Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[LateThanNever]

Yes I agree, but I thought putting the question could help. It's the lack of goods traffic (at present) to the west country that makes the difference. I think Plymouth to Exeter via Okehampton scores heavily on social and environmental benefits and more so than the CWL or S-C. This is aside of course from its credentials as a strategic alternative route.

At present and in the future I fear. Who would feel confident in making any new investment in freight flows when you might be back to square one next winter? Chicken and egg!

 

[swt_passenger]

Particularly when considering the loss to the local economy was £20m per week (or day?) I recall...

That suspiciously round (and large) figure was impossible to justify at the time, and is probably still impossible to justify.

The idea that areas were somehow seriously 'cut off' from the rest of the country ignores the reality of the A38 and A30 etc...

 

[LateThanNever]

That suspiciously round (and large) figure was impossible to justify at the time, and is probably still impossible to justify.

The idea that areas were somehow seriously 'cut off' from the rest of the country ignores the reality of the A38 and A30 etc...

There is tho' no etc!
The etcetera is the railway.

 

[John S2]

Readers of the forum may recall that I posted just a couple of days before the line was closed earlier this year. I stated that it was only a matter of time before the line ended up in the sea. I didn't envisage things happening quite that soon but the reasoning was based on solid climate science.
Sea level is rising quickly [by historical standards] due to a combination of thermal expansion and melting of ice that sits on land. Not only is a certain amount of future rise locked in due to inertia of the system, but things are currenly being made worse as we allow the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to continue to rise.
Given this background, I found the tone of the Network Rail report narrow, shortsighted, and complacent. It does mention in the middle of the report a prediction that sea level will rise 0.8m by 2100 but the tone of the report is a head in the sand macho attitude - ie we can engineer our way out of problems we are collectively creating.
It is simply not acceptable to embark on a course of action that will inevitably lead to such a large area being cut off from the rail network again. [For the record, I do not live near SW England]

 

[HSTEd]

Building the sea wall protecting the railway a metre higher would deal with the sea level rise problem from the next hundred years.

Unless you are simply proposing to abandon Dawlish and half a dozen places?
Where would all those people move to?

And we can engineer our way out of these problems, if someone was concerned with doing that rather than blowing money on pointless trinkets like diversion routes that will almost never be used.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Building the sea wall protecting the railway a metre higher would deal with the sea level rise problem from the next hundred years.

Unless you are simply proposing to abandon Dawlish and half a dozen places?
Where would all those people move to?

And we can engineer our way out of these problems, if someone was concerned with doing that rather than blowing money on pointless trinkets like diversion routes that will almost never be used.

A modern railway? - The route through South Devon should be improved, and in the next 30 years a 125mph electrified route between Newton Abbot and Exeter should be commissioned.

Business case?
Put it this way a lot of businesses, or ones proposing to locate in Devon & Cornwall will now be considering the effect on their company when the railway is again cut between Newton Abbott and Exeter.
Luckily for the China Clay company it does not rely on rail! A timely reminder.
Business case? lol
The effect the reopening of the LSWR through Devon will boost the economy of Devon and North Cornwall considerably, with Plymouth and Exeter areas becoming even more popular. 'Green' tourism on Dartmoor could bring millions a year alone.
And an alternative route through Devon for Plymouth & Cornwall.
But spending the money in high population areas eg South East is more cost effective?

 

[LateThanNever]

Building the sea wall protecting the railway a metre higher would deal with the sea level rise problem from the next hundred years.

You can go as high as you like but that doesn't prevent the wall being undermined!
Nor does it prevent the flotsam/fishing boats from landing on the railway which also tends to stop services.

Unless you are simply proposing to abandon Dawlish and half a dozen places?
Where would all those people move to?

Building a sea wall is one thing - running a railway on top of it is quite another.

And we can engineer our way out of these problems, if someone was concerned with doing that rather than blowing money on pointless trinkets like diversion routes that will almost never be used.

The simplest and most certain way of engineering our way out of these problems is exactly to build an alternative route!

 

[jopsuk]

Imerys are on a long-term winding down of UK operations anyway, china clay mining in Cornwall is ending.

 

[Busaholic]

Just click on a railway website and see how many BILLIONS of Euros are being spent on new and reconnected railways in Brittany, whose railways already beat those in Cornwall into a cocked hat. I know Brittany is a lot bigger, but its population is not. It makes you weep at the short-sighted arguments presented here for always doing the very minimum,if that. But then the French wouldn't waste millions on consultants' drivel. Look at the Light Rail too!

 

[455driver]

In this Country the railways are looked at as a business and so all decisions have to make sense financially.

Meanwhile over in Europe (of which I am not a fan) the railways are looked at as part of a National transport system and are 'costed' accordingly taking into account the overall social benefits which are not included in ours.

 

[HowardGWR]

In fairness, the report does not examine wider benefits (neither environmental, economic, nor social) so ministers should be taking an all-round view. Obviously, every place in the rural part of the country can be accessed by road, but then we are back to Beeching.

I wonder if there was no line in Cornwall, what the BCR would be for constructing it again (which is how the Okehampton route has been costed)? If it's worth having a railway to Bodmin, it's worth having one to Okehampton.

 

[yorksrob]

In this Country the railways are looked at as a business and so all decisions have to make sense financially.

Meanwhile over in Europe (of which I am not a fan) the railways are looked at as part of a National transport system and are 'costed' accordingly taking into account the overall social benefits which are not included in ours.

The problem is, unless you take into account wider social and economic benefits, no decision for Government makes sense financially.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well after 3 pages of negative comments, I think Network Rail has done a stonking job to produce a report like this in less than 6 months.
I don't think it is a given that the DfT will simply go for the do-minimum option.
Beefing up the current route looks very expensive and will take ages.
I get the impression NR would like Option 5 (ie a big project with lots of tunnelling), ready for electrification.
Meanwhile the Teign Valley route looks dead and is a low-quality route.
The Okehampton route looks practicable and would be popular in Cornwall and parts of Devon, but it doesn't help Torbay and south Devon.
Maybe an autumn Budget decision?

 

[HowardGWR]

Well after 3 pages of negative comments, I think Network Rail has done a stonking job to produce a report like this in less than 6 months.
I don't think it is a given that the DfT will simply go for the do-minimum option.
Beefing up the current route looks very expensive and will take ages.
I get the impression NR would like Option 5 (ie a big project with lots of tunnelling), ready for electrification.
Meanwhile the Teign Valley route looks dead and is a low-quality route.
The Okehampton route looks practicable and would be popular in Cornwall and parts of Devon, but it doesn't help Torbay and south Devon.
Maybe an autumn Budget decision?

Well my comments were not intended to be negative about the actual report (nor were they IMO).

It will be passed over to the new government, again IMO.

 

[yorksrob]

I get the impression NR would like Option 5 (ie a big project with lots of tunnelling), ready for electrification.

Yes, we seem to be pathologically incapable of contemplating modest medium sized projects in this country. If it's not billions, it's not worth doing.

 

[LateThanNever]

Well after 3 pages of negative comments, I think Network Rail has done a stonking job to produce a report like this in less than 6 months.
I don't think it is a given that the DfT will simply go for the do-minimum option.
Beefing up the current route looks very expensive and will take ages.
I get the impression NR would like Option 5 (ie a big project with lots of tunnelling), ready for electrification.
Meanwhile the Teign Valley route looks dead and is a low-quality route.
The Okehampton route looks practicable and would be popular in Cornwall and parts of Devon, but it doesn't help Torbay and south Devon.
Maybe an autumn Budget decision?

As I seem to think I've posted before, if the Okehampton route were chosen then for the Torbay destinations when the main line services are diverted in bad weather, the Dawlish route could be driven on tram 'line of sight' principles which would keep it open for Torbay and Paignton in bad conditions without delay to diverted main line services - which would also, in turn, give the Dawlish route the essential greater capacity in bad weather.

 

[455driver]

The problem is, unless you take into account wider social and economic benefits, no decision for Government makes sense financially.

I dont think the word 'financial' is needed on the end of that!

 

[yorksrob]

I dont think the word 'financial' is needed on the end of that!

Good point well made !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One of the aspects of this report that makes me particularly suspicious is how the Teignmouth route seems to come out as so much better than the L&SWR route.

I'm not convinced that a route which travels through a sparsely populated area can have such a better revenue impact on the network than one linking new settlements.

How can the L&SWR route have no impact on local air quality or greenhouse gas emissions by taking traffic off of the roads, whilst at the same time having a negative impact on revenue through car taxes ?

How can a route, such as the L&SWR linking towns which formerly had to rely on road transport, have less of an impact on road congestion than one which doesn't link up any new towns to the network ?

These figures simply don't add up.

 

[LateThanNever]

Good point well made !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One of the aspects of this report that makes me particularly suspicious is how the Teignmouth route seems to come out as so much better than the L&SWR route.

I'm not convinced that a route which travels through a sparsely populated area can have such a better revenue impact on the network than one linking new settlements.

How can the L&SWR route have no impact on local air quality or greenhouse gas emissions by taking traffic off of the roads, whilst at the same time having a negative impact on revenue through car taxes ?

How can a route, such as the L&SWR linking towns which formerly had to rely on road transport, have less of an impact on road congestion than one which doesn't link up any new towns to the network ?

These figures simply don't add up.

Could not agree more - but that is the pseudo science as she is spoke...
It is a ploy to persuade people that there is a 'scientific' measure called BCR without the electorate realising it isn't scientific at all! Mind you Network Rail is working only within 'government parameters'.

 

[yorksrob]

Could not agree more - but that is the pseudo science as she is spoke...
It is a ploy to persuade people that there is a 'scientific' measure called BCR without the electorate realising it isn't scientific at all! Mind you Network Rail is working only within 'government parameters'.

Indeed. Pseudo science is a good name for it.

 

[Busaholic]

Good point well made !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One of the aspects of this report that makes me particularly suspicious is how the Teignmouth route seems to come out as so much better than the L&SWR route.

I'm not convinced that a route which travels through a sparsely populated area can have such a better revenue impact on the network than one linking new settlements.

How can the L&SWR route have no impact on local air quality or greenhouse gas emissions by taking traffic off of the roads, whilst at the same time having a negative impact on revenue through car taxes ?

How can a route, such as the L&SWR linking towns which formerly had to rely on road transport, have less of an impact on road congestion than one which doesn't link up any new towns to the network ?

These figures simply don't add up.

I always enjoy going through Dawlish and Teignmouth on the train from Penzance - and there's the point, the trains hardly ever stop there, any more than they do at St Germans, 'cause the demand ain't there. Totnes would have to suffer the loss of direct London trains, but they're always blathering on about their self-sufficiency, so let's take them at their word. Okehampton and Dartmoor is the only game in town and if the cost benefit ratios don't show it let's get second opinions from the geniuses who okayed the cable cars across the Thames, Stratford and Ebsfleet Internationals and apparently have given the go-ahead to a tube extension to a speculative housing development on the site of Battersea Power Station. Someone will now say they come from different budgets, to which I will say, in the final analysis they all come from our taxes.

 

[The Planner]

I'll ask it again then, if Okehampton is crying out for a rail service why has it never got off the ground? The track is there, the station is still there as far as I know, DCR kept saying they were going to do it, even FGW could if they wanted but it still hasnt happened. There were links to plans earlier on in the thread from one of the local councils but what has come from them?

 

[Ash Bridge]

I'll ask it again then, if Okehampton is crying out for a rail service why has it never got off the ground? The track is there, the station is still there as far as I know, DCR kept saying they were going to do it, even FGW could if they wanted but it still hasnt happened. There were links to plans earlier on in the thread from one of the local councils but what has come from them?

There is a summer Sunday service operated by FGW and supported by Devon County Council that has operated every year since 1997 to Exeter Central. But could it not be that there is no additional stock available for the service Mon-Sat?

 

[The Planner]

Would the stock be there if you reopened all of it?

 

[yorksrob]

Would the stock be there if you reopened all of it?

That's putting the cart before the horse.

If there is a problem with rolling stock, we should be working on why that problem is there. I can think of few things more ludicrous than trying to design a railway network according to how much rolling stock you have available at a particular time.

The fact is, Okehampton has supported an intermittent branchline service for a long time. It's potential and utility would be greatly enhanced were it to become part of a fully functioning year round transport corridoor.

 

[Ash Bridge]

But also surely by the time the route was rebuilt there would be ample diesel stock available after completion of all the electrification projects?

 

[The Planner]

The fact is, Okehampton has supported an intermittent branchline service for a long time. It's potential and utility would be greatly enhanced were it to become part of a fully functioning year round transport corridoor.

So is there the demand there or not? if it has suported an intermittent service why not a full one? People keep saying it would open up access to North Devon etc, that ability is basically there now so why isn't it being tapped or lobbied for more intensively? the re-opening of the entire line shouldn't come into it if the latent demand at Okehampton is there.

 

[drinnicksiding]

The report is riddled with confusing references - like how the 0.82 BCR of the local service is somehow meant to worsen the 0.14 BCR for Option 3 - good to know they know their maths.

This report would have cost a lot - I fail to see how they couldn't cost Option3 being mostly single-track; surely no-one is expecting it to be the new mainline?? If would be for back-up, and can be used whenever there is planned closures anywhere between Plymouth and Exeter.

Capacity wise, when HSTs are diverted via Dartmoor, I think passing loops to allow 1tph in each direction would be acceptable, surely? I know Plymouth to Exeter is usually 2, but it seems that would be reasonable back-up. In an ideal world, it would be worth spending that extra 20% to double track, seeing as £600-700m is being committed anyway - but if that's the difference between it being viable and non-viable, I'd take that.

The main line has single line sections for certain stretches - even if a predominately double-track line was constructed, surely things like Meldon Viaduct being single-tracked is a no-brainer.

That said, St Budeaux to Bere Alston should be doubled, as the bridges etc are already there, and would allow for delays. Cowley Bridge to either Crediton or Yeoford should be doubled too, for both delays and for capaicity for the Barnstaple service.

 

[Busaholic]

With our fragmented railway there is nobody to make the big decisions, so the buck keeps being passed, reports produced, analysts consulted at vast expense and, basically, nothing happens. Meantime a couple of Dawlish town councillors can get all the publicity they crave. The national and local media's interest and expertise in the subject is nil once a few headlines have been created and we'll just wait for the Dawlish sea wall to be heightened, strengthened and then undermined again in five? ten? years time and then all concerned will say 'we never could have foreseen this but we pledge to leave no stone unturned to provide a resilient railway for Devon and Cornwall in the future, money no object',

 

[charlee]

I think for £700m that okehampton route is far from unviable. The benefits that the route would bring would eclipse that figure within years. Brings mid devon, tavistock, okehampton back onto the rail network. A 15 minute extra for a diverted plymouth to Exeter is a hell of a lot better then the constant changing on coaches and replacement bus services.

This outcome was excepted we aren't a priority down here in devon and Cornwall. With tavistock getting the final go ahead earlier this week, at least in part the route will come back