Great Western Coffee Shop

Journey by Journey => Shorter journeys in Devon => Topic started by: southwest on October 15, 2020, 00:12:22



Title: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: southwest on October 15, 2020, 00:12:22
Fantastic news for the locals, the proposals to move the line further out to sea has been suspended due to mass public anger at the plan. A fantastic result to all the locals (include myself) who were against this stupid plan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-54538258

Network Rail will now go back to the drawing board and put new proposals out for consultation next year.

(Please move if a thread is already created)


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: REVUpminster on October 15, 2020, 10:21:20
I thought this was over engineered with too much earth moving when a simple pier system anchored to the bedrock alongside the existing track allowing any rock fall to fall on the beach.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50487955582_a9a55de666_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jVrYdN)dlr (https://flic.kr/p/2jVrYdN) by Robert (https://www.flickr.com/photos/revupminster/), on Flickr

This is the best I could come up with. You have to imagine the road the beach and the offices the cliff face. The beach would still be there except for the piers. The existing track bed and embankment would could be cut back to allow rock fall on to the beach where it could be cleared. Complete separation from the rock face.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50490314892_c160f4a14d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jVE4yy)dlr - Copy (https://flic.kr/p/2jVE4yy) by Robert (https://www.flickr.com/photos/revupminster/), on Flickr

Got Picasso to knock this up.


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: southwest on October 17, 2020, 01:23:39
I thought this was over engineered with too much earth moving when a simple pier system anchored to the bedrock alongside the existing track allowing any rock fall to fall on the beach.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50487955582_a9a55de666_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jVrYdN)dlr (https://flic.kr/p/2jVrYdN) by Robert (https://www.flickr.com/photos/revupminster/), on Flickr

This is the best I could come up with. You have to imagine the road the beach and the offices the cliff face. The beach would still be there except for the piers. The existing track bed and embankment would could be cut back to allow rock fall on to the beach where it could be cleared. Complete separation from the rock face.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50490314892_c160f4a14d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jVE4yy)dlr - Copy (https://flic.kr/p/2jVE4yy) by Robert (https://www.flickr.com/photos/revupminster/), on Flickr

Got Picasso to knock this up.


It's a good idea, but from speaking to local people they want the railway line to stay where it is, The loss of Spray Point is one of the main issues along with the reduced beach. I don't see why grout couldn't be pumped into the cliff to permanently bond it together?


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: ellendune on October 17, 2020, 09:00:23
It's a good idea, but from speaking to local people they want the railway line to stay where it is, The loss of Spray Point is one of the main issues along with the reduced beach. I don't see why grout couldn't be pumped into the cliff to permanently bond it together?

So what is the alternative? 

What are these far simpler and cheaper solutions they speak of? 

How would the locals feel about moving the cliffs back so they have a nice neat engineered slope or a quarried face further inland?  The visual impact would be quite significant.  Can't see it would be cheaper either.

Edited to add note about cost


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: REVUpminster on October 17, 2020, 13:32:17
They would not lose much beach and none at all but gain beach if the coast side existing track bed was cut back and the footpath moved onto the cliff side track bed. The whole key to my version is separation of cliff and track.

I think a similar track on lower piers will have to be adopted along the Exe Valley to combat rising sea levels.


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: southwest on October 20, 2020, 14:49:36
It's a good idea, but from speaking to local people they want the railway line to stay where it is, The loss of Spray Point is one of the main issues along with the reduced beach. I don't see why grout couldn't be pumped into the cliff to permanently bond it together?

So what is the alternative? 

What are these far simpler and cheaper solutions they speak of? 

How would the locals feel about moving the cliffs back so they have a nice neat engineered slope or a quarried face further inland?  The visual impact would be quite significant.  Can't see it would be cheaper either.

Edited to add note about cost

As I said pump grout(liquid concrete) into the cliff face, the same technique has been used to shore up parts of London during the Underground & Crossrail constructions.


Title: Re: Teignmouth rail development suspended
Post by: ellendune on October 20, 2020, 18:45:38
As I said pump grout(liquid concrete) into the cliff face, the same technique has been used to shore up parts of London during the Underground & Crossrail constructions.

Although I am a Civil Engineer geotechnics is not my specialism and I have not studied the geology of the area.

That said there is a huge difference between compensation grouting to prevent building subsidence during tunnelling, and grouting to stabilise embankment slopes. They are very different solution to a very different problem. 

If the cliffs could be stabilised by grout treatment then I am sure that would have at least been an option. I am not aware that such a solution possible, Is anyone with more specialist expertise and local knowledge able to comment?

My understanding is the the proposed stabilisation solution is a combination of rock bolting and a buttress at foot of the cliff. Unfortunately, the buttress requires some space and so requires the railway to be moved. 

An alternative would be to moved the cliff back and do the same; or even batter the cliff back to a more stable slope.  These would require land take at the top of the cliff.  What is there? It would also require an extended closure and would be very expensive.

I look forward to hearing what NR propose next year.



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net