Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About
Waterloo Campaign
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 01:15 16 Aug 2022
- Thunderstorms begin in the UK after heatwave
- Heathrow Airport extends cap on passengers to end of October
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 20/08/22 - Imber bus day
15/09/22 - RailFuture conference, Leeds
22/09/22 - World Car Free Day
21/10/22 - TWSW General Meeting

No 'On This Day' events reported for 16th Aug

Train RunningNo cancellations or delays
PollsOpen and recent polls
Open to 22/08 05:23 What is suppressing your train use?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
August 16, 2022, 01:32:25 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[211] Re 11th to 14th August 2022- Bristol International Balloon Fie...
[102] Weymouth front revamp and ripping up (not used) rail lines
[77] GWR line closures this Sunday
[56] smart cards for Bristol area
[52] Our (members) train use is down - poll as to why
[25] Walking distance between platforms.
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 30
  Print  
Author Topic: Dawlish Avoiding Line - ongoing discussion, merged topic  (Read 152375 times)
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4197


View Profile
« Reply #255 on: March 17, 2014, 08:16:32 pm »

You could of course take this approach, but I think you might find the journey times a little long with the speed restrictions. 
Logged
34104
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 128


View Profile
« Reply #256 on: March 17, 2014, 10:40:15 pm »


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» (Network Rail - home page) 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



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. Huh
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #257 on: March 17, 2014, 10:54:04 pm »

Tempting, but I will refrain...
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4197


View Profile
« Reply #258 on: March 17, 2014, 10:54:47 pm »

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. Huh

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.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 36638



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #259 on: March 18, 2014, 02:34:08 am »

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

Quote
Within weeks of the line closing, an embankment carrying the line was cut through in preparation of the first stage of the Lewes Relief Road. The remaining bridges from Lewes station to Cliffe High Street and the viaduct over the River Ouse were also demolished.

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 ...

Quote
Southdown Motors operated three bus services at the time: no. 19 between Newick and Lewes via Barcombe Cross, and nos. 119 and 122 between Lewes and Uckfield via the A26 with a stop at Barcombe Lane. As a condition of the Minister's consent to closure, additional bus services were laid on from August 1968. No. 122 additionally called at Isfield Station and provided an hourly service to and from Uckfield, but no. 119 departed Uckfield two minutes before the incoming rail service arrived. Barcombe Mills and Isfield stations remained open to sell tickets. However, as the buses were unable to negotiate the narrow winding road to Barcombe Mills, they stopped one mile short of the station: BRB(resolve) laid on taxis to ferry passengers to the bus stop, but passengers first had to walk to the station to buy their tickets.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #260 on: March 18, 2014, 09:29:21 am »

It should be noted that NR» (Network Rail - home page) 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:

Quote from: Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line Reinstatement Study
Option 2
Re-instating the 1868 route from Hamsey, along the east bank of the River Ouse and then through Lewes town centre would require major civil engineering works as well as changes to the road network and buildings in the town itself where the former route has been lost. A significant portion of route in this built up area is contained within a Conservation Area. The engineering challenges are considerable and the cost is likely to be significant. For this reason this route has not been investigated in detail and is not proposed for further consideration.

Option 2A
This route would initially follow the 1868 route from Hamsey, as in Option 2 above. At a point approximately 300 metres east of Old Malling Farm, near Monks Way, the route would diverge from the 1868 route, and proceed on a short embankment before crossing the River Ouse to rejoin the current Cooksbridge line just north of Lewes Tunnel.

This option requires the construction of three major bridges over the river Ouse and a fourth over a private lane to Old Malling Farm. The filled in cutting near Hamsey Church would also have to be re-excavated. The cutting appears to have been used as a landfill site and would therefore require assessment for possible contamination.

This route would bring the railway close to South Malling church and the residential properties on Monks Way. There would also be changes to the riverside environment close to Lewes town centre.

From a railway perspective, as well as being a slightly longer route than option 1A and more costly to construct, this option also increases the ongoing maintenance burden because of the number of significant structures that will have to be inspected and maintained. For this reason this route has not been investigated in detail and is not proposed for further consideration.

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

Quote from: Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line Reinstatement Study
Option 1
This route would follow the original track of 1858. This alignment crosses the path of two minor roads at grade, each of which will require a bridge with substantial civil engineering required for approach ramps. It may be possible to seek closure of one of the roads and thus provide only one bridge. In addition, at least three residential properties would require modification to remove extensions or additions which were made after the line was closed, thus providing sufficient land for a reinstated line.

The difficulties involved in addressing the minor road crossings and impact on residential property led to rejection of this option.

Option 1A
This route is aligned slightly to the north of the Option 1 and differs as follows:

^ The track can be constructed at a higher level which reduces the amount of civil engineering required for the road bridges;

^ This route avoids the need to modify the residential properties;

^ Curvature of the track will be less severe than option 1 which may permit marginally higher line speeds.

Two bridges would still be required to accommodate the public highways; again there is the potential to seek closure of one of the roads and thus provide only one bridge.

This option is the preferred solution being lowest in cost and easiest in terms of achieving the necessary consents. This option has been used for estimating purposes.

See here 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:

Quote from: Lewes-Uckfield Railway Line Reinstatement Study
^ The estimate is based on a price level of 2008 Q1

^ Estimates for incremental options assume that the work is completed concurrent with the base option

^ Information from the Project Development team was use to establish quantities and specification of estimated items as at GRIP (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) stage 2.

^ The project management is based on a percentage of working week hours against the assumed length of each GRIP Stage.

^ Percentages used in this estimate are those found in the Network Rail Principle of Estimating guidelines PM04.

^ No allowances have been made for TOC (Train Operating Company) or FOC (Freight Operating Company) Compensation.

^ No allowance has been made for the Industry Risk Fund (IRF) or Network Rail Fee Fund (NRFF) applicable to projects funded by third parties.

^ No allowance has been made for inflation or other cost escalation.

See here 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  Grin

There you go, having spent the weekend on concessionary fares, that's the rest of your week sorted wading through this...
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 941


View Profile
« Reply #261 on: March 18, 2014, 11:04:33 am »


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» (Network Rail - home page) 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
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4197


View Profile
« Reply #262 on: March 18, 2014, 05:23:50 pm »

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
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4698


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #263 on: March 18, 2014, 05:54:20 pm »

The proposed HS1 (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel)-HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) link is costed at ^700 million for what looks to be less than a mile of track...
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 941


View Profile
« Reply #264 on: March 18, 2014, 06:27:00 pm »

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

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» (Network Rail - home page) to do its maintenance.

Where there's a will,


OTC
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4197


View Profile
« Reply #265 on: March 18, 2014, 06:34:42 pm »

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

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» (Network Rail - home page) to do its maintenance.

Where there's a will,


OTC

I agree but that will need more than the very basic railway.
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #266 on: March 19, 2014, 11:58:09 am »

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
Logged

Vous devez être impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
Dark Star
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 22


View Profile
« Reply #267 on: March 21, 2014, 06:19:47 am »

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 (First Great Western) got planned?
Anything or Nothing!

I have little faith in the TOC (Train Operating Company)'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.
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6084


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #268 on: March 21, 2014, 07:25:00 am »

The proposed HS1 (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel)-HS2 (The next High Speed line(s)) link is costed at ^700 million for what looks to be less than a mile of track...

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

Now, please!
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 11089


View Profile Email
« Reply #269 on: March 21, 2014, 10:00:34 am »

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

As I said in my reply, why single out just FGW? What have other businesses got planned also? Nothing I can see either....
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 30
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page