Great Western Coffee Shop

"£1.2bn rail upgrade proposed for southwest Britain
Jul 20, 2020
Written by
David Briginshaw
RAIL expert Lord Tony Berkeley and Mr Michael Byng, a chartered quantity surveyor and construction cost consultant, have published a £1.2bn plan to reopen lines and double-track existing lines in southwest Britain."
https://www.railjournal.com/infrastructure/1-2bn-rail-upgrade-proposed-for-southwest-britain/ (https://www.railjournal.com/infrastructure/1-2bn-rail-upgrade-proposed-for-southwest-britain/)

Wowser! Yes please! Lets be having some of this!
Does anyone have a link to the actual publication? I can't find it.

One of the proposals is reopening from Bodmin all the way through to Padstow - Is that feasible?

No - or at least not cheaply because the line went straight through the centre of Wadebridge over a level crossing. Given the local terrain (ie flat, only a few feet above sea level and heavily developed), how you'd get a bridge over the railway there without knocking half of central Wadebridge down is beyond me.

And I suspect that Sustrans and sundry local Camel Trail supporters will be sharpening their blades as we speak...

There is a more detailed discussion paper here. (https://www.tonyberkeley.co.uk/index_htm_files/rsw200720%20Greater%20SW%20Rail%20improvements.pdf)

The Bodmin-Padstow proposal is costed at £31.8m. Like Robin though, I'm still not really convinced you could come up with a solution just to get through Wadebridge with change from that.

The IRJ abstract gives the following:

"The schemes in the plan comprise:

reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)

reopening the railway between Okehampton, Tavistock and Bere Alston and  upgrading existing sections to create an alternative to the storm-damage-prone Exeter – Plymouth main line (£426.5m)

upgrading the Exeter – Barnstable line (£17.25m)

reopening the Bodmin – Padstow line (£31.8m)

reopening the Lostwithiel – Fowey freight line to passenger trains (£5.25m)

reopening the direct link between Newquay and St Austell (£181.5m), and

upgrading the Taunton – Minehead West Somerset Railway heritage line    (£11.8m)."

OTC

Does anyone know what is proposed regarding "upgrading the Taunton – Minehead West Somerset Railway heritage line    (£11.8m)."

Do they mean upgrading the existing heritage line, perhaps to national network standards ?
Or improving facilities for through running between the WSR and Taunton ?
Or subsidising the running costs of a regular through service ?

Or something else.

No, I don't know - but I can look it up using the link Lee provided:

Thanks for the information. It all sounds very impressive. Higher speeds and greater capacity :)
I wonder if it will ever happen ?

From the more detailed report that Lee has linked us to, following up those posts. My bolding:

Follow up at http://www.passenger.chat/23820 in the Transport Scholars area. 

The Transport Scholars area goes much deeper into technical issues than many readers want on the main forum, and is somewhere established member can be a little more open with views - rather like a committee meeting area than a general meeting forum.

85 of our members are already in "Transport Scholars". If you are not one of them, but would like to read and perhaps contribute, please "like" this post - which I will monitor for 7 days for the purpose - or send me a personal message, and I will be able to do the necessary within 8 hours.

To describe that fuller report as being a bit vague on detail would probably be doing a disservice to reports that are a bit vague on detail...

The more one thinks about it, the less credible the costings quoted become. Whilst this probably applies to the whole of the report I will confine my comments to Bodmin Road to Padstow (yes Bodmin Road – like the Cardiff General I wrote about a few days ago – I’m in an old-fashioned mood!).

I very much doubt that I am alone on this forum in having ridden the entire Camel Trail on a number of occasions. Firstly, whilst we know that it is possible to have a cycle track and a railway using the same railway formation, such as on the Avon Valley, I can’t think of anywhere that it has been done with a railway that was originally singl track. Bodmin to Padstow was entirely single track except at its major stations. Given that there are minimum width standards for surfaced cycle tracks these days (I think its 2m but quite happy to be corrected), this means land purchase along the way.

Kerching...

Then we have Wadebridge as mentioned above. There is that level crossing that can’t be avoided without mega-bucks being spent, either by diverting that railway or the road, or by closing the only road that links the two halves of Wadebridge without using the bypass. I can’t see that option going down well with the locals.

Kerching...

Then, midway between Wadebridge and Padstow we have the bridge – a bridge designed for a single track railway – over Little Petherick Creek. What do they propose to do there, especially bearing in mind if it isn’t already an AONB it damn well should be?

Kerching again...

Of course in theory the reopening of the Bodmin to Padstow railway is do-able. Everything is do-able if the will and the money is there. But to do all that lot highlighted above and also lay track, build new stations, install signalling and provide the trains, and still have change out of £32 million?

As a Cockney might say: “You’re ‘avin a larf, aintcha?”

From another source:


I agree that a light rail system might be an option worth thinking about, so I did

I understand that this report is recommending heavy rail, not a light rail/tram system. At first glance, however, it would seem to raise as many problems as it solves, albeit perhaps cheaper ones to put right.

With a tram system being allowed to run on-street, the problems at Wadebridge and beyond partially fade away. It solves the issue of the level crossing; it solves a yet-to-be-raised issue about where to put a station at Padstow, and it might solve the issue at Little Petherick Creek where, perhaps, a form of signalling could be evolved to close the Camel Trail to cyclists and walkers when trams actually pass by. Just because something hasn’t been done before doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not possible.

What it wouldn’t solve is the width required to provide both for a heavy rail system between Boscarne and Wadebridge, which would still be needed if the steam railway was extended.

Even if the steam railway was not extended, I cannot see any way on this earth that H&S regulations would allow joint use of the trackbed by both Camel Trail users and trams between Boscarne and Wadebridge, especially when you consider the gradient (echos of Fishponds Bank all over again!). There would be little economic or social sense in limiting tram speeds on what would otherwise be a faster open section of the route because, if for no other reason, that would ensure that the journey time was no better than by road. A cyclist going downhill would probably overtake such a speed-limited tram, and one going uphill could easily be faced by a very fast-moving cyclists coming downhill, especially on one of the many curves, and spot it too late to avoid a collision.

So we appear to be left only with the option of a tram between Wadebridge and Padstow. I can’t see that returning its capital costs during the summer peaks only, because its patronage on a wet Wednesday in November would be minimal, if indeed any existed at all.

I have to say the cynic in me does rather wonder whether those putting together the report looked at the optimistic end of the potential costs of upgrading and extending the heritage line to Wadebridge Guineaport - which could plausibly be around the £30m mark - and thought to themselves "That's not very impressive, it will just look like an extended heritage line"

"Let's chuck in Padstow and see if anyone notices"

Bear in mind, the proposal isnt actually aimed at the likes of us. As the discussion paper notes, it has been submitted to "ministers, local authorities, and the Great South West project as a contribution to their campaign for recognition and funding – to balance what Government is planning for the North and Midlands"

In other words, its purpose is not necessarily to be implemented, but to sound impressive enough to prove a wider point to those who may not question the technicalities so closely.

A very welcome plan, but have they included the huge disruption caused by having to demolish and rebuild the M5 bridge to the east of Pinhoe?

Can they not just move a future track south of the existing track? Does not have to be a double track tunnel here.

It is totally impractical to have tram tracks as well as cyclists on the same formation, in fact very dangerous. Not only the traffic interface (as mentioned), but also cycle wheels getting into the rail groove.

Possible, but difficult. Not only would they need to tunnel under the M5, but would also need to bridge a lane - and probably annoy some new homeowners as the land immediately to the east of the current M5 tunnel and south of the railway has just been given planning permission for new housing (much to the annoyance of my Scout Group!). They would also need to cut down an ancient oak tree.
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1ave1jkihCwFJbNmWU94U-JNGXBCQa23P)

The idea of reversing Beeching is surely flawed and backward looking.

What is needed is identification of, and methods to provide for potential passenger and freight flows. As rail is for high volume traffic, this generally rules out small settlements (and difficult civil works).

Looking at parts of the WC, we have examples of populations:

Newquay c20k
St Austell c20k
Bodmin c15k
Wadebridge c11k
Padstow  c3k
Tavistock c11k
Oakhampton c6k
Launceston c9k
Illfracombe c11k
Bideford c17k
(Melksham c15k!)
etc etc etc.

I would be guided by the size of the settlements as to priority. As  NR virtually rebuilds from scratch, it would also be worth surveying optimum routes for modern purposes without always following existing trackbeds, as most lie in cheap open countryside.

OTC

edited as noted

I would love to see what a forpot ential passenger looks like ! ::)

Looking forward to grahame's trademark stat-based response to that one  ;D

The population of the CITY of London is 9,400.  The population of the TOWN or Melksham is c15k. Both are inner areas within an urban sprawl that renders the population count of the administrative area pretty darned silly when you're planning transport service.

... that sort of thing, Lee  ;D

...over 500k work there, though.

Both commuters and residents deserve a proportional and appropriate train service.

Viva Melksham!

OTC

I was going to respond earlier but I thought I’d wait and see what Graham had to say first  ;D

Comparing the population of Melksham and the City of London is rather a red herring, but it does start to illustrate my point. Whilst population figures for any given place are important, one also needs to take into account catchment areas and also, very importantly, where exactly potential passengers want to go.

Melksham, for example, has grown much in recent years and also has a comparatively small catchment area. Those who don’t quite live in Melksham may find it more convenient to get themselves to another station such as Trowbridge, Westbury, Chippenham or Bath where they would find a greater range of services. Although passenger use of Melksham has grown strongly in recent years, I hazard a guess that they would have grown even more strongly if their train services went straight to Bath.

On another thread just recently the hoary old chestnut of Yate to Thornbury came up yet again. Both of these towns are now effectively dormitory towns for Bristol. The amount of passenger demand between the two is quite minimal – if it wasn’t, that would be reflected in current bus provision, and indeed, congestion on the roads between the two. I admit that my travels between Yate and Thornbury are quite minimal these days (much more in the 1970s when I lived in Yate), but when I have gone I have seen no ten-minute-to-clear queues at the lights at Rudgeway or Iron Acton. In a nutshell, there is minimal local demand and anybody who thinks that passengers are going to travel in sufficient numbers via Yate to Bristol to access the greater network when they can go more easily to Parkway, is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land – not unlike those souls who think there is a profitable service just waiting to be operated from Radstock to Bath and Bristol via Frome and Westbury.

I cited these examples rather than those on “the list” because I know something about them. I don’t know, for example, where large numbers of potential passengers in Wadebridge and Padstow want to go. Do they want to go to Bodmin? Do they want to go to Plymouth? Because if they all want to go to Newquay, there’s precious little point in giving them a train to Bodmin because they won’t use it.

The other matter that Beeching was criticised for was basing closure proposals on ticket sales at stations and taking no account of incoming traffic. There were low receipts from the terminal stations along the Devon coast with branches from the LSW main line because not many people lived there who wanted to travel out. The number of visitors that wanted to travel in, however; was completely disproportionate. This is why, if there ever had been a City of London station in the Beeching era it would probably have been proposed for the chop.

All these factors need to be taken into account and not just population figures.

I was about to write an even longer reply, but in practice it would be duplicating what Robin said for the most part.

Population / resident catchment wise - you need to take into account the urban sprawl within walking and cycling distance, not just the administration or ceremonial area. I recognise the "Melksham, 15k" data - seen it far too many times - it's one of two parishes that comprise the urban area (Melksham Town and Melksham Without).  Melksham Railway Station is in Melksham Town, but just 400 metres to Melksham Without at the closest point, and apart from 70m of flood plain. The following 400 yards (in Without) is fence to fence residences ... lots of [potential] customers who are not included in that 15k figure; the catchment figure used should be somewhat over 25k.

Destination wise - yes, agreed, Robin.  More people visit St Ives than live there, and looking at outbound  ticket sales is hardly realistic / only half of the story.  In my home town example, most of our sums are based on population as we don't have exceptional inbound traffic.

Where the train goes - again, agreed and (yes) with direct trains to Bath Spa the figures would be higher.  But I am not seriously suggesting extending the new 30 minute Bristol to Bath stoppers to Melksham via reversals or restored chords.  I agree the concerns at the very long way round of some train journeys putting passengers off - or trains to a junction at a town which is not a natural destination in itself; changes also put people off, but some indirection isn't a huge issue.

...............why not simply extend HS2 to Padstow, via Melksham?

Wot no mention of reopening Bath to Bournemouth? 😜

On the basis of the costings in the report you could probably do that from whip-arounds outside the Royal Wessex and the chip shop...

As a phrase, 'reversing Beeching' is calculated to appeal to journalists and voters rather than rail campaigners and professionals. It belongs to the same canon as phrases like 'full steam ahead', 'making tracks' and so on that always crop up in newspaper articles about rail schemes.

We here all know that any new routes would have to be completely re-engineered, though it will often be the case that there are well-built bits of railway infrastructure along the way that can be used. The difficult bit is getting back into or through the centres of towns where there is no longer a rail corridor.

I'm sorry if my mentioning Melksham was seen as denigrating its case - the opposite was intended. Most settlements differ in population depending on whether District, Parish, Ward, Postcode or ONS built-up area boundaries are used. Barnstaple, for instance has figures of 24k, 32k or 47k, depending on definition.

For a train service to succeed there principally needs to be a substantial population base, then a need to travel (for business and pleasure) and an attractive, usable, service. I've seen figures for acceptable walk-to-station times of 12min, or 1km, which means a catchment of c12k. A car park helps but you need a big one to affect footfall appreciably. Many would need an auxillary mode such as kiss-and-ride, cycling or bus. A station can then become more of a major railhead than a local halt.

A station's effect on the local economy can be critical especially for a poor area like the WC. I saw in my younger days the wrecking of the northern economy by the destruction of the L&Y system, once the busiest, just when it was most needed with the decline of older industry. Only today are efforts being announced (again) partly to rectify this.

Strength to your arm.

OTC

Royal Wessex is long gone. It'll be a Co-op soon. There's a nice cafe opposite though - Jasmine & Bay. Well worth a visit if you're ever in Templecombe. Or the village Social Club of an evening. Where you may find me behind the bar.

Was no allowance made for future redoubling when it was built?

Why not a 15” railway with scaled down Bullied Pacific’s between Boscarne and Padstow?  Enough space for cyclists and walkers alongside as per the Bure Valley railway and others. Padstow gets suffocated by cars and coaches in the summer and the approaches are ruined by large car parks, so maybe identify a park and ride site either along the line or as an extension shuttle. Run it in conjunction with the existing Bodmin & Wenford with through ticketing etc

Sadly not!
(https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1vhGa_vnRuhCoX3iAN4Hq5dC5qet3ooH2)
image courtesy of Video 125 'Exeter to Basingstoke Driver's eye view' (posted with permission)

No image

Perfectly formed image on my PC, but try this.....

Looking at the proposals for Cornwall, I dont think there is much chance of getting a line back to Padstow. But a regular service from Bodmin Parkway to Bodmin General could work, as could Lostwthiel Fowey. The development with the greatest traffic potential would be the faster service St Austell- Newquay over the Burngullow- St Denis clay line. All three of those proposals require little or no new track. Exeter- Plymouth via Okehampton is still important, not only as the diversionary route, but opening up traffic into Okehampton, North Cornwall and Tavistock.

What terrible short-term thinking at the time. Extra width for the original double track can't have added 10% (probably much less) to the cost of the original construction.

Looking at the image of the Monkerton bridge it appears to me that the main decking might be wide enough for, with a little engineering ingenuity, new sidewalls to be built 'outside' those that already exist to provide the necessary width clearance for double tracking.

Just to add further complexity to any required engineering..... the track is aligned to the centre of the original double-track alignment. Within 50 yards of the M5 bridge, to the east, is an old 'traditional' brick bridge over a country lane. I doubt it would be possible to slew the track under a slightly widened bridge and bring it back to the original alignment within 50 yards (but, then again, I am no civil engineer!), so a new bridge may be required over the lane as well.

Sadly not again. The perceived wisdom at the time amongst the majority of people, not just politicians and road engineers, was that railways were yesterday's form of transport that nobody wanted to use any more.

They had what happened to the canal system as an example. With the exception of a few preservationists in isolated areas, most of the network was abandoned and derelict. It wouldn't even have crossed anybody's minds at the time that the railwaty would ever be doubled again - perhaps closed altogether, but never doubled.

Even if crystal balls had been standard issue I doubt if naybody wouild have foreseen an upsurge in traffic 30 years later.

Singled in 67, M5 opened in 75.  If the M5 had been faster, or BR slower, then it would have been built as a double track bridge.

I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads????) stated (in response to objections) that if there was ever a requirement for the railway to be redoubled, this bridge would be widened. I am sure it came in the form of a 'guarantee'. Don't expect it holds much water now though....

A guarantee perhaps, but with a guarantor thinking they had about as much chance of having to do it as an inurance company paying out for volcano damage in Berkshire...

Breaking every drawing office rule (do not scale...), the over (M5) bridge opening looks about 5.5m square. I vaguely remember a figure of 8.5m as a double track width with walkway, so only a small set back needed. Even if the bridge deck were a bit short, it could well work with corbelled supports. Both new and old bridges look to have the track centred so slewing shouldn't be needed.

The M5 is wide at this point so could take a contraflow while work was in progress. Road builders seem to be more adroit than rail contractors - more practice!

Where there's a will..

OTC
 

Since the track does not appear to be centred it would only need to be widened on one side, but how much a problem would a short section of single track be compared to the cost of a new M5 bridge?

Indeed, I suspect a cost-benefit analysis would not justify a rebuild - and that includes the soft cost of disruption to the (possibly millions) of drivers on the M5. At 5.5 metres (not scaled of course!) it could accommodate a gauntleted pair of tracks and thus minimise the running and maintenance burden of two sets of point switches.

My understanding was that there would be problems at Crewkerne due to the way the track was slewed and other developments made.

I have now had the opportunity to read a spirited defence of the report by someone who is very close to the two authors, quoting one of the reports author’s correspondence to him. As this appeared on a closed railway group (Southern email group) I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to copy it and post it here. Perhaps one of the mods could advise.

At this stage, all I am happy to reveal is that the cost estimates for Bodmin to Padstow are said to include the assessment of the cost of acquiring additional land and the costs associated with the acquisition.

And they apparently think they can do it, and all the associated work, and still get change out of £33m.

Make of that what you will.

I can't see how they could get through or round Wadebridge for £33 million let alone the rest. 

Yes, at Crewkerne the track was slewed toward the middle of the formation to allow for the raising of the platform prior to the introduction of the Class 159s. It also made more room for passengers to walk to that part of the platform beyond the bridge, as it was very narrow there. The goods yard has been developed for housing recently which would mean the road bridge would have to be rebuilt even if there was room for re-doubling.

I had that quandary earlier in the thread - looking to discuss the matter but not publish them.  And I wrote:


Suggestion - follow up on that same "back thread" ... post a similar pointer here so that Transport Scholars know to look there for backup data to the points you 've gone on to make in the rest of your post.