild the Teign valley route - the straight bits have become the A377 or the A38 - all the rest is a meandering line which was single track and the Heathfield branch, whilst straight, would need flood prevention work. I suspect the whole thing is also longer than the current Dawlish route. I really cannot see how the route could merit more than cursory consideration.

I agree that the Okehampton route is the most sensible solution!

 

[MarkyT]

Think they'd be mad to rebuild the Teign valley route - the straight bits have become the A377 or the A38 - all the rest is a meandering line which was single track and the Heathfield branch

It wouldn't be the Teign Valley line. My alternative Dawlish Avoiding Line suggestion cuts around five miles from the Exeter to Newton Abbot route by taking a new direct route tunnelling under the Haldon hills, and only connects to existing routes near Teigngrace and Alphington. Although partly reusing the right of way of the old Teign Valley route at its extremities this would actually be entirely new double track construction cutting off the 'Heathfield corner' via the ball clay pits and avoiding the slow winding progression along the valley via Dunsford. Interestingly at around 14 miles this is no greater in length than the longer variants of the GWR 1930s proposals and goes through less populated country, some of it 'brownfield' (the clay pits) and some following the existing busy A38 transport corridor (clearly not actually on old the Teign Valley alignment which is under the road). Like other DAL options this would allow express trains to bypass the coast line, and assumes the old route would continue to exist for local services for the long term foreseeable future. With a significant reduction in the number of trains that have to use the sea wall it should be a great deal easier to obtain safe access for routine and preventive maintenance of the structures, allowing a continuation of the kind of major reconstruction and strengthening we have seen following the recent damage to occur along further stretches into the future and hence this should help to safegaurd the Dawlish route. The existing line is already equipped with 2-way signals that can be used easily to divert westbound trains onto the inner track closest to the cliffs, normally only used for eastbound traffic. This can be used at quiet times now to secure a safe traffic-free worksite for maintaining and repairing the wall, and is useful during emergencies or during very rough seas to simply keep the trains further from the waves. The high level of traffic on the line now means this facility cannot be used very often however, without causing delays. If the expresses were removed to a fast bypass however, there would be many more opportunities available to close one or sometimes both lines for maintenance which might then be carried out in complete safety during the week, not during expensive weekend (noisy!) night shifts when other worksites thoughout the rail network are also competing for scarce manpower and plant.

http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf (updated to v6)

 

[HowardGWR]

It wouldn't be the Teign Valley line. My alternative Dawlish Avoiding Line suggestion cuts around five miles from the Exeter to Newton Abbot route by taking a new direct route tunnelling under the Haldon hills, and only connects to existing routes near Teigngrace and Alphington. Although partly reusing the right of way of the old Teign Valley route at its extremities this would actually be entirely new double track construction cutting off the 'Heathfield corner' via the ball clay pits and avoiding the slow winding progression along the valley via Dunsford. Interestingly at around 14 miles this is no greater in length than the longer variants of the GWR 1930s proposals and goes through less populated country, some of it 'brownfield' (the clay pits) and some following the existing busy A38 transport corridor (clearly not actually on old the Teign Valley alignment which is under the road). Like other DAL options this would allow express trains to bypass the coast line, and assumes the old route would continue to exist for local services for the long term foreseeable future. With a significant reduction in the number of trains that have to use the sea wall it should be a great deal easier to obtain safe access for routine and preventive maintenance of the structures, allowing a continuation of the kind of major reconstruction and strengthening we have seen following the recent damage to occur along further stretches into the future and hence this should help to safegaurd the Dawlish route. The existing line is already equipped with 2-way signals that can be used easily to divert westbound trains onto the inner track closest to the cliffs, normally only used for eastbound traffic. This can be used at quiet times now to secure a safe traffic-free worksite for maintaining and repairing the wall, and is useful during emergencies or during very rough seas to simply keep the trains further from the waves. The high level of traffic on the line now means this facility cannot be used very often however, without causing delays. If the expresses were removed to a fast bypass however, there would be many more opportunities available to close one or sometimes both lines for maintenance which might then be carried out in complete safety during the week, not during expensive weekend (noisy!) night shifts when other worksites thoughout the rail network are also competing for scarce manpower and plant.

http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf (updated to v6)

I am amazed that you still have to be explaining this to people who have not bothered to read previous entries on the thread. Perhaps you could keep a number for this one and then just post 'I refer the honourable poster to the answer I gave 15 times already, the latest of which is found at ....'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am amazed that you still have to be explaining this to people who have not bothered to read previous entries on the thread. Perhaps you could keep a number for this one and then just post 'I refer the honourable poster to the answer I gave 15 times already, the latest of which is found at ....'

Actually I see your new pdf incorporates a suggestion I made - looks good.

 

[LateThanNever]

It wouldn't be the Teign Valley line. My alternative Dawlish Avoiding Line suggestion cuts around five miles from the Exeter to Newton Abbot route by taking a new direct route tunnelling under the Haldon hills, and only connects to existing routes near Teigngrace and Alphington. Although partly reusing the right of way of the old Teign Valley route at its extremities this would actually be entirely new double track construction cutting off the 'Heathfield corner' via the ball clay pits and avoiding the slow winding progression along the valley via Dunsford. Interestingly at around 14 miles this is no greater in length than the longer variants of the GWR 1930s proposals and goes through less populated country, some of it 'brownfield' (the clay pits) and some following the existing busy A38 transport corridor (clearly not actually on old the Teign Valley alignment which is under the road). Like other DAL options this would allow express trains to bypass the coast line, and assumes the old route would continue to exist for local services for the long term foreseeable future. With a significant reduction in the number of trains that have to use the sea wall it should be a great deal easier to obtain safe access for routine and preventive maintenance of the structures, allowing a continuation of the kind of major reconstruction and strengthening we have seen following the recent damage to occur along further stretches into the future and hence this should help to safegaurd the Dawlish route. The existing line is already equipped with 2-way signals that can be used easily to divert westbound trains onto the inner track closest to the cliffs, normally only used for eastbound traffic. This can be used at quiet times now to secure a safe traffic-free worksite for maintaining and repairing the wall, and is useful during emergencies or during very rough seas to simply keep the trains further from the waves. The high level of traffic on the line now means this facility cannot be used very often however, without causing delays. If the expresses were removed to a fast bypass however, there would be many more opportunities available to close one or sometimes both lines for maintenance which might then be carried out in complete safety during the week, not during expensive weekend (noisy!) night shifts when other worksites thoughout the rail network are also competing for scarce manpower and plant.

http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf (updated to v6)

Agree that your proposals are interesting particularly if tunnelling leads to a lack of land purchasing requirements. Although there is going to be quite a bit of upheaval and land purchase required around Marsh Barton/Alphington! But Network Rail seems particularly to cite in their restoring the railway of 19th Feb
"Create a new line connecting existing freight lines from Alphington (near Exeter) and Heathfield (near Newton Abbot)", so they are still going to Heathfield, not Newton Abbot. Suppose if it were shorter and faster you'd get away with single track...Hope you've passed on your ideas to them!

 

[MarkyT]

I am amazed that you still have to be explaining this to people who have not bothered to read previous entries on the thread. Perhaps you could keep a number for this one and then just post 'I refer the honourable poster to the answer I gave 15 times already, the latest of which is found at ....'
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually I see your new pdf incorporates a suggestion I made - looks good.

Yes thanks for that suggestion. The necessity to restate the arguments at least allows me the opportunity to polish them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...Hope you've passed on your ideas to them!

I wrote to SoS for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin and his office replied to say they had passed my ideas on to NR. I subsequently had confirmation from NRs community relations unit they had received the information.

 

[jmc100]

Agree that your proposals are interesting particularly if tunnelling leads to a lack of land purchasing requirements. Although there is going to be quite a bit of upheaval and land purchase required around Marsh Barton/Alphington! But Network Rail seems particularly to cite in their restoring the railway of 19th Feb
"Create a new line connecting existing freight lines from Alphington (near Exeter) and Heathfield (near Newton Abbot)", so they are still going to Heathfield, not Newton Abbot. Suppose if it were shorter and faster you'd get away with single track...Hope you've passed on your ideas to them!

Earlier in the thread I also suggested a route under Haldon but my version was for a two-track tunnel with less gradients than MarkyT's version. The entry point would be just south of Exminster and the exit point slightly south-east of Newton Abbot.

In my version the tunnel would be straight with no curves to allow for maximum speed to decrease journey times. The height of the tunnel would also allow for future electrification. A tunnel is the best idea for a DAL as only a very small number of land permissions and acquisitions would be required.

 

[yorksrob]

I am amazed that you still have to be explaining this to people who have not bothered to read previous entries on the thread. Perhaps you could keep a number for this one and then just post 'I refer the honourable poster to the answer I gave 15 times already, the latest of which is found at ....'

Perhaps if the report quoted by the BBC had included the correct diagram !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It strikes me that the Okehampton route needs a proper, high profile reopening campaign along the lines of SELRAP. It needs to have the force to counter Plymouth City Council and its misguided sense of priorities.

 

[D1009]

Perhaps if the report quoted by the BBC had included the correct diagram !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It strikes me that the Okehampton route needs a proper, high profile reopening campaign along the lines of SELRAP. It needs to have the force to counter Plymouth City Council and its misguided sense of priorities.

Possibly Plymouth City Council's sense of priorities may have been considered on what is best for Plymouth, which coincidentally is also what is best for Cornwall, rather than what is best for Tavistock or Okehampton?

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly Plymouth City Council's sense of priorities may have been considered on what is best for Plymouth, which coincidentally is also what is best for Cornwall, rather than what is best for Tavistock or Okehampton?

Certainly not best for Plymouth or Cornwall as far as I can see. Best for businessmen wanting to get somewhere five minutes earlier perhaps.

 

[D1009]

Certainly not best for Plymouth or Cornwall as far as I can see. Best for businessmen wanting to get somewhere five minutes earlier perhaps.

Well at risk of the thread going round in even more circles, they believe the SW of England has not had the improvement in services to and from London that the north of England and Scotland has had in recent years, and they believe a new faster line between Exeter and Plymouth should be created as a part of a general upgrade of the entire GW line from Paddington. They do not see reinstatement of the Okehampton route as adding anything to that vision. That does not mean that the Okehampton route shouldn't be reinstated, just that it should not be seen as the solution to the Dawlish problem.

 

[yorksrob]

Well at risk of the thread going round in even more circles, they believe the SW of England has not had the improvement in services to and from London that the north of England and Scotland has had in recent years, and they believe a new faster line between Exeter and Plymouth should be created as a part of a general upgrade of the entire GW line from Paddington. They do not see reinstatement of the Okehampton route as adding anything to that vision. That does not mean that the Okehampton route shouldn't be reinstated, just that it should not be seen as the solution to the Dawlish problem.

Well they've been sitting around in parliament complaining to all and sundry how terrible it is to be cut off from the rest of the network, all the while lobbying furiously against the one solution which is most likely to ensure that the West Country isn't cut off in future, because it duplicates the greatest length of main line.

Perhaps they ought to raise the issue of line speeds in a committee dealing with line speeds, rather than one dealing with resilience.

And if they're really as concerned about a proper evaluation of the routes as they claim, perhaps they should let NR get on with it, rather than lobbying every Tom Dick and Harry at every opportunity.

 

[LateThanNever]

Well at risk of the thread going round in even more circles, they believe the SW of England has not had the improvement in services to and from London that the north of England and Scotland has had in recent years, and they believe a new faster line between Exeter and Plymouth should be created as a part of a general upgrade of the entire GW line from Paddington. They do not see reinstatement of the Okehampton route as adding anything to that vision. That does not mean that the Okehampton route shouldn't be reinstated, just that it should not be seen as the solution to the Dawlish problem.

That is correct of course with regard to other rail improvements. But as far as Plymouth Council is concerned, if politics is the art of the possible then surely they could achieve better support and get a faster route that ALSO serves other communities ie Okehampton at the same time - which would give their point of view an altruistic bent which might enhance their side of the argument!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes thanks for that suggestion. The necessity to restate the arguments at least allows me the opportunity to polish them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I wrote to SoS for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin and his office replied to say they had passed my ideas on to NR. I subsequently had confirmation from NRs community relations unit they had received the information.

Excellent show! Mind you the community relations unit sounds a bit Orwellian. We do after all, now , I think, or if not very soon will, pay their wages!

 

[HowardGWR]

Well they've been sitting around in parliament complaining to all and sundry how terrible it is to be cut off from the rest of the network, all the while lobbying furiously against the one solution which is most likely to ensure that the West Country isn't cut off in future, because it duplicates the greatest length of main line.

Perhaps they ought to raise the issue of line speeds in a committee dealing with line speeds, rather than one dealing with resilience.

And if they're really as concerned about a proper evaluation of the routes as they claim, perhaps they should let NR get on with it, rather than lobbying every Tom Dick and Harry at every opportunity.

All they've done so far is turn up to a HoC Committee meeting. It all depends on the value of the NR report, which may be some time coming, not on a rather emotionally charged publicity stunt from a Welshman in Plymouth (I have met Cllr Tudor Evans and he's a good bloke but no railway expert).

 

[tbtc]

It strikes me that the Okehampton route needs a proper, high profile reopening campaign along the lines of SELRAP. It needs to have the force to counter Plymouth City Council and its misguided sense of priorities

You mean that Plymouth want a better/ faster/ more resilient year-round service to Exeter (and on to Bristol, London, Birmingham etc) ahead of a scenic route via Okehampton? Same would go for a number of people in Cornwall, I'd guess?

If you can build the seven mile single track siding from Bere Alston to Tavistock for the reported £25m then the need for the remainder of the Okehampton idea seems fairly slim.

But, as I've been trying to explain on this thread, the merits of Bere Alston - Tavistock and the merits of giving Okehampton a week-round service can be assessed on their own, rather than trying to crow-bar them into a magic solution for the Dawlish problem (which could be better solved by a faster inland route, offering year-round benefits).

 

[yorksrob]

If you can build the seven mile single track siding from Bere Alston to Tavistock for the reported £25m then the need for the remainder of the Okehampton idea seems fairly slim.

I don't know where you get that logic from. There will be a demand for transport North of Tavistock regardless of the cost of the line to the South of Tavistock. If anything, a relatively cost effective link to the South will make it more likely that the route North can be reinstated for a reasonable price.

But, as I've been trying to explain on this thread, the merits of Bere Alston - Tavistock and the merits of giving Okehampton a week-round service can be assessed on their own, rather than trying to crow-bar them into a magic solution for the Dawlish problem (which could be better solved by a faster inland route, offering year-round benefits).

Surely the benefits of raising speeds on the main line should be justifiable on their own merits, rather than having to be shoe-horned into a discussion about resilience, which, afterall should be about the solution most likely to keep the West Country connected to the network in the widest range of adverse circumstances.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All they've done so far is turn up to a HoC Committee meeting. It all depends on the value of the NR report, which may be some time coming, not on a rather emotionally charged publicity stunt from a Welshman in Plymouth (I have met Cllr Tudor Evans and he's a good bloke but no railway expert).

And write a letter to the prime minister trying to prejudge the outcome of the study.

Still, as you say, it should be down to NR's report.

 

[The Ham]

You mean that Plymouth want a better/ faster/ more resilient year-round service to Exeter (and on to Bristol, London, Birmingham etc) ahead of a scenic route via Okehampton? Same would go for a number of people in Cornwall, I'd guess?

If you can build the seven mile single track siding from Bere Alston to Tavistock for the reported £25m then the need for the remainder of the Okehampton idea seems fairly slim.

But, as I've been trying to explain on this thread, the merits of Bere Alston - Tavistock and the merits of giving Okehampton a week-round service can be assessed on their own, rather than trying to crow-bar them into a magic solution for the Dawlish problem (which could be better solved by a faster inland route, offering year-round benefits).

As has been pointed out before the route via Okehampton could be better, faster, more resilient and provide new connections to the rail network and a wider range of destinations with a direct link or with one change a link to Plymouth and Cornwall.

The issue with the DAL with regards to speed is that it's only short so will have to run very fast and/or shorten the route to go of much benefit. While the Okehampton route can be of the same length and just increase the speed a bit over the whole length to see similar journey time savings.

It maybe worth NR looking at a "cheap" route through Okehampton which takes about the same length of time as the existing route with then a programme of work (including the DAL) to try and get the journey time down as much as possible (using the diversion via Okehampton while they carry out the works). Then comparing the cost/benefits of not building via Okehampton while carrying out the same upgrades. Then finally comparing doing almost everything they can via Okehampton in terms of costs and benefits (including the suggested chord to bypass Exeter for some services), as it would be good to see what the best realistic journey times via the various options would be and for what cost and the sort of disruption it would cause.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Reopening the Okehampton route would be, without doubt, the best for Cornwall, and West Devon.
Two rail lines into Cornwall. Giving N Cornwall much easier access to rail services. Maybe a line to Launceston one day (dream)
Torbay. Would you board/ alight a sleeper at Newton Abbott (ZZzzzzzz), and travel via Okehampton to London, or prefer a RRB to Exeter/ Tiverton Parkway/ No sleeper during a closure at Dawlish?
Plymouth would benefit from a faster service.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I hardly think the sleeper should be used as justification for a new route being opened...

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I hardly think the sleeper should be used as justification for a new route being opened...

True, but MP's might like that idea !

 

[Halsebee]

One reason given against the Okehampton route is the double reversal for Cornwall Paddington expresses. I understand why this is needed, and understand it is operationally inconvenient, and slows things down. But, as a member of the public, with no knowledge of the logistics of railway operation, it doesn't seem to me to be that much of big deal, and surely would be reasonable price to pay and I can't see why it should be used as a negative argument. Happy to have some experts put me straight on this if I am misunderstanding something.

 

[yorksrob]

One reason given against the Okehampton route is the double reversal for Cornwall Paddington expresses. I understand why this is needed, and understand it is operationally inconvenient, and slows things down. But, as a member of the public, with no knowledge of the logistics of railway operation, it doesn't seem to me to be that much of big deal, and surely would be reasonable price to pay and I can't see why it should be used as a negative argument. Happy to have some experts put me straight on this if I am misunderstanding something.

You‘re quite right. Reversals happen everyday on scheduled services at places such as Reading, Eastbourne, Birmingham New Street, Castleford, Manchester Piccadilly etc. There will be a small time penalty associated with doubling back, but nothing as problematic as some claim.

 

[47802]

You‘re quite right. Reversals happen everyday on scheduled services at places such as Reading, Eastbourne, Birmingham New Street, Castleford, Manchester Piccadilly etc. There will be a small time penalty associated with doubling back, but nothing as problematic as some claim.

I wouldn't nessearly say its problematic however there will be a time penalty possibility of more congestion in such as Exeter station, and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the approach to Plymouth station from the west single track as well?

You also have the advantage that many trains which don't need to stop in the stations such a Reading, Birmingham etc. such as Freight, Charters, Holiday Expresses can take an avoiding line without the need to reverse.