Great Western Coffee Shop

The Westcountry will not get a new climate change-proof intercity rail route for another 50 years (link below.)
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/50-year-delay-rail-route/article-200624-detail/article.html

Campaigners have for years been pushing for a route to replace part of the current main line between Penzance and London.

But it is understood Network Rail has ruled out any changes to the route for the next 30 years at least, and possibly up to 50.

Instead, its strategic plan for the route over the next three decades will focus on upgrading protection on the line through South Devon, where it is often affected by extreme coastal weather conditions that hold up services.

At a meeting held in Exeter, a Network Rail representative apparently told regional business figures it did not see any need for a new line.

However, a spokeswoman for Network Rail said there had been a "misunderstanding" at the meeting and that it was looking at all options for the Westcountry rail routes.

She said that a feasibility study due out in 2009 would address the best way to develop the service in the region.

Roger Creagh-Osborne, of Campaign for Better Transport in Plymouth and Cornwall & Saltash Rail Users Group, said the jury was still out on whether a new route or upgrading defences on the current line was the best option, but that Network Rail should at least be looking into the possibility.

Further coverage at http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=134822&command=displayContent&sourceNode=237837&home=yes&more_nodeId1=134831&contentPK=21014135

What gets me is that these things are seen as either or.

Either you shore up the sea wall or you have new railway.

Reinstatement of Okehampton Bere Alston serving Tavistock seems like a good idea in its own right, shoring up the sea wall also seems a good idea. Then building a new route around Dawlish could be 50 years off, but there would still be rail from London to Plymouth if the sea wall fails sooner.

So let's be adventurous and go for both. I am sure if we did do both schemes (and other reinstatement schemes capacity enhancements) we would feel happier as a country as we could boost we gave the railways to the world and now were making ours fit for the 21st century. What we neeed is a 21st C Brunel.

Of course Networkrail has got to get a lot smarter at doing schemes and keep the traffic moving not like the fiasco on the WCML. Rebuilding Reading is going to be a good test of that skill. I've heard it's going to take 7 years! I can't see how they can have full blockades over that period of time.
 
But the great advantage of doing Okehampton - Bere Alston sooner rather than later is that it provides the alternative route ready for the sea wall work to commence. 

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly came under pressure yesterday to consider diverting a Westcountry mainline rail service away from the coast if it is upgraded to become a high-speed route. Campaigners demanded upgrades to the line between Dawlish and Teignmouth where bad weather can often hold up services.

Last month, the WMN revealed that Network Rail had ruled out any changes to the route for the next 30 years at least, and possibly up to 50. But the Penzance-Paddington mainline is also under consideration to become a 186mph ^super route^, slashing journey times to the capital.

See http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/news/RAIL-LINE-AWAY-SEA/article-220932-detail/article.html

Outrageous optimism on the part of the local arm, (haystacks and hunting), of the Daily Mail...nuff said...scramble the ROFL copter...

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/5200/roflcopterbt1.gif)

Just wonder what other route could be created to link Exeter to Plymouth

I just wanted to start a discussion


From western morning news
 
RAIL bosses are coming under increasing pressure to find an alternative route if rising sea levels make the Dawlish line impassable in the long term.

Council leaders, MPs and business organisations are concerned that, while coastal defences on the crucial route into the Westcountry are considered adequate for the next two decades, planning for beyond that seems to be limited.

A House of Commons inquiry into the South West's transport links was told sky-high costs could make diverting the railway unviable.

But Labour MP Alison Seabeck, chairman of the region's select committee, said the timescale for such a major project meant it was "wise" that planning should start now. This would ensure engineers have "something in the back pocket" should the line become unusable after 20 years.

Scenes of waves crashing across the line on the South Devon coast have become a familiar feature of the Westcountry railways.

Chris Aldridge, principal route planner at Network Rail Western, said: "Our civil engineers have reviewed it and have come to the conclusion that Dawlish sea protection is sustainable at least for 20 years and are reviewing that process for beyond that 20 years."

But asked if long-term planning was taking place to look at alternative routes, he told the committee: "It is 'how we would fund that route and what is the real demand for it?' "

Planning to look at costs was at "very, very early stages", he said.

The Commons South West select committee is carrying out an inquiry into transport in the region.

In evidence to the committee, a number of organisations have called for the Dawlish rail line to be addressed.

Plymouth City Council said the "infrastructure continually suffers at the hands of the elements and this route has been damaged a number of times such that the rail connection to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall has been severed".

As a result, the city and the wider region is not able "to achieve its full potential and does not allow business to capitalise on the excellent quality of life for its employees that can be offered by this area".

Devon and Cornwall Business Council warned the region was "already susceptible to being cut off as our main motorway and train links run through areas prone to flooding such as the Somerset Levels and Dawlish". Relatively brief interruptions to the normal flow of people and goods "carry a high associated cost in terms of lost time, business and delays to operating schedules", it said.

Cornwall Council said the difficulties faced by the far South West are compounded by "the reliance on a strategic transport network which is vulnerable to extreme weather events and rising sea levels".

The Federation of Small Business said the Dawlish route was "considered to have a limited life".

Appearing before the committee, Mike Gallop, Network Rail's route enhancement manager for the Western region, said the Dawlish line was "a very sensitive piece of political infrastructure and we will make sure we look after it". He added: "It's a sensitive piece of railway, we spend a fortune on it."

I have a sneaking, if rather cynical, suspicion that the answer may already exist: the Stagecoach X38 service

Not sure now politically acceptable it would be to cut cornwall off from therail network.

i suspect that in reality the Dawlish route will continue to be used for many years even when it starts being closd more frequntly for high water and/or subsequnt repairs.  We dn't do future planning very well in the country.

I wonder if the answer may be different if Cornwall or Devon  had there own Government or had some MP in the Cabinet.

the trouble is any new route would cut somewhere off the network, a more inbound route to newton abbot would cut off dawlish teignmouth and starcross.... the okehampton route would cut out newton abbot and mean two reversals (esd and plym), the heathfield route would cut out the sea wall towns, which leaves two options... a new line getting as close to all the old stations as possible which could also be coupled with a future high speed line to cornwall, or do some drastic reinforcement works and sea defences on that route which would spoil the look of the area and probably cost just as much as the new route... theres alot to think about

If we look at the inland route with a pop around 23,580, I don't think Newton Abbot will be left out

So I would guess the route would have to go next to Heathfield and then onto Haldon Hills via a tunnel to Exeter.


Branch Lines after the sea wall is breech
1) Dawlish Warren railway station Will be one Branch line to Exeter
2) Teignmouth to Newton Abbot

You missed out Dawlish  :o

Won't Dawlish Warren be where the line is breached first?

Therefore, the branch will be Newton Abbot to  Dawlish and no branch South along the river from Exemouth.

If Bere Alston Tavistock is a goer then Okehampton Tavistock is the obvious first route to cope with the first problems of the seawall. Hopefully someone DaFT Devon CC et al is safeguarding the route from development.

Has any of it been given to Sustrans because that could be a major problem with their instance of a cycle way by the railway?

Then the  inland route from Exeter to Newton Abbot.

I have always though the part of the line they are worried about is the part between Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren.

Yes I have heard from friends that the Dawlish Warren is likely to breech. So in that instance the Line from Dawlish Warren to Starcross.

The continued erosion of the Dawlish Warren spit is one of the major concerns, as removal of this will expose lots of low lying land next to the River Exe, thus endangerng the line between Dawlish and Exeter.

Thanks

Guy

Part of the route is a cyclepath [the Granite way] between Meldon viaduct and Lydford,with a couple of diversions due to landowner objections.After Lydford,the route is pretty much clear [but overgrown] as far as the outskirts of Tavistock,where it once more becomes a cyclepath,then some encroachment has taken place on the trackbed from gardens and infill in Tavistock itself.Nothing serious though,if the powers that be were to decide that the line needed to be reopened,then the civil engineering would not be a major problem [leaving out Meldon viaduct strengthening],only a bridge or two missing or filled in on the entire route.Don't think sustrans would have much say in the matter if the scheme was backed by DCC or government,could be a fair while yet,though,before that happens.

Sounds about right to me,I suspect that the powers that be are working on the basis of the probability that a major breach or breachs occuring will be far enough in the future that A-it wont be their problem and B-the hope that ultimately there wont be a need for rail link west of Exeter to Plymouth and Cornwall as aviation develops in the 21st century. 

With climate change and peak oil, aviation will be on its way out.

The CPRE have called for a feasibility study into the possible reopening of Okehampton to Bere Alston;


http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/reopen-old-train-line-Plymouth-Exeter/article-1853293-detail/article.html

Not very good at links but if it doesn't work,google This is Plymouth,Western Morning News.I don't know how much influence the CPRE have got,but it can't harm any chance of a possible reopening,i guess.

I wouldn't bet on that. There's plans afoot to resurrect the airship - something I've often thought would be ideally suited to short-haul flights from the UK:

The latest update from this, if you guys haven't seen already...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8555272.stm

i think that last link says more about the poor build quality of the voyagers

.... or the lack of AXC's willingness to do either remedial work to the vehicles or the requisite repair work if they fail.

Dawlish does have it's difficulties yes, but they are far less than people tend to think they are.

says something if fgw can get there pacers threw it but axc cant i tent to agree they just cant be bothered

I'm sure if somebody has discovered a way of completely waterproofing the air cooled wire wound resistor banks used by the Voyager braking system, Bombardier would love to hear from you.

Paul

Would it not be possible to disconnect the resistive braking and use the good old-fashioned friction brakes when the tide is high?

Of perhaps AXC could take their HSTs out of storage and use those (or drag the Voyagers behind class 57?). 

Or radical solution, I know but if Voyagers are unsuitable for the route on which they run, then replace them with alternative stock (class 180?) and cascade the voyagers to inland long distance routes like Cardiff-Manchester.  There is only one class of train which is susceptible to salt water spray.  It is idiotic to allocate it to the only mainline route that gets regulary drenced in said spray. 

Bombardier's design is fundamentally flawed and may be difficult or impossible to fix, but I am not convinced that a sensible work-around could not be thought up if AXC could be bothered.   Cancelling the trains is too easy an option and AXC ought to be severly financially puniched when it does that. 

 

 Cancelling the trains is too easy an option and AXC ought to be severly financially puniched when it does that.

Doesn't high tide count as an "Act of God" an therefore makes AXC not liable to pay compensation when they can't run their voyagers along the sea wall.

Also technically isn't Networkrail responsible for allowing seawater to spray the tracks in the first palce?

Something for the "bean counters" and "legal leeches" to sort out at great cost.

The way I see it, FGW operate trains past the section without issue thus it is the fault of Cross Country. If they can't find a work around to the issue they need to sort out as its not the passengers problems especially when they dump you at a freezing cold train station waiting for the next FGW service meaning you get home late etc  >:(

It's basically the same as building a train with a paper roof and saying it can't run in the rain

Something's not right.....

"Units have also been stopped due to waves breaking over the sea wall at Dawlish in storm conditions, inundating the resistor banks and causing the control software to shut down the whole train. This problem was fixed by a software upgrade to the control software."

Is there a new problem or are AXC just trying it on - is it something like "we won't run where we don't sell the tickets" ?? 

Easy money isn't it how much fuel do they save at high tide... They don't supply replacement road transport

If a TOC doesn't operate a service (e.g. because of the sea at Dawlish), do they still receive their usual cut of the revenue for ticket sales or would this be reduced accordingly?  I.e. are XC still being paid to run this service even when they aren't?

Hopefully, and on top of that have to compensate pi$$ed off passengers!!

Because of the complex way it's calculated, i'm sure they still get paid.   ::)

Whenever there is a problem west of Bristol, XC are always trying to terminate at Bristol and let FGW sort "their" passengers out.

A recent fatality outside of Exeter left XC terminating everything at Bristol and expecting FGW to transfer all XC passengers up on units as no London services run via Bristol during the afternoon.

I have been told that FGW management have noted XC taking the pish in these sorts of circumstances, and their continued selfishness during times of disruption.

I used to have a reasonably high opinion of Virgin customer service (from a railway pov) but this has been eroded in a very short space of time!

Virgin stopped running XC in November 2007...

Funnily enough, I know.  Perhaps I should have inserted "by Arriva" at the end of the sentence.  I apologise for assuming everyone would have understood I was contrasting the change from Virgin to Arriva.

 :P

In this case one assummes that XC weren't penalised for terminating trains at Bristol becuase it was a problem outside the rail industries control.

Does anyione know if  XC are penalised if they terminate at Exter due to high tide at Dawlish which is an "Act of God".

Heard that Arriva are no longer going to stable Voyagers overnight at Long Rock,Penzance from December 2010.Has anyone else heard this and if true what are the implications for Arrivas Penzance sevices.

If there are problems further west that prevent XC travelling beyond Exeter, why do they not terminate at EXD or Taunton? At least by travelling beyond Cogload Junction they give pax better onward connection oppportunites with fast FGW services, rather than dumping them onto DMUs at Temple Meads. It cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to stable a Vomiter at EXD or TAU until it's scheduled 'northbound' diagram. Traincrew issues are easily resolved by transporting them to the stabling point on FGW services.

I suspect it is operationally convenient rather than passenger friendly to turn round at BRI rather than TAU or EXD

Lack of platform space at Taunton, trains can only arrived into plats 2 + 3 so either need to shunt into 4/5/6 or block the platform till next working.

The main reason is down to the fact that XC management seem hell bent on cutting costs, so any excuse to save some fuel money!

Your last line answers your question  :(

Arrangements can be made to stable voyagers at Riverside Yard at Exeter (although I don't think there is Shore Supply), as South West Trains use New Yard.


Correct again  >:(

My thinking was indeed to shunt into 6 at Taunton. Or maybe Fairwater Yard.

As far as I know X country just like National Express East Coast before them dont have the luxury of the "Cap and Collar" in their franchise agreement to protect them against falling passenger growth in the current economic downturn unlike FGW.So while FGW have the taxpayer bailing them as projected franchise revenues have fallen X country have to find savings as best they can.
  Over the next few years even FGWs franchise premium payement will start going through the roof.ie ^20million in the currently year jumping to ^111million next year finally topping off at ^400+ million in year 10 of the the current franchise.

XC do have a cap and collar but typically they don't apply for the first couple of years, so theirs hasn't kicked in yet. The franchises that were stuffed when the recession hit were the most recent ones, as they were too new to benefit for C&C.

That would explain why X country are so desperate to save money now,thanks for the info.

I believe the rationale of C&Cs is that aspiring TOCs can have more certainty in planning the first couple of years of the franchise. In other words the DafT expects them to stand by their promises.  But it's more difficult to guess the state of the economy up to 7 years in advance, so the cap and collar gives some protection in the event of the economy not growing as much as predicted.

Though as we've seen, events have shown that the economy can deteriorate very rapidly, and to some extent Nat Ex EC and XC were unlucky in being relatively new when the downturn happened. Though they had probably already shown their true colours in terms of cost management of the franchises before the downturn happened, so don't get any sympathy from me.   

 It would not suprise me if XC late services only go as far as Plymouth.

 I can remember a conversation with a Train Manager who was telling me that when she got to Penzance, it was then a taxi back to plymouth.

 So I presume to start the service from Penzance, meant a very early taxi the next morning.

 

With train crew being allocated to TOCs and not a depot, then it's taxis all the time sometimes over considerable distances when they can't return by train.

Heard from a reliable source that on one TOC Drivers and condutors travelled in separate taxis even if going back to same place. Same source quoted London Leicester as a regular run.

It's another one of the conundrums posed by the "Wolmar Question "What are TOCS for?"

Just seen on BBC news, the Exeter-Plymouth railway link is being debated in the House of Commons today.  Newton Abbot MP is arguing that the coastal route needs to be secured, while the Devon branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England are saying alternatives need to be found.

All very well various posters above speculating about whether XC services in the west country will be cut back to Plymouth or Exeter or Taunton or Bristol or Birmingham etc etc but (subject to the caveat that I have no idea what is specified in the franchise agreement) assuming they are specified as part of the franchise then they'll still have to run. I don't see Arriva successfully renegotiating the franchise with the DfT so that they can remove services they signed up to which they've now decided are operationally inconvenient.

Don't see why not - others have renegotiated for their own operational convenience ...

Moderator note:
For specific discussion on the merits or otherwise of reopening the former LSWR route between Okehampton and Tavistock please comment in the following topic: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2338.0

Likewise, for the merits or otherwise of building a Dawlish Avoiding Line please keep those comments here.

The two subjects are related and I did consider merging them both into one super topic, but I think there's enough of a difference to keep them separate. If your comment encompasses both routes then you're free to choose where you wish to post.
bignosemac.

---

A railway tunnel should be built under a hill near Exeter to divert the main line away from a vulnerable coastline route, a Devon MP has said.
Basically a rehash of the 1937 Great Western Dawlish avoiding line which would have been completed in 1941 but for the war stopping construction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-17188408

I fail to see how this could be viable

Agree, tunnels are hugely expensive.
If a surface avoiding line CAN be afforded, then why has it not been built ?
If a surface avoiding line can NOT be afforded, then I cant forsee money being found for a much more expensive tunnel.

Hi

I was wondering which villages the line would of passed, when the GWR surveyed in spring 1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawlish_Avoiding_Line


Guy

What a shame the "Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Act 1936" only lapsed so recently

Welcome exeterkiwi

Speaking personally, I am glad you started a new thread for this (mods may disagree). The one of the Okehampton reopening thread had strayed off topic.  Perhaps they could be moved here? :)

So the proposal could have an inland Dawlish Station, that would remove much of the local opposition.  

Look what I found: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10433.0

I would like to know why Network Rail's knee-jerk reaction when faced the collapsed sea wall was to immediately dismiss an alternative route. The reasons were a) cost of ^700-800 million, and b) beset with problems.

I would like to ask Network Rail a) how much was Crossrail, and b) did tunnelling under London not come with so much as a single problem?

I'm guessing the board of Network Rail live in the South-East and drive to Cornwall for their holidays...

Actually, you'll find the business case for Crossrail & moving millions of people annually through London might have something more tangible to do with one being built and the other an expensive (but possibly necessary depending on whether its considered to be a one-in-175-years event or something likely to be more frequent.

Hopefully, those in Cornwall will get a sense of proportion soon. While HS2 and Crossrail will be built & money spent for good reason, the diversion via Okehampton is incredibly expensive for the numbers likely to use it (no where near Crossrail nor HS2 numbers). Yes, something is needed - but currently you can't access it from the East/London, so its not that useful....Further money needs spending on the lines from the East towards Exeter first, so that at least you can guarantee services into Exeter!

'Smokey' advises:-
 'The Loss of the Southern line was unforgiveable, how many realise that during 1969 during a breach of the Seawall at Dawlish, whilst passengers had to transfer to road services from Exeter to Newton Abbot BR ran at least 2 trains fron Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock.'

The above interesting information from 'Smokey' prompts me to mention that on Fri 21 Feb 1969 I witnessed D827 'Kelly' with an Exeter crew pass through Tavistock at about 1630 hauling a diverted Tavistock Jn to Exeter Riverside freight with approx 35 fully fitted wagons..this was preceeded by a loco with a snow plough...I seem to remember the reason for this diversion was due to the GW line blocked at Hemerdon by snow.
I would be very interested 'Smokey' to know more details/date of the 2 trains you mention that were also diverted from  Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton & Tavistock in 1969.

According to RailFuture, NR have the cost of the DAL (and the Tavistock - Okehampton route) both at around ^150-200M (see this article (http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1431-Dawlish-sea-wall). Where have you seen ^700-800M quoted?

As to 'beset with problems': Well it would be. It's an Engineering project.

1) was 600-700 for reopening Okehampton to Tavistock or a new Avoiding line?  edit Sorry answer it the article.  It is 150-200 million for either option

2) The other problem of the Okehampton route is it would never replace the Dawlish Route so would not save the very high maintenance costs.

However if only used for diversions the double reversal at Exeter and Plymouth might not be an issue.

Devon County Council has recently stated re-instatement of Bere Alston with a Single line to a new station at Tavistock is expected to cost in region of ^20-25m  for the 5 miles.

The remaining approx 16 miles to Meldon can be worked out pro-rata including a new Parkway station at Sourton; this new station is an essential part of the equation to assist with justification of re-instatement of the Okehampton/Tavistock route not only as an alternative/diversionary route for Plymouth and Cornwall traffic but as an increasingly needed railhead to serve West Devon, North West Devon and Cornwall - mainly North.

Incidentally the current 23 days closure of the Exeter/Taunton line has variously been quoted by NR as costing ^10m and ^15m and Transport Minister McLoughlin when interviewed at Dawlish's 'Beautiful seaside line' on 7/2/14 mentioned NR were spending ^20m on Whiteball works ..a figure he must have got from NR..possibly this new and inflated figure now includes the  ^zillions spent on Bus transport and compensation to the TOCs & FOCs.

I think the differences between the two options are the number of people served by the lines

1) Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton

Okehampton  around 6,000
West Devon

issues

Bridge
Train Driver having to change the direction twice, at Exeter and at Plymouth
Journey increase time increase to Plymouth and Penzance.
Newton Abbot not having a direct London train service


2) Dawlish Avoidance Line

Newton Abbot around 22,000
Short Train times to Plymouth and Penzance


Issues
No track bed
Tunnels


Improve other rail services
Re-instate Okehampton Passenger Service.
Turn exiting main line to from Newton Abbot to Exeter to Branch line states and single track with passing loops
New station at kingsteignton

In the Western Morning News on Saturday,it clearly stated that Network Rail has put a price tag of between ^500m and ^700m on the "alternative cross country route".I suppose that could mean either of the alternatives proposed but personally i find it very hard to believe that either would cost that much-could there be a bit of politically motivated scaremongering already being activated?

Pro-rata would be ^5M/mile. That's not enough. I've taken flak for this in the past, but the Borders Railway is very comparable, given the new works and demolitions required. This works out at ^10M/mile, and this figure is the actual cost, not a projection or estimate.

Given that the Reading Station improvements are costing an estimated ^850m that seems good value to me.

But what would a new build 10m line cost. ^200m? 300m?

To put it in context for two road schemes starting this spring, the new M1/M6/A14 junction is costed at ^191m. And the conversion of 12 miles of the A1 to motorway from Leeming to Barton is costed at ^314m.  So this sort of money to sort out a problem for Devon and Cornwall is not unreasonable. It's just that it's a rail investment, so sounds a lot.   

The whole line would need twin track & upgrade to main line status - I believe the figures given.

I don't buy that.  A single line with passing loops every 5 miles or so (Bere Alston, Tavistock, Brentor, Okehampton, Bow Road) would probably support a half hour service each way.  The track could be laid on one side of the formation allowing gradual double tracking at a later date as funding allows.

As to the reversing issue.  In my experience most trains spend up to five minutes standing at both Exeter St.Davids and Plymouth.  I think an HST can change ends in about 6 to 7 minutes?

I thought we were suggesting the full service via that line with local shuttles along the sea wall?

The Okehampton option would need some money to sort a route through Tavistock as there are some buildings in the way and the landscape doesn't give much room for flexibility.

There wouldn't be any need for flexibility.The houses would be CPO'd and knocked down in the same way as a far more substantial number of properties have been in the rebuilding of the Borders railway.

I am not sure Network Rail had a knee-jerk reaction to an alternative route, indeed Robin Gisby on Radio 4'd Today Program on Thursday last week said that looking at an alternative route might be an option.  It will be for Network Rail to propose options with costs, to construct a new route (there may be a couple of choices) against retaining the existing route and the risks that go with that; it will then be a political decision based on who will fund it Cornwall County Council, Devon County Council, UK Government.

I question the Oakhampton route I feel the original GWR proposal may have more in it favour.

Yes but that would all cost money (especially if WDDC offices had to go) - that's all I was saying.

A map of the 1936 proposal for the DAL has appeared on the WNXX forum (you need to be a member to access it).

Well perhaps the English Government could learn from the Scottish Government on how to re-instate a railway; Edinburgh to Galashiels over 30 miles and with FAR more challenges than Meldon to Sourton Parkway/Tavistock/Bere Alston.
If it could be added by the EU to the Trans Europe (Rail) Network  then English Govt. would do something as they are with HS2.

Don't forget the petition:-
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/60302        over 600 signatures so far in just a few days!

But we're talking about, what, 1,500,000 people who have lost their rail link - it's hardly insignificant. ^100 million for an investment that will last decades is not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

If this was Scotland, it would have been done yesterday

Yes, Scotland receive an awful lot of money from the UK Government and they have far less to spend it on.

Now having had a little bit of time to digest the DAL map (link in an earlier post above) I think that the Dawlish Warren route is the best.  It would mean that new stations at Dawlish Warren, Dawlish and Teignmouth could be provided on the opposite side of town (with the added possibility of a new station at Bishopsteignton) and the retention of Starcross.  The old line could then be completely closed (to trains anyway).

We seem to be spreading this diversion discussion over several threads.  Perhaps the moderators could sort that out ::) :P

Can you post that map please - you need to be a member to access it

You need to be a member then :P

[Information

You are not authorised to download this attachment.[/quote]

You obviously need to be a member of WNXX then.  On that basis I will remove the link in my original post above.

According to BBC news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559)

Not certain if this means that work will start, or that it is merely the go ahead for many years of meetings, nimbyfests, consulations and studies.

Still shows that they are thinking seriously about an avoiding line though.

I'm surprised by this, I really thought that the inland DAL would be the preferred option.
Unfortunately though I think it will be a looooong time coming to fruition, if ever.

Sounds like we're at GRIP 4, but I suspect in truth we're at GRIP 0 heading for GRIP 1.

What's this about, very quick and fishy


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559

Original article:


So that's 8 or 9 weeks.   Where did I get a figure of 6 weeks from?

hmm - they haven't even *started* discussing it with the Dartmoor people. Grip 0, I reckon

Yes, I was about to post on this new April re-opening.....it's superceding the 6 week suggestion. THey ought to properly announce that, rather than 'leaking' it out. I suspect they're still being optimistic, frankly, but don't want to alarm the tourist industry just yet.

If there's any truth in the BBC story, I presume this will put the Kilbride Tavistock project back to GRIP 1...

This is FANTASTIC news that NR favour re-instatement of Meldon to Tavistock/Bere Alston as the alternative/diversionary route for Plymouth and Cornwall rail traffic to the increasingly vulnerable S.Devon coastal route; which no doubt will still be maintained.
The Government have various powers based on importance and urgency that can be enacted to speed up the whole process of re-instatement of this essential transport link.

Interesting times ahead and already a developing huge welcome of this re-assuring news from the vast majority of the People, Businesses and Industries of Plymouth, West Devon and Cornwall.

I saw a BR engineer on site being interviewed on TV. He said there was at least six weeks of work - but also that they would first need to survey it and plan the work. His initial estimate would also need to be replaced by one based on the actual plan. So it's no surprise that the total time to completion would be nine weeks, and even that may be subject to extension due to various things - not least the weather!

Don't think this will move fast though....

Bit too quick!!!

Is it really the best route?  Trains will need to reverse at Exeter and Plymouth which will slow journeys down.  

It all depends on what the long term plans for the existing route are though.  If that is to be downgraded then I think it ought to be replaced with something of higher speed than NRs proposal.  Journey times to Devon and Cornwall are already far to slow.

The Maldon route might however be suitable for a diversionary route to allow the sea-front route to be closed, dug up and comprehensively strengthened (ie with a solid concrete sea wall not a retaining wall back filled with soil and sand) before being relaid.  

The article I think refers (possibly obliquely) to it becoming the 'reserve' line for Mainline - so the Dawlish line is to be fully repaired (rather than singled with a shuttle service) - so the avoiding line may be single with several loops, enough to run hourly mainlines if/when Dawlish is again unusable.

So your final para applies

I think it wouldn't actually see reversals because the services wouldn't actually go to Cornwall via okehampton they would normally go via the existing route. The SWT Waterloo to Exeter would extended to plymouth via okehampton and tavistock. Needing no reversals.

THat would make inter-SW journeys interesting for those from those stations though!

Thanks (and ChrisB) too.  I'm starting to get it and it is starting to make sense.

And with this proposed alternative route the entire population of Torbay are resigned to replacement buses when there are future problems on the sea wall section.

SWT did all they can to get rid of their service from Exeter to Plymouth, I expect there is zero chance of them extending it again!

It wouldnt be their choice if the DfT specified it in a future franchise.

The approach described in other threads on this subject need to be  followed.
1. Dawlish Sea Wall repaired
2. An emergency or alternative route needs to be opened sooner rather than later. Meldon-Bere Alston (or Tavistock) would be the easiest and quickest way of fulfilling this in the medium term.
3. All mainline services to remain on the Dawlish route unless the Wall is Closed.
4. An Alternative Dawlish Avoiding Line built inland needs to be considered in the longer term future when the Sea Wall is closed too often. Studies by the local councils' in the South West (including Torbay) indicate by 2060 at the latest. Maybe we should be thinking of 2040 or sooner if it can be done.

The entire population of Torbay (according to the 2011 census) is 131,000. The population of Plymouth at the same census is 256,400 and that of Cornwall is 532,300. Some 650,000 more people. Additionally, many people from North and Mid Devon and Cornwall would now have much nearer access to rail lines if the LSWR route was reopened. Notably Bude, Holsworthy and Launceston.

The residents of Torbay would of course be able to get to Exeter via bus. The SAME as they do now when the Sea Wall is closed. But at least Plymouth and Cornwall (and even Torbay, though by a much longer route), would still be connected to the rest of the country by rail. Saving businesses millions of pounds. At the moment estimates of losses are in the order of hundreds of millions to business.

Although there is not much freight west of Exeter it is foolhardy to think that while the line is closed that it wont be tempting for businesses to look at road haulage as an option.And if connectivity can be much more certain then perhaps more freight will use the railways.

It has been mentioned that the Okehampton route would be susceptible to heavy snow and blizzards. Over the last few years the Railways have kept running even in conditions where roads become very dangerous and blocked. The trains may well have been late but they did run. Many of the routes in the North are high and susceptible to snowfall much more often than in this part of the country. Even Dartmoor. It would in truth take major winter storms to close both routes and in these circumstances it is likely that roads would be impassable also.

The advantage of the Moorland route is that it is largely still in situ. Many of the major structures still exist. I believe that the line between Coleford Junction and Meldon is owned by the  Meldon Quarry owners. Last I heard this was put up for sale for ^5million in October 2012. The Dartmoor Railway do NOT own it. Surely a bargain price for Network Rail.

The reason that SWT do not serve Plymouth is that with the addition of the passing loop at Axminster and creating more frequent services there is a lack of stock. Not enough to cover this extra hour down and back to Plymouth. With cascades of stock there will be more available.

I am all for the main line remaining in South Devon it does serve more people. But we must be pragmatic.

Longer term the line from Exeter to Waterloo should be upgraded giving passengers in Devon and Cornwall a real choice of railway companies to take them to London.

I noticed on another rail forum  RailUKforum that there is a picture of the DAL proposed route


Guy

Many structures were still in situ on the Waverley route in Scotland. All were replaced to comply with modern standards. Rebuilding a closed route is not just about slapping track back on top. Land has to be purchased including compulsory purchase orders. Major civil engineering has to take place. Modern signalling systems have to be installed. Topography of the closed line suggests sustained higher speed running wouldn't be possible without building new sections of line. I think the cost difference between re-building the LSWR route and a building a new inland route would be marginal.

It seems folly to me to suggest spending money on Okehampton - Tavistock and then later build an inland route. Plan and build the inland route now. Journey times would be quicker to Plymouth and Cornwall. Torbay would not be reliant on a fair weather railway. There are also businesses in Torbay. Just because the residents of Torbay have to use replacement road transport now when there are sea wall problems doesn't mean they should have to in the future. Torquay is the third largest settlement in Devon.

There's also the population of the South Hams to consider. Their railhead at Totnes would also lose out when long distance services are diverted via the LSWR route. That's another 83,000 people who lose access to a decent rail service when there are sea wall problems. Given the choice, what would South Hams residents prefer? A quicker more direct route to Exeter and beyond, or a journey that heads the wrong way to Plymouth initially, then takes a slow circuitous route through Tavistock and Okehampton?

Also, would the population of Plymouth and Cornwall, given the choice, prefer a quicker journey, or a sedate meander around the north of Dartmoor, reversing twice on their way to London?

I doubt very much that the Exec Board of NR have given much thought to a diversionary route around Dawlish other than "its something to look at" they have currently major disruption due to flooding in the Thames Valley to one principle route (GWML) to another major line (Windsor - Staines) on top of the sea wall destruction at Dawlish and the Somerset Levels flooding.

So all the speculation "the route has been decided" is just that speculation they need political commitment first ie who is going to pay

Could it be that, paradoxically, the recent events could even have reduced the likelihood of an inland route being implemented? Up to now, the impression, at least to the general public, seems to have been that an inland route would allow the operators to simply abandon services along the sea wall when a storm blows up, and to resume them when it dies down. Now that we are no longer talking simply about water damaging the train mechanism for a period, but about the destruction of the coastline itself, railway or no railway, perhaps the measures necessary to protect that coastline, e.g. a breakwater, would have the side-effect of reducing the exposure of trains to the spray that causes the less dramatic but more regular problems?

Untrue. Most structures are being refurbished, and some have needed little more than repointing or repainting. That's not to underestimate the size of the task.

Apologies there. A proof reading error on my part before posting. I had meant to say that, All were replaced or refurbished to comply with modern standards. Present rather than past tense would've been better as well.

I have looked, many times, at the Borders Railway website to see what they are rebuilding or refurbishing. The engineering drawings do indeed show the scale of the task.

Apologies if I rather jumped on your typo.  :)

I too am a very regular visitor to the Borders Railway website, and my enthusiasm for that project is almost unbridled. I drove down from Edinburgh to Hawick just before they started work (well, actually I got Mrs Squirrel to drive so that I could rubberneck) and I know first-hand what a beautiful part of Britain it is going to open up. It will be a real treat when it opens.

Why 'almost unbridled?'

• It doesn't go all the way to Carlisle;
• It's too far away for me to pop out and watch the progress :( .

But back to the positives - it shows what can be done if there's a will, and (though I know not everyone agrees with me here) it gives a very good benchmark price for a large-scale reopening project.

That is a danger. 

But, I would hope that with an alternative route in place, the sea wall route can be closed temporality but long enough for it to be properly rebuilt rather than just repaired.   Currently it looks surprisingly flimsy and it is to NR's credit in patching it up promptly that is hasn't failed before.  It needs to be replaced with something more substantial whether or not trains are running over the top of it or not in order to protect the town behind it.   

The alternative route would take *years* to construct - it won't happen anytime soon.

Errrr............ http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/02/11-network-rail-denies-dawlish-plan.html (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/02/11-network-rail-denies-dawlish-plan.html)

All hopes dashed in less than 24 hours?!

Probably - I though t everyone was jumping a bit quick.

Network Rail operates very fast infrastructure .............. decision making is not so fast.

NR will want time to talk to all the local stake holders to seek out the most viable and cost effective route, if there is one.  Then it needs to be funded my guess we are looking at end of 2016 before any proposal is put forward and 2019 before any work starts so looking at 2021 or later before any trains run on a new route

At the earliest.

Just out of interest, what do you reckon those timescales would look like if we still had BR?

As soon as someone mentions the buzzword "stakeholders" you just know it is going to take time...

Not sure how they calculate their figures, but at that rate it wouldn't take long to pay for the DAL and the LSWR!

Bit irritating to have HS2 brought into the argument though - what possible bearing can that have?

THe SW business leaders have always bigged-up their earnings & importance - other commentators in the know estimate a ^2-5million a day - so ^25million a week max. Far more likely.

Just love buzz words  ;D but in this case there lots of interested parties that need to be consulted especially as they have control of money and control planning all NR has is 2% of the National debt


Even longer ............. bless it. Like it or loath it NR has determination

In the meantime, work has begun to repair the damage at Dawlish. A NR Youtube video  (http://youtu.be/JCQykSLMhKU) shows the rather unusual method being chosen for a breakwater.

That's in a different thread (or further up this one) - looks as though some combining of threads might be sensible

HS2 comes into the argument because of the money it's likely to cost. The question is whether some of that money would be better spent on making the existing railway network better/more resilient.

Business case supports HS2 for that amount of money

But there isn't any money for HS2; there's a business case for borrowing some. It really isn't the same thing. You may not agree that the business case is valid, but that doesn't release any money because there isn't any.

You can't spend business case, but you can make one - and that's what's needed for rail resilience projects.

I may get onto this later. We have three threads all currently broadly covering the same topic, so I may look to merge relevant posts. It takes a steady hand and calm nerve to do such merging, so I'll need a drink first!

Point taken - I expressed myself inelegantly. But there are those of us that think the money to be borrowed/spent on HS2 might be better borrowed/spent on the existing system and Dawlish is a good example as might be sorting out the nonsense at Oxford.

Thanks to Sprintermeister on the WNXX forum here is the DAL map:

(http://cbrailways.co.uk/PhotoAlbumsPro/1379866239/1936%20GWR%20Dawlish%20Avoiding%20Line.jpg?cache=0.115914466092363)

Fantastic - thanks!

That would be a good point if there was a limit on the amount of money available for investment. But there sort of isn't, is there?

The line along the Dawlish coast is not fit for purpose - this needs sorting.

The line should be rerouted inland (with higher line speeds) between Exeter and NA. This should be part of a scheme to reduce the journey time to Plymouth to less than 3 hours.

The old line should be axed, or at the most singled - just send a 153 round every couple of hours to hoover up commuters and holiday makers.

The Southern route should also re-open long term. But for different reasons, to provide better links to Tavistock from the rest of Great Britain and improve the economy of North Devon. Of course, this route will not make money, so someone would have to pay to run the loss making service.

The Southern route is no good as a through route:
*it is even SLOWER than the already slow western route
*it has two reversals
*it misses Torbay
*it goes through a National Park

Great thanks

Most enlightening map - many thanks.

I wonder what the combined folk of Teignmouth, Dawlish, Dawlish Warren and Starcross think of the concept of a 2 hourly Class 153 "hoover" being adequate for their needs?..

That is what I think something akin to the original 1930's GWR DAL will be the answer and not the via Dartmoor route, the DAL type route would relocate the stations nearby

I rather think that proposed diversionary routes which go what is perceived to be too close to, or through, the Powderham estate of Lord Courtenay may be considered as complete non-starters.

While you can make a business case that will support borrowing for investment, you can't do the same for what is seen as repairs & improvements - so Dawlish & Oxford would fail, while the additional new route in the SW would probably attract funding. But the funding isn't a GRANT, it's a LOAN, and the public purse still needs to pay it back.

It is deemed suitable enough for the majority of Cornwall Mainline Services........

To expand on ChrisB's point, it's revenue vs capital, see? All explained here http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/capital-expenditure-revenue-expenditure

Teignmouth and Dawlish could get a new station each more inland than the existing station.  There need not be a reduction of service for those towns (and if line speeds are up they might actually get a slightly better service - it would certainly be more reliable)

Starcross and Dawlish don't exactly get a great number of trains at the moment.  If they were moved off the mainline then there might be scope for a moderate increase in the number of services calling because the pathing issues causes by stoppers slowing down the mainline would be removed.

All in all there is no reason my local service levels would fall.

The service through Cornwall is always roughly one train an hour, and no services are less than 2 carriages. Quite a significant number are HSTs of course.

Careful with that axe, Btline! Such decisions got us in the mess in the first place. The Dawlish line should, and will, be repaired.

...the Starcrosses are screaming loud.

I've recently realised that Beeching put down his axe somewhere near Winchester, needing something with a slightly better throughput. By the time he got to the West Country, he was using something closer to this... (https://www.deere.co.uk/wps/dcom/en_GB/products/equipment/wheeled_harvesters/1470e_it4/1470e_it4.page?)

That'd be the Lord Courtenay whose ancestor, the 10th Earl of Devon, put up a certain I. K. Brunel on the estate when he was building the South Devon Railway. And whose ancestor was one of the directors of the Bristol & Exeter and South Devon Railways.

Different peer, different times I agree. My suggestion is to tunnel under the western edge of the estate and have the line run to the west of Kenton. Although selling some land might help the current Earl of Devon's finances.

I can't see any two hour gaps in the normal timetable for Penzance - Plymouth, not even on a Sunday. And aren't the services not operated by HST provided by Class 150s?

I have recently reread The GWR in the 20th Century by OS Nock first published in 1964.
I was aware that there was something about a Dawlish cut-off line, there is on page 142.
I quote:-
"The picturesque line along the sea wall between Dawlish and Teignmouth was becoming so crowded as to be an embarrassment,
and to provide relief, and to give non-stopping trains a clear run, a new cut-off line was proposed from Dawlish Warren direct to
Newton Abbot tunnelling under Haldon Down.
Beyond Newton Abbot a new fast-running express route was proposed to the north of the present line, by passing the extremely
awkward gradients leading to Dainton tunnel, avoiding the sharply curved approaches to Totnes, and rejoining the present line at
high level near the summit of the Rattery incline.
With an alignment and grading designed for heavy modern traffic, a great amount of time could be saved, wear and tear of locomotives
much reduced and a great deal of double-heading avoided. Unfortunately neither of these interesting by pass lines got beyond the
proposed stage"
Think of it if these lines had been built what we would now be talking about to say nothing of the time from from Paddington to Plymouth being greatly reduced.
However they were not and the need is now to repair the Dawlish line asap and to have a sensible discussion for the future.

And also had his own personal station where the Powderham foot crossing is now

Not at all mainline stations though.

I may of missed the route option but a station for Teighnmouth could be built between tunnel 2 and 3. Both Dawlish and Dawlish Warren if the DAL was built .
The Exminster route and  Dawlish still could have a station  on the new railway line.

Thats very different from your original assertion though, isnt it?

The fact remains that the majority of "Cornwall Mainline Servces" are not 2-hourly, nor are the majority of "Cornwall Mainline Services" operated by a single Class 153 unit.

David Cameron, answering a question from Oliver Colvile MP (Con. Plymouth Sutton & Devonport) spoke at Prime Minister's Question Time on 12/02/2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03vhpdc/Prime_Ministers_Questions_12_02_2014/) (at 25:45 on the linked video) about the desire to have a 3 hour journey time between Plymouth and London.

That, I feel, can only be realistically achieved by building a DAL and possibly looking at alternative new build between Newton Abbot (Aller Junction) and Plymouth, taking out the worst of the gradients and curves over the Devon banks.

But NOT avoiding Totnes and Ivybridge.  ;)

One suspects that Dave is thinking more in the hope of the current line being fixed & holding, as 3 hour Plymouth to London is perfectly possible now (in normal circumstances) - the debate has always been whether the adverse impact on service levels elsewhere would be acceptable.

There is already one service timed for 3 hours between Plymouth and London. The 0844 Penzance-London Paddington which leaves Plymouth at 1044 and arrives at London Paddington at 1344.

might London to Plymouth in 3 hours be achieved more easily by upping the speed limit on the Reading to Taunton line which is nice and straight and has few stops for the fast services but never rises about 110mph?

It's nice enough, but I don't think that straight is very appropriate word to describe much of the Berks and Hants line...

Ok I stand corrected although it isn't /that/ curvy.  I had assumed that it was the level crossings that kept the line speed down not the curves.

Gerry Fiennes once wrote that a driver said to him that he, the driver, thought that the builders of the B&H were paid by the mile. :)

Owner of now-closed Brentnor station can't sell

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Old-train-station-market-way-alternative-rail/story-20620746-detail/story.html

At least it doesn't sound like a total disaster for him. He seems to be suggesting that he doesn't need to sell, he would just like to.

Both the LSWR and GWR had separate lines that ran through here, but one of them (the GWR I think), didn't actually run through the station - it was a few metres outside of the station boundary. (see pic:(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Brentor_railway_station_1973099_9e26696e.jpg) )

If the line was reinstated then it could follow this path rather than through the old platforms (can't see much justification for reinstating passenger services here). However, there would still of course be a considerable impact on the residence and it's potential for sale.

Yes - GWR station was at Mary Tavy and Blackdown, a few miles down the valley and not very close to either.

Not good news;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26260053

"The predicted date for the work to be completed comes just ahead of the Easter Bank Holiday. Good Friday falls on 18 April but the company said it hoped to "beat" its date."

Presumably so it can shut the line on schedule for engineering works?

Is it wrong to assume that the majority of passengers that were planning to travel over this route for Easter Weekend would have aimed to book tickets some 8-12 weeks before to take advantage of more affordable prices? - given that we're in that period now, how many will continue to do so given the uncertainty of it actually opening on time? I'd expect more people would be opting for the bus as either way it'll be cheaper and far more likely to run.

My point being that even if they do get it open 'in time for Easter', it'll still be too late for a good proportion of those that wanted to travel, unless some serious concessions are being offered.

Too early to say - FGW have made some serious concessions already, and will definitely want to attract customers as soon as NR can be more definite about a finish date - so it really won't surprise me to see some silly priced Advances as soon as that date is more confident.

Yes, I'm afraid the assumption is wrong.   I recall some figures for the proportion of journeys made on various ticket types, and advance fares account for only around 15% of journeys.  We hear a lot about those fares on the forum because (a) we're cheapskates here and want to save money and (b) these fares are used by people who just make occasional journeys and so they get a lot of publicity / talk per journey.

However ... I think many people do plan ahead on off-peak / superoffpeak tickets and will buy / book / plan ahead, and it's fair to assume, I'm afraid, that a proportion of them will not risk planning to go by train when it could turn out to be train - bus - train.   We know from local research that only a small minority of people transfer from a train to a bus service when it's substituted, unless they have no choice.


So, therefore, I am agreeing with your conclusion ;D ;D

Moderator note: Subsequent silliness has been diverted to another topic. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13623.0

Network Rail document (via BBC) discussing storm damage at Dawlish, works to date and proposals for increased future resilience by considering alternative routes (of which there are 5!)

News Article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26349928 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26349928)

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

It looks like Network Rail have copyied an old Railway Atlas of the area

Option A Indland Route Via Okehampton and Tavistock (LSWR Route)
Option B Marsh Barton to Heathfield Route (GWR Teign Valley Line)

Dawlish Avoiding Line proposed  in 1930's by the Government of the time and GWR
Option C1 Exminter (DAL Route)
Option C2 Powderham Castle ( DAL Route)
Option C3 Dawlish Warren  (DAL Route)

Guy

Barring the kind of seismic activity that hasn't been seen for a few million years, and assuming that most major towns and cities stay more or less still, and that we want any new route to connect in to the existing network, then it stands to reason that the options will involve re-using old corridors or options.

On the face of it ^700 million to re-open the Okehampton route seems like rather a lot though; it is more per mile (even assuming we're talking the whole 50 miles) than the Borders Railway. This seems odd considering that half the route has track on it, which hopefully means that some sort of maintenance is being done to the infrastructure...

I agree - ^700M seems a staggering amount of money for this.

^700m wow, that's a lot. Figures designed to be off putting?.

My preference is A followed by B.

At the moment it's only an estimated cost and it's from ^500m to ^700m - until a full survey is completed who knows for sure what will be uncovered - there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, ranging from the condition of surviving structures, to land ownership and CPO's.
I'd certainly be wary of underestimating at this very early stage!

If one of the option that doesn't go via Okehampton is chosen it should be made a priority to re-open the branch line to Okehampton to passenger traffic.


Guy

 

Very sensible to start of by looking at previous schemes.  However, they're all based on routes over 60 years old, and in that time technology has move forward, and that could make a difference.  

As an example, a gradient of 1 in 38 (Dainton) used to be regarded as the limit, or near to it. Lickey is 1 in 37, and Wikipedia claims "The Lickey Incline is the steepest sustained adhesion-worked gradient on a British standard gauge railway".  But Wikipedia is wrong, I think; there are gradients on 1 in 28 on the line from St. Pancras to Ebbsfleet.

As another example, has the relative cost of building a line across marshland, through a soft rock tunnel, and across a high bridge changed?

So it would probably be a sensible idea for an engineer / surveyor to take a quick look / sanity check to see if there are extra alternatives at least to take a brief look at.    For all I know, this may have been done already before the old routes and proposals were listed as the options - I hope it has!

A certain degree of emphasis seems to be placed on giving North Cornwall/Central West Devon access to the rail network - this would certainly provide that and also reduce the amount of traffic on the A30 that's otherwise travelling to Crediton, Exeter or Tiverton to connect with it there.

Another batch of 'progress pictures' from the BBC.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26356917 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26356917)

If the intention of NR option A is to upgrade the entire route from Cowley Bridge to St Budeaux via Crediton, Okehampton & Tavistock to all-singing, all-dancing mainline status, and do it for between ^9-12 million per mile all inclusive, then is that necessarily bad value? After all, the latest figures suggest Bere Alston-Tavistock coming in at ^4.7 million per mile with optimism bias.

Whether it would represent better overall  value than the other options is another matter, of course.

Does anyone know how many days per year, on average, the Dawlish route is closed due to weather or damage?

Quite. Very few.

But it's the *only* route in. If it wasn't, the business case would be very different.

My reason for asking was this: we all understand why the Dawlish route was retained in favour of the Okehampton line, but do we understand the full business case behind the GWR's plans for the DAL? Did the GWR have running rights over the LSWR route? If not, then it's easy to see why they wanted to secure their own route.

Yes the GWR  had run trains over the LSWR route from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton but I think it was driver training or when the Dawlish line had issues. I think most of the trains went via the Teign Valley.line if the Dawlish sea wall track was out

Less than one day per year, I reckon, averaged over a long period of 150 years or more.   A website here has provided a list, no idea of its provenance though:

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2014/dawlish-rail-disruption/

Paul

I think Network would most likely be unwilling to put an definate figure on reopening the Tavistok - Okehampton line untill they have have had a good look at the condition of the trackbed along the such as the bridges etc.

As for gradients I would certainly be interested in what the limit is especially when you look east from Stratford International and see the line dropping as the descend into tunnel.

Of course I do wonder if the government is going to be serious about a line to avoid Dawlish and we are still waiting the Portishead an Henbury lines to be re-opened the track is already in place and in use in the case of the latter

Hi


I have come across this interesting article on the rail forum web site http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96306

which has a link to a gradient map
http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf

Guy

And the Government has indicated that they'll pay....

NR have posted this timelapse video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWGxuPF7wNU) on YouTube - impressive stuff...

a) I don't know the Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton route, but I did note with concern that some senior figures are evaluating it as an extra way to Plymouth based on the time taken by the few through trains that ran in the final, rundown days of the line, with lots of stops and start, rather than the time taken on it when it was a mainline, or the time that would be taken on it were it a new mainline with modern trains.

The above extract from a recent post by 'Grahame' reporting some highlights of the TWSW Meeting at Taunton on 1/3/14 prompts me to give the following information  on Plymouth/Exeter St D journey times via both Southern & Western routes applicable in 1967:-
Plymouth(North Road) to Exeter St D (Via Okehampton) by 1040 Plymouth to Brighton (this train last ran on 4/3/67;D8xx 'Warship' with load 9 Mk I incl Buffet Car) calling Keyham, Tavistock North (1115), Okehampton (1143) and Exeter St D (1213) ie Ply-Exe in 93 mins., does not compare too unfavourably with the then generally 70-75 mins. best times for NON stop Plymouth to Exeter trains via Dawlish. 

Good point.In a book called Bulleids Pacifics,a historical account of the life and times of the said locomotives by D.W.Winkworth,there is a log of a run made by a Battle of Britain locomotive carrying 10 coaches from ESD to Devonport King Road [probably about 1 mile from Plymouth North Road] in 1954 stopping at Okehampton,Tavistock and Bere Alston.The booked timetable gave a timing of 90 minutes,the actual time taken was a few seconds over 80 minutes.The train seemed to be at less than optimum speed in the Newton St Cyres-Crediton area too-a top speed of 54 mph was given in the log and i know for a fact that considerably higher speeds can be attained in that region.As you say,with non stop running, modern traction and engineering techniques,then it would surely be possible to improve greatly on timings from previous eras and it it is to be hoped that would be taken into account in any fair and open minded analysis of the merits of the LSWR line in comparison to the GWR.

He also said that non-stop running wasn't an option as trains need to be full-ish on arrival into/out of  London to bolster the business case. He couldn't recommend spending loads of money just for trains arriving a quarter empty. So if you're carrying from Dawlish / Teignmouth & the Torbay area, you need to stop & pick upother pax elsewhere.

He reckoned the Okehampton route would add an hour to the journey time, and for that reason very few would choose it over Dawlish repaired. He thought it better value to make Dawlish far more weather & sea proof than spend millions on an avoiding route, other than possibly a slower diversionary route.

In that case,whoever "he" may be is talking ill informed and possibly politically motivated and biased trash.

Well it may not add an hour to the EXD-PLY journey time, but using Okehampton as a diversionary route when necessesary leaves then entire population of Torbay and the South Hams without direct rail links to the rest of the country.

Far better in my mind to build a Dawlish Avoiding Line first. Then look at whether Okehampton-Tavistock merits reopening.

Errr....Patrick Hallgate - Network Rail actually. He knows far more than thou

You should have been there, what happened? :-)

Patrick Hallgate outlined all the five options previously announced and frankly, I thought he was saying all of them had disadvantages outweighing the advantages whether through elongated travel times, land ownership/building problems or stupid money needed. His report to HMG will be interesting...

Looking to compare apples with apples, I turned to Bradshaw of 1922.   The fastest Exeter to Plymouth journey on the London and South Western was 90 minutes, and the fastest Exeter to Plymouth journey on the Great Western was faster at 82 minutes. No view expressed on how that translates for today, nor on intermediate traffic opportunities or what any future balance should be - just providing a journey time comparison from the days when the lines were competing before.

Yep Patrick Hallgate is the Route Managing Director for Network Rail.  Previous roles include RMD for the Great Eastern and MD for Infrastructure Projects London & South of England. 

His statements on the Dawlish issue would not be the whimsical ranting's of a madman or southing he dreamt up in the pup over a pint or 2, he will have tasked the senior engineers and operations mangers to optioneer the different scenarios it is likely he will have to present this and a whole rift of other climate resilience measures (Somerset, Oxford, Thames Valley) to the House of Commons Transport select committee.

Errr....Patrick Hallgate - Network Rail actually. He knows far more than thou

If he stated that ESD to Plymouth via an upgraded Okehampton line would take an hour longer than the current line via Dawlish,then he most certainly doesn't appear to know more than me.How on earth would a line which is just 5 miles shorter than the comparator line enjoy that sort of time advantage? Even BigNoseMac,who is by no means a proponent of the Okehampton route,knows that it's bullshine.Is there a transcript of the meeting available? 

Unfortunately not - but there are others here that were also present.

I suspect he was referring to the likely provision should that line be built - that the maximum line speed will NOT be designed as a high-speed line at speeds such as is available on the current line...money is quite definitely a big consideration, and for various reasons he gave, would likely only be used by HSTs at time of Dawlish closure, so there would be no need to do this.

A diversionary route, whose main purpose would be to serve local traffic, may not justify the extra expense of re-engineering it for higher speed running to match that achieved on the existing line. Admittedly, speeds aren't great over the Devon Banks, but can they be matched by the detour around North Devon without additional expense above and beyond that needed to open the line for local services?

Notwithstanding the reversal needed at Exeter St Davids, or double reversal for services into and out of Cornwall.

Still won't add up to an hour longer journey I think. That though is not my main concern about favouring Okehampton-Tavistock for reopening. It does nothing to address the issue of Torbay and the South Hams being left with no trains when there are sea wall problems. A short inland DAL from Exminster to Newton Abbot keeps the good folk of Torquay and Totnes connected to the rail network in all weathers. As well as offering speeded up journeys to Plymouth.

Okehampton-Tavistock should be given a cost/benefit analysis on its own traffic potential. No additional weighting should be given to it as a diversionary route.

Think you're going to be disappointed - the five routes being analysed in his report are in the attached image....from one of the pages of his powerpoint that have been sent to all attendees.

Just noticed route C1 may be your suggestion?

And three of those options, C1, C2, C3, are along the lines of what I'd like to see

He was pretty clear that only one of these at most might go ahead.

I was there, and what Patrick Hallgate said was in the context of the ,ahem, rather lively debate surrounding the Plymouth area aspiration for a 3-hour journey time to London. He said that going via Okehampton would mean a journey time nearer to 4 hours, and notwithstanding his excellent pedigree & well-deserved meteoric rise up the NR ladder, he is clearly likely to proved wrong on this. Should reinstatement happen, a (say for sake of argument) London-Reading-Exeter-one of Okehampton/Tavistock-Plymouth stopping pattern service should still be capable of getting in under 3hr 30 minutes.

Indeed, the look on his face after he said it was the classic one of those who have just uttered a hostage to fortune, as the heated conclusion of that debate clearly demonstrated.

In my opinion though, the problem for all concerned when linking the reinstatement of the route via Okehampton with the Plymouth area aspiration for a 3-hour journey time to London is that it is akin to providing the wrong answer to the wrong question.

3 hour London-Plymouth journey time services are already here, with a number contained within the current timetable. What the Plymouth folks actually want is a significant rise in the amount of such services, to the extent that the 3 hour journey time becomes the regular standard.

In order to achieve this, two significant centres of opposition need to be overcome. Firstly, many of remember that the infamous Draft December 2006 timetable contained a number of speeded-up services, at the expense of the removal of stops at Tiverton Parkway and Totnes. Huge opposition to this ensued, and was instrumental in changing the fundamental structure of the timetable towards the way it looks today. Indeed, the reinstatement of stops at Totnes came on the morning of the very day that large numbers of protesters were due to gather on the platform as a special train full of FGW-invited dignitaries was scheduled to pass through.

The other main centre of opposition is one that is already rather more vocal due to what they see as an imminent threat to their London services in the upcoming franchise ^ the West Wiltshire passengers typically centred on Westbury and Pewsey, but also drawn from a wider catchment area. There is also significant concern from further afield at the connection opportunities that could potentially be lost by not stopping at Westbury.

As a result, you also have a problem that is essentially twofold ^

Passengers from the likes of Tiverton Parkway, Totnes, Westbury and Pewsey feeling angry that Plymouth give the impression of simply wanting the 3 hour standard pushed through regardless of their opposition.

Plymouth 3 hour supporters feeling angry that the likes of Tiverton Parkway, Totnes, Westbury and Pewsey want to keep hold of their existing services and perhaps add more, thus steadfastly remaining in the way of their own ambitions.

Whilst I admire the clearly-expressed determination of Matthew Golton to get this impasse sorted once and for all, I don^t recall ^magician^ being in his CV, and he is certainly going to need to be one in order to conjure up a solution to this issue.

Thanks for the clarification, Lee - that is indeed what Mr Hallgate said....an hour over the 3hour aspiration.

Agree with all you say above - I don't think that 3 hour aspiration you discuss will be solved until such time as further services get added & everyone get both their stops on some and faster limited-stop on others. But as Mr Hallgate said, all trains need to be around full on arrival in London - so demand has to step up big time - and personally, I don't think the extra pax are going to be forthcoming in order effectively to be full on leaving PLY, or EXD if one can get at least one stop there & also attain that timing.

And if you have a Dawlish Avoiding Line you have the potential for fasts to overtake semi-fasts which, with some clever timetabling, you can have (some of) the aspirations of all interested parties met.

Provided of course that pathing those services between London and Reading is possible.

Indeed, but pax demand will be the key as there will still be concern about over provision of capacity.

Of course we have the possible future option (beyond HSTs and beyond the current funded IEP build) of 2x 5 car bi-mode IEPs that could potentially split en-route to serve both different stopping patterns and different destinations.

Bude, anyone?

I like that idea, but will HMG?

Here's his CV:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/careers/schemes/graduate/career-journeys/patrick-hallgate/

I think you just scored a spectacular own goal.   ;D

Paul

Continued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26407806

We dealt with this earlier in the topic, Paul.

While we are not disputing his excellent pedigree and acheivements, the general consensus is that he got it wrong on this particular issue, and I think even he may look back and slightly regret how he put it at the time.

Just to add my comments. I would agree with a previous thought that:-

a) Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth to be re-opened as an alternative route for local services (also opening up new opportunities for West Devon/North Cornwall residents). This line can also be used when the existing route is closed (weather/engineering/incidents). No, it won't be as fast as the existing line but does keep passengers and freight from Plymouth and Cornwall on trains.

b) Safeguard a chosen alignment for a Dawlish avoiding line from development but do not actually construct it. I cannot see the sense of building a line that MAY not be required in the short or medium term! I doubt that the existing line would survive the construction of an avoiding line - simply a duplication. In any event the seawall at Dawlish needs to be maintained. By safeguarding a chosen route you keep the options open without incurring much of the expenditure.

c) Only by re-opening the Okehampton route will an independent line (apart from short stretches at either end) to Plymouth/Cornwall be achieved. Any Dawlish avoiding line will not do this. What we don't know is whether the recent violent storms will repeat regularly or infrequently. Some comparison must be possible with the success of the Settle and Carlisle Railway and the re-opening of the Borders Railway both of which run through sparsely populated countryside.

Hmmm - four members posting isn't a 'general consensus', unfortunately.

Looks as if those options involve serious money - tunnelling appears to be involved

See page 12 of this report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf

Southernman,   I agree with your analysis completely and would add that with an alternative route in place, it will be easier to close the seawall route for the length of time needed to strengthen it against further weather.  From looking at the reports and photos it appears that NR/Bam Nuttal are putting back a section of line in a much more robust from that that which was washed away.  Thousands of tonnes of reinforced concrete replacing a garden retaining wall backfilled with soil and sand. 

You do realise that any alternative route won't materialise overnight, and may be at least a year+(++?) before whichever is ready? I suspect that this strengthening may come first....

Added to a large number of those present at Saturday's meeting it is.
 
Happy to test it though. If a deluge of forum members  come forward and sincerely agree with the Hallgate assertion that going via Okehampton will add a near-extra hour to the London-Plymouth journey time, then I will respect that view.

As pointed out earlier above - the assertion isn't that any longer, but "an hour longer than the 3 hour regular journey time requested by Plymouth Business"

My guess is that an alternative route would take 4 or 5 years. 

How are they going to strengthen the seawall route without lifting the track?  They might do some patching and strengthening, but they can't pump thousands of tonnes of concrete under the track without lifting it for an extended period of time can they? 

Semantics -Especially as I was one who pointed it out  ;D

Ok, have it your way - Hallgate did assert that going via Okehampton would involve a near 4 hour journey time - it is an absolute fact that he said that.

What I am saying is that if a (so far) silent majority of forum members agree with Hallgate on that, then they should feel free to post and I will respect that.

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that it would take 4 hours to get to Plymouth via Okehampton. Lee's 3.30 seems nearer the mark. If we assume that London Paddington-Exeter takes 2 hrs-2 hours 15 mins, would Exeter-Plymouth take 1hr 45?

Your chance to vote in the London-Plymouth via Okehampton Journey Time Poll can be found here. (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13648.msg149786#msg149786)

GRIP 0 is 'What are we trying to achieve?'

It's a very good question to ask at the outset! All the route options give resilience, so what we are arguing about is the second-order gains.

We on this forum seem to be split between 'deepeners' and 'wideners': 'deepeners' want to speed up the current service, which would probably push us in the direction of C1, C2 or C3; 'wideners' are more interested in making rail services more readily available to people who live north of Dartmoor, which suggests route A. I don't hear many advocates of B.

I can't see that the line speeds achieved on the Okehampton route back in the days of 60ft rail and clockwork signals have much bearing on what would be achievable if it were rebuilt - ^700 million ought to go a very long way towards giving it a much better line speed. It might not be quite as quick as the 'C' routes, but surely the gain for North Devon, plus the extra capacity, has to be an important consideration?

Hopefully Paddington to Plymouth via an Okehampton diversionary route will realistically be under 4 hours but a train journey time extension is usually far more acceptable to the vast majority of rail passengers compared to enduring lengthy & unpopular bus journeys.

Thus the reason Cross Country (rather slowly to instigate some might say) have provided an increasing number of trains services between Exeter and Bristol diverted via Westbury, that whilst adding about 45 mins. to the journey have nevertheless been chosen and preferred by rail passengers.

The Government concerned with the large amount of planned bustitution in recent years has set NR objectives for a big reduction in the need for bustitution and aspires to a 24/7 Railway.

To this end not only would an Exeter/Okehampton/Plymouth re-opened railway (serving Okehampton, Sourton Parkway & Tavistock) be available as a diversionary route for Plymouth & Cornwall rail traffic in times of emergencies on the South Devon route but it could also be used for diversions for planned Infrastructure works on the South Devon route which normally amounts to several weekends, sometimes also weekdays, a year; thereby enabling NR to meet some of its Government set objectives.

It is known that the Southern Exeter/Plymouth main line was engineered to a far higher standard than the South Devon/GWR route..not least with regards to its much easier gradients and lack of numerous sharp curves which cause, for about 25 miles between N.Abbot & Hemerdon, considerable & costly wheel flange/rail wear & resultant shortened life,  ..you only have to be on an HST to appreciate the wheels aggressively grinding into the rails at max. line speed of (only) 60mph on the curves.

 

I was there too on Saturday - it was a very interesting day - and just wanted to add a couple of observations on the potential journey time via Okehampton.

Patrick Hallgate gave an excellent presentation but did not seem particularly well informed when it came to the Okehampton route.  To be fair, he said the study of all the potential additional routes was being done, to be with ministers by the end of June.

As has been pointed out, in BR days, at the end, a fast service on the Okehampton line took around 20 minutes longer than via Newton Abbot.  In the line's final timetable, two Sunday trains were booked to take 1 hr 40 mins with four stops as against 1 hr 21 mins with two stops on the Western.   The thing to point out here was that, for reasons of economy as much as anything, the line speed for the 23 miles south of Bridestowe was just 40MPH (by contrast, it's now 55MPH for most of the line south of Bere Alston).

In May 1966, Ian Allan organised a non stop special from Paddington - Penzance, back to Waterloo.  It must have been quite a day.   I have attached a log of the Plymouth - Waterloo section which shows that it took 72 minutes to get from Plymouth - Newton St Cyres after which a speed restriction for the Cowley Bridge replacement works meant it took another ten minutes to St Davids (82 mins from Plymouth in all, with one stop).   

For me, the Okehampton route would mean no more bus replacements for those of us who live in Plymouth and Cornwall and this would be great.  However, of course, it would not be the fast route that many here are looking for, not least Plymouth City Council, the Chamber of Commerce etc.

We'll see what the study says but, if it is to be the Okehampton route (if we get any additional route at all), then it need not be as slow as some fear.

Agreed - Patrick Hallgate (PH) referred to some of that route having been built on, so he thought it was going to be an expensive option too.


Only to HMG in approving whichever scheme (if they go for any) - it seemed as though PH was under instruction only to look to provide a report on which route(s) might be diversionary & at what price. It will be for HMG to decide whether any mitigating factors over the price differences are worth paying. I suspect they may look to the local Councils to put their money where their mouth is, if they can all decide which route suits them all! Could be an interesting few months lobbying....

Just found this report online. Talks of advantages of a number of schemes, the merits of SD (south Dartmoor) and ND (North Dartmoor) and proposed electrification and development of direct routes into Cornwall.

A pdf file but you can find it in the list on the google search below. Second item down:-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+Dawlish+railway+resilience+report+2012&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=KaUUU5ugHKiS7Ablq4GQDQ

This link (http://www.neilparish.co.uk/sites/www.neilparish.co.uk/files/140205_extreme-weather-resilience-in-the-sw-final-as-issued-v3.pdf) will take you straight to the report. :)

Network Rail have poured scorn on a new/reopened route avoiding Dawlish since day one. It is quite apparent they will claim the repaired sea wall is more resilient (heard that before?) and no further action is needed.

Look at their latest tactic: tell the Plymouth business community that only Dawlish can deliver their cherished 3hr trip journey time to London. Add into this constant sniping about development on the old route/s, cost and 'problems' and it paints a very negative approach. An approach quite at odds with the 'can do' attitude of the Crossrail and HS2 projects: if only Crossrail involved demolishing some offices, a couple of houses and strengthening a viaduct, eh?

Meanwhile, the sea levels keep rising and the 'storms of a century' become almost annual events...

I don't know who Tom Worsley  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26407806.

Transport spending is a lot lower than other parts of the country per head ^212 per person in the South West Compared to ^774 in London But I could be rong here the land would be cheaper in the south west to build on.

Guy

Wonder who that report was produced for? JCR seem to be a recognised company;

http://www.jrc.org.uk/

Not really the sort of thing you would spend time on and then put on the internet if there is no purpose to it but it takes all sorts to make a world i suppose.Some of the proposals would appear to be rather ambitious in all truth,visionary certainly but vision doesn't seem to cut much ice with relevant autorities,especially as far as the west country is concerned.Curious.

Network Rail will put proposals forward with cost estimates for all of Dawlish alternative routes it will then be down to the campaigning of the people in Devon and Cornwall to get the Political determination to construct the alternative route

Build a DAL and no one (excepting Dawlish and Teignmouth); not Plymouth, not Cornwall, not Totnes, not Torbay would need bus replacements.

Oh, and an avoiding line also ticks the 'journey time improvement' box which should please the vocal lot in Plymouth.  ;)

I appear to be a lone voice sticking up for the South Hams and Torbay.  :(

No you're not, I'm with you on this.

Why so much focus on the journey time?  In relation to its role as a diversion line, surely whether Plymouth-Tavistock-Exeter takes 60m, 90m, or 120m is not that relevant.  What is relevant is that a Plymouth-Exeter journey can be made by rail at all.  I don't think anyone is suggesting it becomes the primary rail route from Plymouth to Exeter.

Unlike the other options, the old Southern route has (in  addition to the 'diversionary' role) an extra big advantage of providing rail access to a large area currently not served by rail (albeit a low population density area).

When costing the re-instatement of the old Southern route, regard should be taken of the fact that funding of the Bere Alston - Tavistock section  is already planned so the incremental costs are only of the Tavistock to Meldon section (plus any costs relating to increased line capacity outside that section)

Cheers John.  ;D

But if you are going to spend a couple of hundred million on some sort of avoiding line, why not build one which can be used day in day out to provide a faster service to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall?  Yes, it would probably cost more, but I suspect the additional cost, when compared with the additional benefits would be cost justified.

I hope not and I am sure those doing the study will be noting the following:

1) If a line is just a diversion it will be slow because there would be little justification for the expense of making it fast
2) There is no justification for a full diversion of the main line via Okehampton because:
     a) The population of that part of North Devon is tiny compared to Torbay and South Hams
     b) There would be a need to reverse at Exeter and (for ongoing trains to Cornwall) also at Plymouth
3) A short diversion round Dawlish would reduce journey times and still serve Torbay and South Hams
4) The existing line would have to retained in both options so there is no saving to either.
5) A local service to Okehampton from Exeter and one to Tavistock from Plymouth would provide a service to these sparsely populated areas at less cost

Could the Okehampton to Exeter line be part of the Devon Metro if this option was not chosen

Guy

No-one but no-one is wanting to do down the South Hams and Torbay, but the biggest thing is if anyone west of Exeter will get any additional diversionary route at all.

Any of the Dawlish avoiding lines, even the one planned in the late 30s, would be a completely new railway, needing to be planned from scratch and involving some element of tunnelling.  The cost could be huge.

The one big plus about the Okehampton route is that it is largely there, either still as a railway, as a cycleway or simply as trackbed with few obstructions.  If the will was there, it could be rebuilt and reopened quite quickly and at not massive expense(despite what Network Rail are saying now).

We'll see what the studies say.  Bottom line for me is that we get one of the additional routes - if a Dawlish avoiding line works out best, great.  If not, then Okehampton.

I am too.....I can't see the mouths in PLY putting their money where there mouths are....

Yes. What the SW needs is two routes to Plymouth, one main route (the repaired sea wall for the time being) and one additional one (Okehampton). If/when the sea wall route looks as if it's set to crumble into the sea, a DAL must replace it. In the meantime, two lines are there to act as diversionary routes for each other and reinstating the Dartmoor route between Tavistock & Okehampton opens up the potential for new traffic with the possibilities of journeys from Plymouth to Okehampton/Tavistock and Tavistock/Okehampton to Exeter.

Hopefully The Dawlish line will reopen in about two weeks, that's 2 months it's been closed, ^20million a day lost in the West Devon and Cornwall.

And the Weakest Part of the Modern railway is that it JUST CAN'T work together to make a big publicity issue out of the line reopening.

How about a Steam Train making several Exeter to Newton Abbot journeys the Weekend the line opens????? 8)

Never Happen FGW couldn't arrange anything!!!!   >:(

Of course it's very very generous of FGW that FGW engineers are working 24/7 rebuilding the storm damaged railway, (as per their radio ad's),
Hope Network Rail send FGW the repair bill.  ;D

Pardon?

IF the West's economy is losing that amount - and others in business have said it's only ^2million/day - shouldn't it be the West's businesses putting on what you suggest? It's no fault of any TOC, nor NR, but an act of God (the weather, that is) that has caused this problem - why should it JUST be down to FGW/NR?

Really?   Or is that one of those 'finger in the air' estimates that will turn out to have been nothing of the sort?  

Paul

Might be that sort of money in the height of the summer season - but in deepest February with the weather at its worst? - sorry, it's just a finger in the sky figure, agreed.

West Country business have an inflated idea of the amount of GDP they produce. Need to get of their high horse and produce a sensible report with facts, not just conjecture.

I have no idea of the figures involved across the whole South West economy, but hotels in the Teignmouth and Dawlish areas are reported to have been booked up en masse for Network rail workers and their contractors working on the repairs.  I suspect, with the possible exception of the half term week, they would not have been anything like full otherwise.

Just a caution for those thinking (rightly) that a re-opened Okehampton route could be cheap/simple/quick.

The 7.5 miles of reinstatement of Uckfield - Lewes was costed by NR at ^140M, for single track. 55 miles of double track would be well over ^1Bn.

They got this by including acquiring land (15m strips alongside, temporarily, for contractors' convenience), by renewing all infrastructure, although they said that 75% was reusable, blanketing/deep ballasting, extra clearances for 100mph, contingency and optimism assumptions etc.

That's why those in the industry may say that starting from scratch is best.

If they had just kept the high level concrete skirting walkway continuous at Dawlish (apparently the residents felt it intrusive) there might never have been an issue.

OTC

Just as well NR did not get involved in the Bluebell Rly extension then !

Surely someone else can re-instate/build lines besides NR and its Contractorial/'over scoping' set ups.

Hundreds of thousands of good concrete f/b sleepers,with approx 50 yrs of life still in them, are being crushed or the lucky ones sold to farmers at a couple quid each for farm tracks etc.
50-60 yrs old B/H chaired conc. sleepers are increasingly finding their way to private lines for re-use for another 50 years !

You could of course take this approach, but I think you might find the journey times a little long with the speed restrictions. 

I'm a simple minded soul,so would really welcome an explanation as to how 7 miles between Lewes and Uckfield is costed at ^140m but the proposed reinstatement of the 6 miles between Bere Alston-Tavistock line is costed at ^26m. ???

Tempting, but I will refrain...

Are there some significant new or replacement structures on Lewes to Uckfield?  I seem to remember at least a very significant river bridge.  Structures could have a significant impact on the costs.

Lewes Viaduct. Also conflict with Lewes relief road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealden_Line


But a complex story - read the Wikipedia page, with a note that perhaps it presents the story as reported by people who don't believe the decision to close was properly made nor the correct one.

As an aside, an interesting case where it appears that arrangements weren't exactly ideal for passengers displaced from trains ...

It should be noted that NR did not propose using the "at-closure" route described by grahame to access Lewes, and therefore the ^141 million cost quoted for the Base Option is not based upon it.

NR did look at using the "at-closure" route, but rejected it as follows:


Instead, NR selected an option based upon the "at-opening" route:


See here (http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4C6FFD8D-7BA6-44FE-8B1C-3F49A884EBCC/0/lewes_uckfield_appendix1.pdf) for an overview of the proposed route, using aerial photographs with overlaid information.

How NR arrived at the ^141 million cost quoted for the Base Option is detailed below:

Cost Category Estimated Cost (^m)

Land Purchase and Consents - 16.8
GRIP3 Project Management & Design - 0.9
GRIP4-8 Project Management & Design plus TWA Costs - 12.6
Structures, Bridges/Embankments/Culverts/Fencing etc. - 43.1
Track including preparation of the formation - 21.4
Signalling and telecoms works - 11.8
Contractor^s costs and allowances - 1.9
Total 108.5

Plus Contingency (30%) - 32.5
Total Estimated Cost 141.0

This does not allow for the 60% "optimism bias" uplift as is required for Government funded projects at this stage of development.

There are incremental costs compared to the Base Option listed as well - 7.4 million for intermediate stations on a single track route, 25.5 million for double track with no intermediate stations, and 38.8 million for double track with intermediate stations.

NR's Estimate Assumptions were as follows:


See here (http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D19512EC-818D-45F9-953A-597F6F212D0C/0/lewes_uckfield_appendix7.pdf) for NR's list of scope of works which they felt were required to reinstate the rail link for each option.

The whole shebang (report, appendices etc) can be found at http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/default.htm - I'm sure the wording of the link will prompt the wags among you to speculate as to the priorities of the relevant local authority  ;D

There you go, having spent the weekend on concessionary fares, (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=13686.msg150614#msg150614) that's the rest of your week sorted wading through this...

Lee: many thanks for the thorough information, saving me a chore!

It just shows the difference between acceptable existing standards and those applied to new or even reinstated routes.

If the Lavender (Isfield) Line were given the land, planning consents and materials grant, it could re-open most of the route for a song. Only at the ends (at Hamsey where a new formation is needed) and at Uckfield (where the bypass must be raised) is real, NR work needed. The intermediate bridges etc are identical to those carrying the Brighton main line. I'm also not convinced of the need to eliminate crossings on secondary routes when there are others existing on high speed, intensively used lines

Perhaps the best way ahead with the Okehampton route would be to invite the Northern part of the line's US owners to make a proposal. Some American "Can Do" might be the answer. 29t axle loads and a 14' x 10' gauge!

OTC

We must still remember that the standard of track on many of our preserved railways necessitate a very low speed limit.  This would probably not be acceptable for a reopened line such as Lewes Uckfield or Oakhampton Tavistock

The proposed HS1-HS2 link is costed at ^700 million for what looks to be less than a mile of track...

I believe at least two heritage lines are passed for 60mph for non-passenger workings.

Some lines have their own track maintenance machines and can do thermit rail welding.

One at least contracts NR to do its maintenance.

Where there's a will,


OTC

I agree but that will need more than the very basic railway.

A study management group has been formed to steer the strategic review into the viability of three long term options:

- Retaining the coastal route.

- Building a second line.

- Re-routing the main line.

See http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/News-Releases/Rail-group-to-map-out-resilience-strategy-for-Devon-and-Cornwall-2028.aspx

As I said in my last post.
When Dawlish reopens it will have been shut for over 2 months.

Any decent business would sign loudly  and have some news worthy special events.
to spread the word.
What have FGW got planned?
Anything or Nothing!

I have little faith in the TOC's as they allowed the "Inter-City" name to fade away.

Inter-City was in the top 10 most commonly remembered brand names, alongside Coke-Cola, and a name so well known is worth 100s of ^millions.

... which is not the reason it was scrapped, but would have been in the mix.

As I said in my reply, why single out just FGW? What have other businesses got planned also? Nothing I can see either....

From a news release on the FGW website (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/About-Us/Media-Centre/2014/March/tornado-steam-engine-on-night-riviera-sleeper)

I think of all the changes that privatisation brought, the loss of Inter-City would not be highest on my list of priorities.

Any "decent business" would wait until it was absolutely confirmed by Network Rail that the line is reopening before making a big splash. Having seen some of the work still going on to stabilise the cliffs I'm not surprised that they are waiting. Don't forget Network Rail predicted the Hastings line would be open a couple of weeks ago but it hasn't happened yet as the embankment hasn't stabilised despite all the work done. Though I suppose BR would have sorted all that out by now as well?

SWT and NR supported the Botley line re-opening with a routine points failure at Fareham tunnel junction.  Just to be sure they got sufficient media coverage, a couple of days later they had a ceremonial broken rail...    ;D

Paul

Probably the same sort of completely unsubstantiated '^millions' as Devon and Cornwall businesses have supposedly 'lost'...

Paul

Though, and at the risk of digressing, there are plenty of examples of millions being spent on brand advertising, only for a takeover to wipe out all the benefit. Two that come to mind are Cornhill's sponsorship of test cricket over many years, only to be taken over by Allianz. And also in the Insurance sector, who remembers the very clever Guardian (brand logo an owl) phone number of 282820. They spent millions on tv on that, only to be taken over and the brand (and presumably the number) extinguished.

The loss of the Inter-City trading name wasn't a smart move and I agree with Dark Star.

I seem to remember that when Great Western Holdings took over from Inter-City Great Western that they were the only TOC to retain the Inter-City name on the coaching stock.

I would very much like to see a relaunch of the Intercity brand especially now on the GWML with the half hourly Bristol - London express services  taking under 90 minutes.

Certainly I think it will help attract more custom

Be real - even if it was a (minor) failure of privatisation that the brand was dropped, does anyone really think that nearly 20 years on its resurrection would attract more custom?  From what I can gather (various other threads will testify), FGW is not exactly struggling to fill its standard class seats.

And I'm not sure about the "especially now ...services taking under 90 minutes" as services to both Parkway and Temple Meads are a lot slower than in the days when the Intercity brand was at its fore.  Not wishing to reopen a debate held many times on the forum, but the "especially now" implies there's been an improvement of late, when there hasn't been.

Not an improvement in journey time perhaps, but there has been an improvement in frequency, regularity and connectivity in the privatised era. I'm no fan of the UKs privatisation model, but I can't argue with the abundance of services we have now, compared to the last days of BR.

Intermediate stations between Bristol and London have a far better 'InterCity' service than was ever the case in BR days. Added to that, many of the smaller locations that feed into Bristol have more than one peak time HST via the GWML to and from London and points in between.

Whether its 90 minutes or 100 minutes end to end makes little difference I think. Regular clockface service patterns are more important in attracting and keeping custom.

Yes, absolutely.

A brand image conveys a product description, with common features across the goods or services offered.

IC did and would do just that, speed, business customers, service, on board food preparation, city centre terminals, off peak for VFR.

It also helps to decide  on traction, rolling stock etc as commonality yields economies of scale.

The same holds for NSE but less so for PSS as these have a more regional flavour.

Does anyone think that London Transport is an unnecessary brand?

OTC

Apologies if this has already been posted (though a search yielded no results) : Kilbride Group's comment on the Dawlish Line situation (From 7th Feb) and how their project could be part of the bigger alternative line solution:

http://www.kilbridegroup.com/docs/view_news.asp?nid=55


Also note the 'Critical decisions being made in the next few weeks' comment.

"From 7th Feb?...Chances are these have been taken....("in the next few weeks" - we're now in April)

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/new-Devon-rail-route-away-Dawlish-disaster-South/story-21017710-detail/story.html :


Hmmm ... wouldn't it be a closure of the existing route rather than the addition of an alternative that would effect Totnes and Torbay, or have I missed something?

The vested interest lobbies seem to be gearing up to stop the reopening of the Okehampton route. Devon CC was on the HoC Select Committee (on TV ch 81) opposing it.

Who would now say that the Waterloo - Exeter Central line threatened the Berks and Hants route?

Or that Tavistock and Okehampton wouldn't prove to be well used railheads?

I suspect that a proper reinforced sea wall abutting the line West of Dawlish station is all that is needed locally as it has done further up.

Storms will always close a coastal line for a few hours, just with flying debris, that's when an alternative is needed.

I'd love to watch a webcam of a high sea mixing it with 25kV OHLE!

OTC

Thanks for the tip-off about debate on BBC Parliament - I watched the whole Select Committee session on iPlayer last night (and stayed up far too late as a result). All interesting stuff, though presumably things have moved on a bit since that session was recorded on 25th Feb.

I don't think it is fair to say that Devon CC oppose the Okehampton route. There was some discussion around the terms 'alternative' and 'additional'; the Torbay lobby is rightly vociferous in demanding that the Dawlish route must remain, but did not oppose the Okehampton route as an additional option - they just didn't think it would be possible to justify the cost.

The only person who sought to dismiss Okehampton altogether was Adrian Sanders, the Torbay MP - but again I think that was simply because he can't see the funding being made available for both routes, and he wants to be certain that there is a long-term commitment to the Dawlish route's future.

Incidentally, Patrick Hallgate (NR's Western Route Managing Director) cited that figure of ^700-^800 million to rebuild the Okehampton route, but made it clear that as far as he was concerned all options were on the table. Does anyone have access to the report that came up with that costing? Was there any particular reason for specifying platinum rails?

My thoughts are strengthen the seawall, which will hopefully stave off having to build a new line from Exeter to Newton Abbott for a few more years. Putting off such projects fits in well with our natinal phsyche

However, at the same time reinstate Okehampton Bere Alston as has been said as a railhead for North Devon for Plymouth and Exeter and as diversionary route. In order to forfill the latter requirement the line will need to built with a capcity of at least 3 tph each way so some more loops south of Bere Alston will be required as well double track on the new line.  There would be a normal 1tph local service (possibly 2tph to Tavistock in the peak). This would give scope for a London and Bristol (Reversing at Exeter) to Plymouth train per hour when when Dawlish is shut. It would also probably have to be open 24/7 when in use as a diversionary route for stock moves and freight (of which there should be much more).

Sorry I've been on a jolly around Europe, so delay in reply to Eighf 48544, I quite agree with his post, indeed there should be much more freight into Plymouth and Cornwall but modern "just in time" delivery doesn't sit happily with One Route to Plymouth.
So reopen the LSW route to Plymouth is sound idea.

How about a second route to bypass RAB at Saltash, rebuild the North Cornwall line??

Passport in hand, hard hat on head,hold that EUROSTAR, I'll be back.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28127840):

I'm genuinely rather puzzled by the timing of this story - has Martyn Oates been on a five-month sabbatical? Just wondering why he's telling us now about a briefing that took place in February? Or is the 'news' element of this story the detail that 'sources' have just got round to replacing their calculator batteries and are therefore, at last, able to reveal that ^700 million is an 'eye-watering' amount? ???

Or has the story been placed to prepare us for disappointment when the report on alternatives is published?  :'(

I fear your last sentence could be the telling one....

Never saw this coming, did we?
https://www.facebook.com/bbcspotlight  >:(

Well, it's game on as far as I'm concerned. The arguments are complex, and the costs and socio-economic benefits uncertain. What is certain though is that the closure of the main line earlier this year hurt most of Devon and all of Cornwall a lot, and perhaps more than expected. So, I'm willing to run a campaign to open some sort of alternative to Dawlish that means trains can keep running. Crucial question - is anyone prepared to back it?

Andy

Yet to see aby verifiable figures oddly

I watched the BBC local news (2 July)  (is it 'Spotlight South West?') on the iPlayer - they're talking figures way over ^1BN for diversionary routes.

The Borders Railway website now has a page of videos taken from drones (see http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/progress/videos.aspx ) which show what you get for just over ^10M/mile. Without droning on (again!) about demolition of houses on the trackbed, diversions, new bridges and so on I was surprised to see how much work has been done on the open line - new embankments, culverts, re-inforced cuttings and so on. This line, when it opens, will be better than new.

We know that any new line in Devon will require platinum rails and that any new structures will need to be made out of diamond, but even so it's hard to see how they could spend in excess of a billion on any of these routes.

Official view ... the forum's here for discussions such as this, and posts pressing for additional / alternative routes are most welcome, including links to events, campaigns, etc.  ... please make use of our resource.  You may like to note that our server is backed up quite often, and in the event of a failure of our infrastructure, we have an alternative way to get you to the site you want to go to within a few hours. Of course, we have taken a careful view of the cost of having that available in comparison to what we would loose if it wasn't there, and also a comparison to having a single system that's ultra-robust.

Quote from: Andyroden on Yesterday at 09:32:06 PM
So, I'm willing to run a campaign to open some sort of alternative to Dawlish that means trains can keep running. Crucial question - is anyone prepared to back it?

Yes in my limited fashion, although I think it should be led from Devon/Cornwall.

Working hypothesis: Plymouth and Cornwall require a resilient rail link to the main Network. 
This needs to be the core objective agreed by everyone.

How to achieve it.

 As I've stated in my previous post in this thread, it seems to me that the Dawlish seawall should be repaired/stenghthed to the highest possible standard It would be a waste to have spend millions on the recent repairs only to have it breached again in the next 1 in 1000 year storm.

However, as these storms seem to be occuring more frequently it would seem prudent to consider alternatives.

The obvious one being the ex Southern route via Okehampton and Tavistock. This was built as a main line over quite rugged terrain to a reaonable standard. When I worked at Waterloo in the early 60s and we still controlled the line I was not aware that were any major problems with the actual infrastructure. Obviously drainage will need to be improved as many culverts will be blocked.
Possibly Meldon Viaduct.

Therefore, there seem to be few obstacles (apart form Sustrans?) in the way of reinstatement.

There also seems to be a number of arguments other than providing an alternative route to Plymouth in the event another breach of the seawall. It will give Tavistock there long awaited link to Plymouth. Further it will provide a railhead (Okehampton Parkway?) for a large portion of North Devon/Cornwall via the A30.

Who knows, if we could overcome the C19th rivalries (LSWR GWR) you could even have trains running to Paddington from this line (reversing at St Davids).

The third future (distant) objective would be the Dawlish avoiding line hopefully built before the seawall becomes irrepairable.

i would suggest that the first objective of strengthening the seawall is almost achieved. It is the standard and projected longevity that is arguable.

Therefore, work should be concentrated on making the case for reinstating the Southern line as perhaps the main line in the event of a breach (to be discussed).

Which could mean that plans should be drawn up for a single line over the seawall or build the bypass.

Just stones in the pond to see how far the ripples get.

The Western Morning News' sources are plainly different to the BBC's...

Bit of gun jumping,possibly.At the height of the aftermath of the seawall breach back in February,the BBC reported this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559

Hopefully the BBC sources will prove to be as unreliable now as they were then.

The latest report on the Council website gives a total figure of ^26m for the re-instatement of the Bere Alston to Tavistock line, a distance of 5.5 miles; and planning for that is already in progress.

So, the creation of a total Exeter/Okehampton/Plymouth link would require only the incremental re-instatement of the Tavistock to Meldon section, which I think is about 17 miles.  Just scaling up for distance would give a figure of ^80m.  Simplistic I know, but even doubling the cost/mile would give a ^160m cost.

So what's the basis of the "at least ^700m" cost quoted for re-creating the Exeter/Okehampton/Plymouth line?  Is there a known huge cost re Meldon viaduct?  Or is the ^700m number based on creating a highly engineered mainline over the whole route with full signalling and high capacity?  If so, that is surely not the appropriate brief.  Surely what's needed is a line that could be available as an emergency diversionary route, whilst having the advantage of enabling an ongoing 'local' service.  It might not be able to handle a full service in emergency times but I'm sure having some sort of service during the recent coastal closure would have been a huge plus.

Which would still leave the entire Torbay and South Hams area without a rail service when the sea wall route is closed. I still maintain that the best option for all is a new inland route between Exminster and Newton Abbot.

Not true - still accessible via Plymouth, just not a very direct route, but certainly not "cut off" in the way experienced this year.  Whilst not ideal, it is only during very occasional periods of closure.

A new build modern engineered inland route could also provide for faster journeys to Plymouth and Cornwall. The Okehampton route can't and won't provide for this.

Exeter to Torquay is 26 miles currently. A diversion via Okehampton, Bere and Plymouth onto Newton Abbot for a change/reversal would add somewhere in the region of 100 miles and 2 hours plus to the journey time. With that choice on the table I've no doubt passengers for Torbay will chose a replacement bus if one is available.

I don't think the people (some 225,000 of them) in the Torbay and South Hams areas would be appreciative of a slow winding journey through Okehampton, Bere, Plymouth and then back up the main line to Totnes or on to Newton Abbot for a change or another reversal to continue to Torbay.

An inland new route between Exeter and Newton Abbot is a win win for nearly all. Torbay and South Hams keeps its direct trains, Plymouth and Cornwall get improved journey times, operators don't have to reverse trains twice, and passengers are kept on rail with only the small populations of Starcross, Dawlish and Teignmouth affected by a sea wall closure.

Okehampton merits study for an improved rail service in its own right, but not on the back of a diversionary route when the sea wall is impassible.

Whilst I see where you are coming from Bnm, I believe that  while we are waiting for a new line to built there is a good chance that the seawall will be breached again.

Therefore, it seems to me that by going for Tavistock Okehampton there would be a good chance that it could be finished before the seawall goes again. Whilst I agree that it doesn't serve Torbay it does give the oportunity to run through trains to Plymouth and Cornwall and rotate the stock and keep the trains running West of the breach.

Also it seems to be agreed that both Tavistock and Okehampton need better train services they might as well be relinked.

Thus it kills two birds with one stone providing a diversionary route and a rail link for a large area of north Devon and Cornwall curently without rail.

I think that waiting for a new line will be a bit like waiting for Godot
 

Why should a new line take any longer to build than reinstating a long abandoned one.? All the same surveys, studies, inquiries, land purchases etc need to be carried out. Similar amounts of heavy engineering will be required.

The expense of a new line may well be the deciding factor, I agree. But a half-baked solution, that continues to leave a large area of the populace with a fair weather railway just because it may be the cheaper option, just seems to me to be short sighted.

If we have the Okehampton route with its vastly increased journey times to Plymouth and Cornwall I predict it won't be long before rail users in the far South West are complaining about their roundabout journey whenever the sea wall route is closed. Give them a new faster route and keep the sea wall for the local traffic and occasional longer distance service.

You won't make Torbay, the South Hams and the far South West feel any less isolated if their alternative rail route is a slow meander up the Tamar Valley and a sedate journey around the edge of Dartmoor.

There appears to be too much focus here on what's best for North Devon, rather than the communities directly affected whenever the sea wall route is subject to disruption.

Clearly Network Rail are against anything other than strengthening the existing sea wall route. The ^700million plus seems rather excessive, as stated already, especially when compared to other reopening a elsewhere. If Meldon viaduct was strong enough for stone trains in the 80s then is it really unfit today?

Instead we can look forward to heavy seas, land slips and a breach elsewhere severing the line yet again this coming winter.

If the BBC are to be believed (which appears to be a big 'if') then ^700M is the cheapest option; other options are allegedly way more expensive.

Meldon Viaduct had not carried a train since 1990. The ^650,000 that was spent on it in 1996 was about preserving it (it's a scheduled monument) rather than beefing it up to a standard where it could carry anything heavier or faster than a bicycle. It would plainly need significant work to bring it up to main line standard, but we can surely assume that's in the ^700M.

That's 30 years ago, so yes quite possibly.

At the most recent TravelWatch SouthWest meeting, one of the guest speakers, Patrick Hallgate of Network Rail, raised some laughter in his comments over the way the BBC had just published what were apparently his 'already made decisions' over the additional route(s).  ::) :P ;D

However, I'm wary of trying to quote what Patrick actually said: I've got it rather wrong in the past.  :-X

If you're going to make a case against the Okehampton route,then it would have much more credibility if you didn't use Hallgate type nonsense such as this.

With the seawall route in better shape than for quite some time, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the NR "army" this Spring, my vote goes to the creation of a "Devon orbital" rail route via the reinstatement of the Meldon-Tavistock section.
   

I have to answer BNM here. I believe that, as a member, Railfuture support the Okehampton re-opening on balance. There was quite a piece in the centre pages of the Railwatch magazine within the last month. Whilst I agree it much reduces Torbays direct route, at times of disruption they would still be at least rail connected and I am sure replacement road transport between Newton Abbot and Exeter would still be provided as now. Additionally I believe this nonsense of 'vastly increased jorney times' needs to be put to bed.

In a meeting in April at Exeter County Hall. Mike Gallop of Network Rail used the 1965 timetable. He quoted times of around 90 minutes for the journey. 1 hour 45 minutes including the reversal times with HST's of 10-12 minutes.(Using 2 reversal times from Penzance). These times for the Okehampton route.

The same 1965 timetable also shows the time of trains to travel from Plymouth to Exeter via Dawlish was at its fastest 88 minutes. Is anyone really suggesting that those times are relevant to that line now? It was the same Diesel Haulage at the time for both routes. I note that Crosscountry operate HST's and their DIAGRAMMED reversal times are 7 minutes. Why should this be any different for FGW other than an extra coach length. Voyagers, 153's etc would reverse quicker than this.

Speed between Bridestowe and Ford (Devon) was historically 40mph. This is true. However this was largely for economy reasons. The most curvy portion is still used. With speeds of 55mph now! The line is capable of higher speed generally. Using the curvature profile for the Okehampton route,and the formula for speed around a curve, without ANY easing of curves would give a journey time of around 58 minutes end to end. Just easing a few points the theoretical time end to end is under 52 minutes. With 1 reversal times of 65 or 58 minutes. 2 reversals that gives a time Plymouth to Exeter of 72 minutes or 65 minutes. Pretty good when you consider going via Yeovil adds an hour or Taunton to Bristol via Westbury adding 40 minutes to journey times. This makes any additional time compare very favourably as an alternative route. I don't think anyone is suggesting anything else than the main line stays in the South of Devon. But as an additional route that can be used at ANY time when the 52 miles between Plymouth and Exeter via Totnes is closed. It is NOT always about Dawlish Sea Wall or Teignmouth cliff landslides.If the Scots vote for independence where will our Nuclear Deterrent be birthed? The biggest Naval Port in Europe. Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth is the only suitable place. This cannot be left without a rail line for fuels etc.That is a matter of National and Strategic Importance.

Also I have spoken to someone 'in the know' on the Meldon Viaduct Company. I understand that a full survey would cost between ^40-50k. With estimates of the cost to reinstate trains between ^15-20million. Not a small figure but in terms of railways relatively affordable.

As a complimentary/additional route Okehampton has many positives. Not least that it will help regenerate many economies but also bring many people closer to the railway. It is possible to get a bus add on to a ticket to both Okehampton and Bude. To Okehampton takes an hour by this bus from Exeter, instead of 40 minutes by train on the Dartmoor Rover. Bude takes much longer. A Parkway station could be opened at Sourton.

In a perfect world the answer would be a HS57 or wherever we are up to by the time money finally gets spent in large enough sums in the far West. Of course while the 'extra' ^146 million for improvements in Cornwall and up to Totnes is welcome, there will be NO speed increase. Just more trains will be able to travel at the Same speed as now. This HS57, or whatever,  would be a new line linking Devon's 2 cities by following the A38. Based on costs of new build now around ^100million per mile would give a cost of ^4billion! (This cost obtained from HS2 stating that conventional railways are only moderately cheaper than High Speed lines. Cost of HS2 around ^122million per mile without contingency). Even a direct line under Haldon would cost over ^1billion. The Okehampton routes represents a much cheaper and cost effective way of solving the problem......at least until more money becomes available and time can be taken to plan this new route. It also generates wealth by linking areas not currently connected and increases business oportunities.

There is already a group campaigning for the Okehampton route. It can be found along with much more information here:-

http://prg.2day.ws/

It is at least worth a look

Thank you for putting to bed some of the more absurd claims by some on here re journey times (you know who you are!) and the sum to bring Meldon viaduct back into the fold is a pittance when compared to other rail or road projects.

It does however cast real doubt on the estimated costs quoted of ^700m plus. If Meldon viaduct is ^20m, and reaching Tavistock less, what is the additional ^300-^400m being spent on?

My guess us that rolling stock has been factored in, despite the forthcoming post-electrification cascade. Would be typical smoke-and-mirrors. Anyone?

I'll concede that to Cornwall, the journey times may not be too unacceptable, although the double reversal presents some capacity and scheduling headaches. However, a wholly by rail journey to Totnes, Newton Abbbot and Torbay, will certainly be much longer when the main line is unavailable. 26 miles to Torquay from Exeter currently. Via Okehampton and Plymouth that will be around 90 miles added to the journey.

Many of those coaches that the Peninsula Rail Group have so carefully costed are still going to be needed for the Torbay and South Hams passengers. Why have they not included the costs of providing that alternative transport? Conveniently, in making the case for Okehampton-Tavistock, there's no mention whatsoever of what happens to Torbay and South Hams passengers when trains are being diverted.

225,000 people will remain with a fair weather railway if Okehampton-Tavistock is to be the designated alternative route during times of disruption.

It bemuses that people are poles apart on this issue, but as I've said elsewhere it depends on whether you see it as a zero-sum game.

The Dawlish route is far from being a 'fair-weather railway'; it is actually pretty robust. The real problem is that there is no alternative route if the line is closed anywhere between Exeter and Plymouth. The southern route options cater for Dawlish closures, but what about an embankment slip at Bittaford? What diversions could be used during electrification from Exeter-Plymouth?

 

Capacity and scheduling can be sorted. At present there are some 4 or 5 sections on the line between Plymouth and St Budeaux and enough capacity between Cowley Bridge and Exeter St Davids. Capacity is there. Though of course you are correct that careful scheduling will provide the highest number of trains per hour. For instance it takes 4-5 minutes for trains to cross the single line between Saltash, over Brunels' wonderful Royal Albert Bridge, and to the Section Signal at the end of St Budeaux Ferry Road Platform. This is plenty of time to cross a service over St Budeaux Junction and onto the Okehampton Line.

Yes BNM I concede about the coaches. Some would still be needed but none of them from Plymouth to Tiverton at over ^9 per mile per coach. However I believe that looking at the amount of coaches costed that PRG have actually underestimated the number used! An awful lot have to be used to equal the capacity of a HST. Maybe 8 or 9? And 3 lots of these for timing reasons for GW alone. I agree that The Okehampton route does not improve matters for the people in Torbay, all 225,000. The status quo would be the case for them. But it would help 3 times as many people in Plymouth and Cornwall, as an inland diversion would if the line were closed between Newton Abbot and Plymouth. It will be expensive to build and will create NO extra revenue. Though I agree if money was no object a High Speed line linking the cities solves all the problems. But as the BBC put it that really would be an 'eye watering' amount.

But as Red Squirrel points out what about when the line is closed elsewhere? The line has been blocked at various times for fatalities, cars on the line, the 'slipperyness' of Rattery and Dainton banks, etc. Incidentally the ruling gradients on the Okehampton line are much less severe than these banks so would cause less problems in leaf fall season. 6 years ago work on Marley Tunnel caused massive , albeit, planned delays with Single Line Working. That could have been eased by the Okehampton Route.

I remember a fatality at the end of 2009 on an early morning train from Plymouth that closed the line for several hours whilst the Police quite rightly investigated. This trapped much stock west of Ivybridge which meant trains were cancelled elsewhere across the entire network, as well as the trains from Cornwall and Plymouth.

A proper double track route via Okehampton adds capacity, adds resilience, adds only a little time from Cornwall and none from Plymouth and if done properly, for maybe ^550million. The shortest 1935 GWR cut off is 7 miles or ^700million. It adds no extra passengers. And will save at most 3 minutes. This will increase the number of trains from Plymouth to London in under 3 hours by exactly ZERO. The other schemes are more costly, but they still do not pick up extra passengers and unless tunnelled 13 miles directly under Haldon will again produce zero extra trains under 3 hours. Even under Haldon (13 miles) would only add another 3 trains per day sub 3 hours.

I am not against a serious new inland route that improves journey times from Plymouth and Cornwall but this would be best served by a 40 mile HS line. After all the 35 miles from Plymouth to Newton Abbot, with a few small exceptions (Hemerdon Bank for instance), is done at 60mph. This is where a new line would gain the most time. An HS line would need time to gain finance, Parliamentary consent, survey and construct and would cost in todays' money 8 times more than the Okehampton route. At a time when additional funding is paying for GW Electrification and other major projects this finance is scarce. Okehampton seems to be the most obvious solution.

None of the Options really answers all the questions. But as Railfuture have stated, on balance they support Okehampton Route. I believe them That is why I joined them. I personally believe that The North Dartmoor Route is the answer, though not a perfect one.

You only have to look at the costs of the Waverley route reinstatement to see that relaying track on an old trackbed is not as simple as it seems.  Meldon is not the only structure. All will require checking, most will require some repair and a few will require replacement. The earthworks have not been touched for many years and will probably require some repairs before they can take trains again.  The old ballast will need to be cleared out, the drainage rebuilt, new fences. Some land owners will require accommodation works. Then there is new ballast and track to lay and provision of signalling. 

Then there is Tavistock itself. West Devon may be happy to move offices, but the old offices will still have to be purchased and demolished and aren't there some houses in the way as well?


Then there is double tracking the existing single line sections the work between Swindon and Kemble shows that that is not trivial.  Some of those curves were probably eased when the track was made single and the line was probably slewed into the centre to avoid earthworks repairs.

Until a detailed deaign work has been done I would not rule out ^700m.

And on a day to day basis this would be used for a local train running through a very sparsely populated area that would have to be heavily subsidised. The true provision only being used when the Dawlish route was closed. 

The cost (and viability) of the Oakhampton route depends on the extent of the re-instatement and hence how much need be spent.

Plymouth - Exeter via Oakhampton is about 59 miles, although the existing gap from Oakhampton to Bere Alston is only 23 miles; if the extension to Tavistock is factored in the gap is only 17 miles. Allowing ^5M/track mile gives a range of ^85M to ^600M, depending on how much is rebuilt from scratch and whether double track for close headways or electrification is needed. Incidentally, the gradients are c1/75 all the way!

A rational way to decide this would be to assess its worth as an insurance against Devon coastal bad weather, combined with the value of two extra railheads. Probably full rebuilding to 100mph, double track with full multiple aspect signalling and 25kV overhead wiring is not viable or necessary but a lesser scale link probably is. Whether NR has the skills to build an "appropriate" railway, I doubt. I'd ask the Bluebell to quote for project management.

My figures are from "Gradient Profiles", Ian Allan, 1966 - 1997.

OTC
 

The Bluebell Railway re-opened the long-closed section from Horsted Keynes to East Grinstead last year, including viaduct and tunnel work and digging out a cutting that had been filled with waste.  As a light railway, it's certainly not a fast or high capacity line,  but it is able to take quite a variety of mainline type trains. For comparison purposes, I recon that the length of their northern extension is between 7 and 8 miles.

http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/extend.html


Many a silly idea has proven not to be so silly over time and indeed there has been a growing trend, but very gradual, to mesh heritage and main line services, with examples in the South West already in the through running to Kingswear and Minehead from the national network, and indeed national network trains over a non-national-network line to Okehampton itself.  Also looking to Swanage ...

The preserved stock / operation at Okehampton hasn't had / got the huge support and vigour of the Bluebell, and I've expressed a view in the past (still held) that we may have too many preserved lines / too little expertise and stock that can keep going and wannabe tourists to use them for them all to thrive, so for me to suggest extending in stages to Halwill, then Lydford, then Tavistock North would be surprising.

I took a look at the traffic through Dawlish yesterday on Real Time Trains, and it's up to around 12 trains an hour (6 each way).  An emergency route to Bluebell standards would take nothing like that - but it would allow Plymouth to remain connected to the national network when there's an incident at Totnes, a tunnel to be rebuilt or other issues on the Newton Abbot to Plymouth route.  So not a solution for Torbay, no 3 hour Plymouth to London services, but also a route that's perhaps not going to require quite the operating subsidy that was envisaged for a second high grade daily operation ... indeed, it leaves the field open (and any/most funding that's available) for a southern route.

I'm just picking up on "OnTheCushion"'s idea here ... working out some of the metrics in my own mind as to the sort of direction he could be suggesting.  Personally, I don't know how and if this stacks up in any way.

From Railnews (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/07/14-dawlish-report-due-this-week.html):

No surprise.

The sensible, cheaper option of reopening a former main line, two-thirds of which is still in use, is rejected in favour of a ^3bn new build that will never, ever get off of the ground.

Meanwhile in Wales and Scotland...

These 'unconfirmed' reports are a little different to what I have heard. Uncomfirmed is NOT official. I think we should all wait and see what the report says. I have heard it recommends costing all options and going on from there. After all. It is NOT Network Rail that make the decision. It will be a political decision made in Parliament. Whichever is chosen Network Rail will build as requested.

I think wait and see. Then when the report is out will be the time to mull over the options.

The cynic in me would say that in actual fact it will be decided that a storm like that wont happen again for 50 years and NOTHING will be done. I believe we all think this should not be the case but we know how fickle Politicians can be

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28307825):

Here's the actual report, I think:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/WestofExeterRouteResilienceStudy.pdf

...found in another forum, no idea how you'd find it via NR's own website.

Paul

Thanks, Paul: no, I couldn't find it anywhere on Network Rail's own website just now.  ::)

This is a really, really good study into the various options - from a railway point of view. The possibilities and limitations are highlighted, the myth of 15-minute journey time savings for new routes well and truly busted, and a comprehensive plan to make the existing railway more robust outlined. Make no mistake, Network Rail has done a VERY good job here.

But you have to look beyond the headline figures. Every cost stated includes a 66% contingency for the unexpected. For Okehampton-Tavistock-Bere Alston and improvements to the existing railways at either end that brings the figure down to something like ^300m - in line with the ^350m or so informed experts and I came up with on the back of an envelope when I wrote the piece for RAIL a while ago. None of the options are likely to cost nearly as much as the headline figures in the report.

The crucial thing to bear in mind though is that by Network Rail's own admission, its analysis can't take into account the wider socio-economic benefits, or the benefit to the region had an alternative been in place earlier this year. Neither does it look at future population changes, or future travel patterns. That's fair enough - it isn't, I would suggest, Network Rail's remit to do so.

So, in pure railway terms and on current traffic patterns, none of the alternatives stack up. But - and this is really, really important - the picture could change radically if those socio-economic benefits and the gain to the region had a given option been in place this year are considered. It's now up to the South West to make a compelling case that looks at plans for the expansion of towns such as Tavistock, and the benefits of opening rail travel to a wider market. This, as is being acknowledged, isn't the end of the debate about a backup route to the main line: it's an informed starting point in my view...

Andy

Network Rail have changed the url and that link appears no longer to work. Now the report can be downloaded via the following page:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/west-of-exeter-route-resilience-study/

Or direct link to the .pdf:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/West-of-Exeter-Route-Resilience-Study.pdf

Good point, trainbuff, good work in finding the hidden agenda to everyone else. It's all down to Parliament. The local MP, Anne Marie Morris, doesn't have any sort of ministerial post, however humble. She is Jenny-come-lately, having only been an MP since 2010. Her website says she is "lobbying hard to see a more resilient line put in place that will future proof the existing railway running through Dawlish and Teignmouth", which doesn't say she is after a new line. Ultimately, unless our new junior transport minister, Claire Perry from Devizes, thinks it a national priority, I think it will be down to the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership's Local Transport Board to keep eyes open. They will need to work up any scheme, do the maths, and put a reasonable business case before whichever transport secretary and chancellor is in situ next May.

My guess is that there'll be a long queue at the door of number 11...

I don't know if Network Rail would of said the something different if either Wales or Scotland was effect the same way, each with there own Governments.

 Only if we can get all our MP signing from the same Hymn sheet and we maybe able to have a Great Railway in the South West something that Isambard Kingdom Brunel would be please with

Guy

Arguably, and despite my admiration for IKB, it's partly because of him that we face the problems we do today with the line through Dawlish.

That said, if he were around today, I'd like to think he'd be advocating one of the C1-C5 route options.

I see the report contends that electrification of the LSWR line would require additional work to raise clearances under bridges and tunnels, and presents this as a negative.

I don't however recall any mention of the prospect of waves crashing over high voltage electrical cables adjacent to residential housing..?

Bias?

As a lay person, after a read through the report, it gives me the impression of it favouring the C1-C5 routes. I think that the resilence factor is the emphasis of the report. These routes whilst more expensive intially give the opportunity to build the route to the modern standards rather than retrofit them to the other routes.This is not criticism, but I think that if reflects an underlying engineering viewpoint, which is not a bad thing.

I personally am thinking like the comments of Andyroden, in that it is up to the burghers of Okehampton, Tavistock et al to prompt the wider socio economic benefits to agrue for their route.This is as local service, other (occasional?) main line stops and as a diversionary route.

Finally if I was on a train to the south west and the Dawlish route was closed as in Feb, I don't think I would mind a few extra minutes in journey time.

Above assume that a significant funding committment remains in place for the Dawlish route and we are discussing additional funds.

Eventually this line will be electrified, it is the future for all main lines as even cars become electric.

Surely therefore future electrification should be uppermost when considering the options for this route..?

Personally, I can't see huge waves of seawater and overhead electric wires working out well, but does anyone in the industry have a view as regards this?

Up until now I have been convinced that any route alternative to the precarious sea wall at Dawlish would be no-go,  largely due to financial considerations. But it just might be the government is  having a change of heart!

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/government-may-review-report-into-alternative-routes-at-dawlish?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Rail+Technology+Magazine&utm_campaign=4870324_RTM+Newsletter+Oct+14+Week+3&dm_i=IJS%2C2WDYS%2C6VOQ13%2CAHIQ4%2C1#.VEEdh6LnHiY.twitter

Please forgive the cynicism but I wonder if the impending General Election may have provoked this change of heart; why rule anything out and lose votes when you can promise to think about it and then, once (re-)elected, rule it out.

Nothing new here but at least it's still making the news:

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/New-Plymouth-rail-line-avoiding-Dawlish-flood/story-23779876-detail/story.html (http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/New-Plymouth-rail-line-avoiding-Dawlish-flood/story-23779876-detail/story.html)

I notice Modern railways is reporting that the Western Route Study is saying that the line from Exeter to Newton Abbot will need to be four track by 2043. Clearly this is not going to be through Dawlish, but it gives added justification for another route.

That has my support.

"Identified in the LONG term"

...2043....

Let's see what's in the Autumn Statement. Getting the feeling disappointment my be the result

He could promise support in principal subject to detailed studies, by the time these had been done and a transport and works order obtained 10 years would have passed before a future chancellor would have to put their hands in their pocket so far in the future as not to matter to a current chancellor with an election in six months! After all if "a week is a long time in politics" how long is a decade? A future chancellor could always cancel it because of new demand figures, increased costs or a lack of money - its been done before.

I thought the autumn statement was to do with roads, certainly the A303 in the West Country,  and not anything to do with railways. But perhaps the Chancellor has something surprising up his sleeve?

It covers all government expenditure so could include almost any sort of announcement.  Formerly it just used to give overall expenditure levels, the odd specific announcement on projects is a recent innovation. 

Apologies for slightly digressing from the serious discussion, but it appears that FGW has already decided on the new route, thus saving the DfT much work. I found the attached map on the FGW website and it appears that the 'new' route not only avoids Dawlish altogether, but actually follows the Exmouth line before crossing the Exe estuary - presumably on a bridge, but maybe a tunnel :-)

There are alternatives ...

(http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/uploads/Network/train_ferry_sirkeci_ank14_mp.jpg)

(Creative Commons license - http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/pmwiki.php/Network/TrainFerry )

Ah the joys of a tide-less Med !  :D

Cok seviyorum!

(I speak reasonabble French, but only holiday T^rk^e}

We have had just a little bit of rain down here in Devon and the regular scare stories, made even more 'newsworthy' by last years events have already started!

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Trains-cancelled-8220-hug-waves-8221-crash/story-24513365-detail/story.html (http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Trains-cancelled-8220-hug-waves-8221-crash/story-24513365-detail/story.html)

Crosscountry services were cancelled for a time this morning as NR do not allow the voyagers to run through Dawlish with the conditions what they were.  FGW services ran, albeit slightly delayed.  The media were un-necessarily saying all trains were cancelled between Plymouth & Exeter at one point though  ::).

and the latest.......

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Campaign-launched-concern-raised-fresh-damage-sea/story-24518621-detail/story.html (http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Campaign-launched-concern-raised-fresh-damage-sea/story-24518621-detail/story.html)

Seems some of the repairs have already been damaged!

The photo in that article is worth linking to here -

(http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/24518621/8146121-large.jpg)

and

(http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/24518621/8146115-large.jpg)

Thanks, ChrisB.  The video link is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHRgk0_KtMM  :)

The Spotlight South West bit on the Wall this evening was bloomin' scaremongering at its best. You'd think it was about collapse in an instant, which wasn't quite what I noticed when I'd been on it less than an hour earlier  ::)

My parents were in Dawlish earlier today and they tell me that pedestrian access to the sea wall was closed off and that some rather large stones / small rocks the size of bricks had been thrown up from the beach. It's a nice walk along that sea wall, but not today.

It's just your bog standard winter weather. No one particularly minded before the Great Smoting when it has brief closures.

Still, another example of the problems caused by inclement weather. It may be bog standard for Dawlish, but tell that to CrossCountry passengers whose journeys were affected.

Those Voyagers could run nice and fast on a new inland alignment from Exminster to Newton Abbot.  ;)

Brilliant expression, Rapidash!  ;D


For the record, other inland alignments are also being discussed.  ;D

From the Herald Express (http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Orange-Army-say-cracks-sea-wall-normal-Dawlish/story-24518857-detail/story.html)

"Campaigners in Plymouth and Cornwall who want to boycott Dawlish and bring the rail line inland through Okehampton jumped on the bandwagon, using this weeks' storm as evidence that ^35million repair after February's storms were a waste of public money."

Emotive language, bias, scaremongering.... the Herald Express reveals its links with the Daily Mail.

Dawlish station has now been closed due to waves crashing onto the platforms.

So a station closed, trains delayed and cancelled and it's still only November.

Network Rail seem very bullish about the situation, so I hope for their sakes they don't repeat their "the seawall is good for another 25 years" clanger a few short months prior to the collapse. Strange how that was quickly forgotten...

Going off on a slight tangent, there's a video on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30040238 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30040238) showing the spray/waves at a height above the train in the pictures, with a person apparently riding a bike along the footpath! Brave or foolish, you decide!

Mother nature generally doesn't run to a timetable, [insert LTV timetable joke/grumble here]... The fact is the line has been continually open to traffic.  Minor delays due to the rail conditions yes, but the only cancellations are down to voyagers being rubbish, which is not NR's problem (unless one gets stuck!)

Short of building a fortress around Dawlish station, there is nothing NR can do to stop waves crashing over and making it temporarily dangerous to the public to keep open.

And if that tw*t got washed into the sea, they'd expect the lifeboat men to put their lives at risk. Something they ought to be forced to pay for if needed (as it was obvious what a likely outcome was)

Please don't exaggerate the issue. I commuted both ways yesterday. It was windy, sure, and a fair amount of water was flying all over the place, but it all added up to a whopping three minute delay in either direction.

If you want things to be better for XC, then perhaps you should encourage 'em to use their HST's down here in the winter, seeing as the Voyagers are doing a damn good impression of having aquagenic pruritis.

One of the scheduled HSTs was also caped at Exeter yesterday, then started back north from there. I agree that they should have more than two HST sets out, but it's difficult for CrossCountry to have sufficient advance notice of adverse weather to have the other sets primed and ready. They are stabled at Leeds.

How is stating the fact that Dawlish Station had to close and XC services curtailed "exaggerating" the facts?

Might the re-opening be a little nearer (or will it be a lot of talk only...)?
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30292756
 
Quote from today's Government National Infrastructure Plan - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381884/2902895_NationalInfrastructurePlan2014_acc.pdf
 
Dawlish rail services ^ the government will support Network Rail in its work to improve the resilience of the railway at Dawlish. Additionally, it will ask Network Rail to examine wider issues surrounding connectivity to and within the South West peninsula. Specifically, Network Rail will consider alternatives to the current mainline route to the South West via Dawlish, including an alternative route via the north side of Dartmoor through Okehampton. This work will feed into Network Rail^s Initial Industry Plan for Control Period 6 (2019-2024)

We'll just have to wait and see,i suppose. Disappointing to see the words "feasibility study", much rather have seen the colour of some money, as is apparently being provided for the A303 upgrade. Plenty of feasibility studies in the past have ended up as dust gatherers in departmental archive stores but maybe that's just the gnarled old cynic in me coming to the fore. Certainly it would seem as if the Okehampton route is in pole position now compared to the other options, which was always the favoured way to go for me but there is this nagging feeling inside me that in 10 years time there will be a new thread starting on here-"Suggestions for an alternative Dawlish line"! ;D Hopefully i'm wrong though.

All depends on what the detailed study throws up in the way of a Business case....If Okehampton really is too pricey, my thinking is that they'll do further studies to get best value from one of the 5 options

Indeed: if there is, I shall simply merge it with this existing one.  ;) :D ;D

I  think this thread will still be going strong in 10 years time.

But will this forum??

In addition to the promised "study", I hope we'll see some tangible evidence concerning  the viability of a second route to Plymouth north of Dartmoor based on regular services between Okehampton & Exeter, and Tavistock & Plymouth. If these local services prove to be a success, it would strengthen the argument for reinstating the missing link.

It isn't just the Okehampton route that needs looking at. I seem to remember a cross party report going to the government regarding upgrading the alternative route to Exeter via Castle Cary & Honiton. I naively thought there might have been some mention of that in the Chancellor's statement.

The money is going to the A303 rather than double tracking from Castle Cary throughout to Pinhoe.

As a motorist I cannot deny the A303 sorely needs upgrading, but the rail route via Honiton does too. Maybe one day someone will provide some relief. In the meanwhile let us hope the Network Rail solution at Cowley Bridge means no more flooding of the main line to Taunton

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Rail has recently had a multi-billion ^ spent on it, including electrification projects. This spend is the roads equivalent - rail has had its share.

Ah, but think how much has been chronically  under invested in rail at the expense of massive road building schemes over the last 20 years. I think that even with the projected spending on rail it makes little different to what has been a glaring lack of balance between road and rail.

really?

Shall we call that 50 years?

Over 50 years, then yes - there was massive investment in the roads in the 60s and 70s whilst rail was in terminal decline. But over the past 20? Quite the opposite. There's been very, very few new roads with only a handful of mostly minor schemes in each county. Whilst rail hasn't had the infrastructure investment, there's definitely been massive progress in terms of electrification, rolling stock, service frequency, fares and the upkeep of stations.

The problem is that lots of people think that we only need one or the other. That is simply not the case. We need rail investment AND road investment. The A303/A30 dualling is of huge benefit to the south west, in the same way that investment in the mainline to Devon and Cornwall would be. And there's also the possibility that investing in roads can benefit the railways. More people will come on holiday here. Many of them will decide to have a day out by train to the nearest city, or preserved railway.

What makes me laugh are people who suggest that money should be invested in cycling facilities instead.
1 - NOBODY will go on holiday from London to the South West by bicycle. Thus ZERO benefit to our economy.
2 - Cyclists just don't use facilities provided for them anyway. No point buying them something they're not going to use.

That's the point I was making - Rail has had/is still getting ^billions in electrification/IEP & other stock etc...this road spend is their equivalent. No point in calling for even more rail....

Obviously rail is getting a lot of investment at the moment, but a huge portion of that is simply repaying the massive 'technology debt' - the cost of not keeping systems up to date over many decades. Electrification is fantastically good news, but it should have been done 40 or 50 years ago. And whilst clockwork signalling adds interest to the railway, it is absurd that such systems exist outside of museums.

During the last fifty years, or the last twenty come to that, I cannot think of any cases where trunk roads have been reduced in width just to save money, despite the known operating problems it would cause. We may not have built many roads in the last twenty years, but the roads have been maintained properly and enhanced. There is no technology debt here! So if investment seems skewed towards rail at the moment, that's simply because it needs to be if we're serious about having a modern railway.

As DavidBrown's anti-cyclist comments - I won't rise to his bait..!

With precisely no one on this thread mentioning investment for cycling facilities.

That said, as you've shown you've an axe to grind raised the issue, if it's not an issue of having investment for one or the other, then why not road and rail and cycling?

Of course no one will cycle from London to the south west, but they may very well take bicycles with them. Plenty of roof racks with bikes on to be seen on the roads in the summer. So why not investment in cycling facilities for when they get there?

Compare the cycle racks at Temple Meads now with a few years ago, you will see the growth in people cycling to the station. A few years ago, Bristol City Council fitted cycle racks on strategic corners around the city. They stood empty for months, if not a couple of years, but try and find space now.

For me, its very remoteness is a great attraction of Cornwall. It still possesses some relatively unspoilt places and the sense of distance from the daily grind is uplifting.
Yes, I expect more people will come to the coastal car parks at the end of the dual carriageways. The tills will ring. Whether or not the underpaid inhabitants benefit after the second-home balance has shifted against their favour is moot.

But there are losses that GVA doesn't measure.

If I lived in a flatter city I'd get out more on my bike. Although I have this past year used dedicated cycle facilities next to major roads to get to both Portishead and Chepstow. Avonmouth Bridge (M5) and Severn Bridge (M48). To think, during the widening of the former consideration was given to removing the footpath/cycleway. Glad that idea never took hold.

If you're happy cycling over the M5 and M48 bridges BNM, particularly if you've done it against a headwind, then there aren't many hills in Bristol that'd beat you.

Part cycling, part walking.  ;)

Up slope, get off and push. On the flat, pedal. Down slope, wheeeeeee!!!  ;D

Not sure that I would make it the the Blaise end of Long Cross

More bluster.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-31042325 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-31042325)

David Cameron says Okehampton railway line is 'most resilient'

I'm puzzled by Tudor Evans comments!

I wonder what his solution would be if the cliffs collapsed.....

I think he's saying that he wants a solution that still provides connectivity to the areas that the mainline currently serves, i.e. Torbay/South Devon - whether that's possible is up for debate but it would most likely need to involve the Haldon Tunnel option.

Opening up the Okehampton route means that you could generate income from this route all year round, as well as providing connectivity to the far West when the Dawlish line is breached. There's nothing to say that contingency services couldn't be introduced during such times that would see services running from Plymouth as far East as possible (i.e. Newton Abbot/Paignton) that would still largely serve those areas.

I think some are under the impression that if Okehampton was the favoured solution then when Dawlish was breached there would be zero services along the current mainline east of Plymouth. A lot of practicalities would have to be investigated in this scenario but I haven't seen anything to suggest that this would indeed be the case.

Tudor Evans is an all round idiot, its not restricted to his views on rail, he will jump on any bandwagon that happens to be passing.

I think you're right about the misconceptions you mention. My own view is that Okehampton should be reopened a.s.a.p. AND the coastal route should be maintained until it's clear that it's no longer practical/feasible. At that point, a new route should be built between Exeter and Teignmouth/Newton Abbot, hopefully as part of electrification right through to Plymouth/Paignton.
   

I've followed this for a while, and the other thread on the board about Tavistock. Having been involved in trying to fight what has become the Cambridge Guided Bus debacle I have developed a theory - which does seem to be holding up - that the key motivator for new schemes is political and once that decision is taken, the justification - ie cost benefit - is worked on accordingly. Not necessarily the other way round.

For a long time they said that Okehampton did not stack up, but when the Dawlish breach happened, there was a huge political backlash. Of course, we are now counting down to a general election too, so the ante has been increased.

Maybe I am totally wide of the mark here, but I have just sensed how the waters have been getting progressively warmer, and the Transport secretary's visit to the Dartmoor Railway last year said a lot.

And I sincerely hope it does happen, especially for the former Southern Region locations to the north of Okehampton, but more importantly to increase the resilience of the area to future weather events

I'm sure you're right.

The NR report makes it very clear that the LSWR route doesn't come close to stacking up financially; politically however it may have legs if (and this may be a big enough 'if' to kill it) the good burghers of Torbay can be persuaded that it can be built without detriment to their service.

Totally agree that the Okehampton route should be done first.

In fact none of the routes stacked up financially. The Okehampton Route had a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.14. Even the best DAL was only 0.17. However the Political drive is a major point and Okehampton also regenerates a large area. In fact it also increases both Exeter and Plymouth travel to work areas.

I know that Mr Evans would prefer 'Tudor's Tunnels' under Haldon, but these are not needed as yet. There is time to plan any DAL. In fact whilst at it get rid of the SLOWEST bit between Newton Abbot and Totnes (55mph) and build a HS line all the way to Plymouth. Time is there to get finance for this if The 'NORTHERN ROUTE' is built first and the current route is made more resilient.

No one wants to the current line to not be the main line

A general article on the BBC web site this a.m.

The railway lines alarmingly close to the sea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31113368


Looks at Dawlish, and Cumbrian and Cambrian coast lines.

Not to mention a lot of the North Wales Main line from the mouth of the Dee to Bangor.

Wasn't that flooded a few years back around Rhyl?

Given the recent news about the estimated ^1b+ cost of the breach to business, would that not positively impact on the cost benefit for the re-instatement project? And if not - why not?

Because politicians only want to be pro business when it suits them.  Which is when the business is very big and in London.  Or am I too cynical. 

How on earth was that figure arrived at? Or, more pertinently, what were the authors smoking when they wrote it?

The line was closed for about 2 months, say 60 days. This implies that the loss of the train service caused a drop in GDP of  nearly ^17 million per day.

As people could still get to points west of Exeter by road, and those living on the line of route west of Exeter could still reach points east of Exeter, there is no logical reason for a significant drop in GDP. Businesses and people might have incurred extra costs, and assuming this ^1 billion truly reflects this increase than it implies that, based on 30 trains per day travelling west of Exeter each with 150 people on board, each journey cost ^3,700 more that usual.

Absolute balderdash.

Yup....it wasn't at the height of the tourist season either, I seem to recall.

That figure is conplete poppycock

Those figures (such as they are capable of being quantified) are from the Devon Maritime Forum.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-31140192):

One industry that was not badly hit was the hospitality industry, local to where the "Orange Army" were deployed.

^60m to ^1.2 billion? So which is it?

Those figures aren't anywhere close to each other! 2million% apart! At least one isn't a viable estimate, and if one isn't, why shiuld the other figure be anywhere close either?

The Devon Maritime Forum do go into a little more detail in their report. They didn't just pluck the figures out of the air. The upper estimate based on the widely reported figure, at the time of the breach, that the line closure was costing the Devon and Cornwall economies up to ^20 million per day.

http://www.devonmaritimeforum.org.uk/images/stories/DMFdocuments/DMFmeetingArchives/2014Autumn/DMF%20Storms%2013-14%20Summary%20Report.pdf

I do think though that the figures are being incorrectly attributed to just the railway breach. There were many more consequences of the storms this time last year that had an effect on the economies of Devon and Cornwall.

The Devon Maritime Forum's report for the damage is referenced to a report in the Western Morning News published on 6th February 2014 where it says


The paper goes on to report

So, basically, pure guesswork.

Hence my comment, in my post above:


 ;) :D ;D

Balls;


http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Labour-s-8203-Ed-Balls-says-Osborne-backs/story-26238922-detail/story.html

"I'm not bidding for the Torbay vote, honest guv".

I racked my brain to see how the "Dawlish Avoiding Line" helps people get from London to Bristol; then I realised that the GWML does a pretty good job of avoiding Dawlish actually.  :)

Edit: Corrected markup

.....and so the whole issue is reduced to petty partisan bickering: the blues want this, the reds want that. Either/or, them/us, yes/no. How depressing.

 

If Balls/Labour feel that strongly about the issue, I wonder why they did precisely buggerall about it during 13 years in Government?

What about the South West Speaking with one voice in the form of the cross party South West Peninsular Rail Task Force?

The 3 point plan calls for  a DAL AND a Northern Route. Can't you tell its election time? Lol

Maybe because building an alternative to the sea wall route wasn't on the radar until the storms of February 2014. Yes, the route has always been at the mercy of the weather, but I doubt that anyone, least of all politicians foresaw a complete washout of the line.

Which would tend to support the theory that it's best to fix the roof (and the rails!) whilst the sun shines!  ;)

I'd quite like the tunnel under Haldon Hill. Might mean Torbay and Teignbridge keeps a connection to the rest of the country without going the wrong way :P

It seems we're still stuck in the dark ages of "maximum capacity utilisation", which implies that a line has to be at full usage before an alternative or diversionary option can be considered financially viable.  It's a bit like flying an aircraft with only one one board computer. In one sense highly cost effective as you are getting the most of of a couple of Intel Processors without having to buy and install the other 9, but in all others senses completely utterly insane either to the operators or passengers.

This topic really polarises opinion, doesn't it?

If this was a religious argument, it would be like the Evangelists vs the Exclusives: one congregation wants to spread the love and understanding as widely as possible, yea verily even unto the unwashed and possibly slightly dodgy tribes of North Devon, whilst the other would forsake all except the multitudinous tribes of Torbay, that their faith may be stronger.

Me? I say spread the love!

It's less about being exclusive, and more about being aware of where a lot of rail journeys occur in this area. The vast majority of pax going along the sea wall are internal, the expresses are mainly used for Plymouth to Exeter, ditto from Torbay. A large chunk of Exeter's work force comes from Torbay, about a third of whom travel by rail. Ditto for Cornwall, the majority of journeys are started and finished by Plymouth. Its in the comparatively short  Summer season that that extra traffic occurs.

It just infuriates me how much focus there is on gold plating links into Cornwall compared to Torbay, the Hams and Teignbridge. Devon has a population double that of Cornwall, the vast majority live on the southern/eastern/middle part of the county where there are established rail links. Torbay is economically one of the weakest regions in the country, not quite to the extent of some parts of Cornwall, obviously, but poverty is poverty.

I'm not against Dartmoor reopening, far from it, I imagine it'll be very scenic - but it won't help many of us on the other side of a theoretical smote-hole who use this route on a daily basis for a living, rather than the odd jolly now and then. A tunnel under the hills, though, helps a lot more than the few up in North Devon, who would probably worship a Pacer as a god if given half a chance.

And another thing!

The focus on services to London!

If anyone bothered to do a bit counting, they'd notice it's not the Paddington services that are filled up leaving Newton Abbot in the dark depths of December. it's the XC services to the Midlands and the North  :o Obviously they don't make as much money for whatever reason, but getting a seat on a Voyager after Newton is rare as hens teeth! Doubly so in Summer!

Sorry about that, but somedays a vent is required  ;D

Oh, look. A dried frog pill.....

Calm down Bursar (http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Dried_frog_pills).  ;D

How long are the XC trains though? Given a refurbished 2+8 IC125 has 546 seats (I think) they may not be full but still be carrying the same number of passengers as a rammed 5-car Voyager (only 262 seats*). Even a 10-car double Voyager formation (524 seats*) would fall short of the capacity of an IC125.

If we assume all the seats on single 5-car Voyagers are gone even in winter and that the loadings on the IC125s are similar how many passengers are we looking at. In the range 300-350 per train maybe? Or, given how much more capacity an IC125 has, it could be nearer 400 on the London services and still not look all that busy?

As for the XC service making less money, how much does lease, track-access and fuel cost compared to a 2+8 IC125 as well?

* I think

But aren't the trains to the Midlands typically a bit shorter than the London trains - so whilst numbers per carriage might be higher, you can't extrapolate that to number of passengers per day.


Ah - you saved me looking that up.    ALSO to consider - number of trains, driver and train manager costs,  different loading patterns for the routes which will make it appear to the average Midlands passenger that his train is busier, and to the average London passenger that his is busier.  Also take into account the number of civil servants, MPs and media people travelling to London versus the number travelling up north when you look at the relative exposure.

I think perhaps that is part of the issue - unless its a Beeb bodd headed to Manchester (they'd take the plane, anyway) they won't be noticing it. An example I can give here is the 0703  and the 0740  out of Paignton. Both tend to be fully booked,  both get into Exeter before 0900. The XC service is full up until Exeter, where it half empties out, but is then filled with people headed to Bristol and beyond.  From a look at the digital displays, the major destinations are Brum and Manc. The Paddington service is less than a quarter full by Exeter, despite the majority of seats being reserved (Good thing about paper resevations is you can see them from afar!) - but they all seem to be booked from Taunton and Bristol.

It'll be different come May when the season really starts, as per usual.

Just imagine if we had some intercity services going via Exeter Central, it would be full and standing for the rest of time!

Campaign for Rural England in favour of the Okehampton route;

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/New-reopen-railway-line-north-Plymouth/story-26712958-detail/story.html

Not sure how much clout or influence CFRE have on these matters but certainly wouldn't have thought their support could do any harm.

This may have been deliberately timed as there was a piece on BBC Spotlight last evening about Network Rail wishing to invest millions "further strengthening the section between Starcross and Teignmouth, rather than spend  'potentially billions' on an inland route". I don't have the specific link, but I'll try and dig it out.

Yertiz, at 10;13

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05ys4cj/spotlight-16062015

Not sure where they got the information that the inland route would cost "billions"-as I recall the Network Rail study carried out awhile back stated somewhere in the region of ^850m and that was with a 66% overrun factor built in. Hopefully this is speculative and ill informed nonsense rather than being based on subtle hints being dropped by "sources within NR".

...........in the light of recent events (ie electrification overspend), how confident are you in NR's cost projections? :-\

I heard that report and wonder if the 'Inland Route' costing billions was the one behind Dawlish and not referring to the Okehampton line. The cost projections to re-open the Nortern route are, as stated above, significantly less than one billion pounds.

Yes cost of a DAL is put between ^1.49billion and ^3.1billion.

Cost of 'Northern Route' put at ^875million for double track all the way.

The CPRE Report talks of single track with dynamic loops, as the Exeter Waterloo line is, which would bring the price down further to around the ^650million quoted.

In reality the line only needs to carry 2 or 3 trains (latter preferable) each way per hour over its central section from Bere Alston to Coleford junction. At both ends additional double track may be needed from Crediton to Newton St Cyres, something that would help speed up Barnstaple services, and a section between Bere Alston and St Budeaux Ferry Road.

Later on if the DAL is to be built it can be IN ADDITION bringing all the benefits of both routes

If you ask me, what will happen all depends on whether there's a significant problem with the sea wall over the next couple of winters.  If there isn't I can see very little happening, and if there is then the momentum will be carried forward and a modest spec inland route, like the ^650m one Trainbuff refers to, will be built.

For info, here is a link to the CPRE's Rural Reconnections report.

http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/rail/item/3986-rural-reconnections

There's 57 pages in the document, which uses the LSWR Okehampton route as a case study to point out how reopening other routes could benefit the rural economy.

As it would across the country, not just in the SW.

But who's paying, and who derermines priority?

That's the ^640,000,000 (or is it ^3BN?) question...

I can't claim to have read every word in the CPRE report, but it seems to me that the main point they are making is that the current BCR calculations take little if any account of the growth that is likely to follow on from rail investment. The thing about capital investment is that you aren't spending the money, you're putting it somewhere where it adds value; this kind of thing ought to chime pretty well with the government's policy of building economic strength in the regions by releasing untapped economic potential.

But that doesn't really answer the question. If this really is investment, and if private funds are unlikely to be forthcoming, then the money can only come from central government. But it's perhaps not that fanciful to suggest that they might find a way to do this, preferably without putting it 'on the books'.

From the news today - perils of re-opening a railway and buying back infrastructure?   Posted here as a lesson for Okehampton to Tavistock

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-34913650

Whilst I sympathise with the Trust and agree that ^10,000 probably does 'woefully undervalue' the structure, it should also be noted that if you as a homeowner spend (say) ^20,000 improving your house, its resale value will not necessarily increase by ^20,000.

Can't find any viaducts on Rightmove to compare; nor sadly can I find how much Hardengreen viaduct cost to build - but I bet it was more than ten grand.

In the case of a unique structure like this, the concept of "market value" is hard to apply for several reasons all at once. The fact that the viaduct's economic value - carrying a cycle path at most - was close to zero was why only a charity could afford to bring it back into a safe state.

Now that it is carrying a railway, its new economic value must be a lot higher, though you could argue for it to be above or below that for various reasons. I suspect the argument will be about who gets that increase in value. If the reopening of the railway is unforeseen, then its sponsors (acting through NR) can claim to "own" that extra value. However, this trust presumably had as one if its primary aims to preserve the viaduct specifically for a reopened railway to use. In that case they can claim that they foresaw it, and their speculative investment should be rewarded.

Fun for the lawyers, anyway.

Having just written that, it occurs to me that charitable status may make it harder to argue for a reward like that. It's not what charities are meant to be doing, and if there is no other specified beneficiary or cause to support, what would be the point?

On the contrary, in selling an asset a charity is legally required to get the highest value in order to use the money to further its charitable objectives. 

That is of course, true, but within limits. It must further the charity's aims to sell and reapply the money (or pay off debt), so selling the only asset when the charity was set up to own it wouldn't usually meet that criterion. For example, it is very difficult to sell an alms house.

This case may be different, as I said, if the purposes were defined so as to include the possibility of the viaduct being used for a reopened railway. It depends on the words.

That's the thing it's not selling its a Compulsory Purchase .

The viaduct is not the sole purpose of the charity, and it will still have plenty to spend money on.

As it is arguing about the price it is being offered by a public body for a structure it owns to be used as arguably a public asset, it may be worth pondering the ^300,000 it says it spent on maintenance. Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust (ELGT) spent ^3.9 million in the 7 years to 2013 on improvement works to the area's parks and open spaces, including, I assume, the viaduct. It is a charity and a company limited by guarantee, and its board of directors includes councillors from each of the local authorities whose surroundings it strives to improve.

It did not get that ^3.9 million entirely by shaking tins under the noses of pensioners in the foyer of the local Sainsbury. My research revealed a report to the Finance and Resources Committee of Edinburgh City Council(ECC) available here (http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/3138/finance_and_resources_committee) - see item 7.11. That shows that ^1.7m of that cash came from the City Council itself, on the basis that ELGT had access to funding of the further ^2.2m. A look at ELGT's website  (http://www.elgt.org.uk/about-us/our-funders)shows that Scottish Natural Heritage and ECC provide the core funding, presumably with the biggest donor named first. There is then a list of other funders, which includes Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh Airport, the Postcode lottery, and various other trusts and businesses. The greater part of their finances are obtained directly or indirectly from the public purse.

In that context, it seems to me a little churlish for a body funded by public funds to ask an elected body to replace those public funds it expended on maintaining the bridge from public funds. The principle of compensation is to restore the person being compensated as closely as possible to the position they were in before the loss. Here, it can be argued that the actual loss to the trust was minimal. In that case, the payment could be justified at a level which reflects the proportion of the ^300,000 spent that was actually raised from private individuals. Not what it would cost to build or buy a new viaduct.