Dawlish and Dawlish Warren sea defences - ongoing concerns and issues discussion

[whole diary]

[Umberleigh]

IF the private finance Tavistock reopening goes ahead, then I believe the case for the Okehampton route would be very much stronger in years to come.

However, cutting the likes of Torbay, Totnes, Newton Abbot et al off from the rail network would be hugely controversial, especially as during the busy summer months the sea is rarely, if ever, a problem. Thus, I can't help but feel that money will continue to be thrown at the problem for years to come...

That said, the economic situation could be very different in 20 years time and there may well be an appetite for investing in a diversionary route via Okehampton. One interesting scenario is that what happens if PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - PLY^» (Plymouth - next trains) is given funding for electrification at some date in the future? Can't imagine that the catenary would enjoy salt water! Perhaps this - arguably unlikely - upgrade to the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) might perhaps see the Southern have the last laugh in Devon...

[woody]

An article in one of latest railway magazines(cant remember which one) says that Network Rail have looked at the feasiblity of rebuilding the seawall at Dawlish and report that its affordable adding that its something Network Rail plan to design post 2014 and rebuild in control period 6 (post 2019).They also say the spit of land on which Dawlish Warren station stands could eventually disappear with climate change so they together with the enviroonment Agency and local authorities are looking for a long term sustainable solution to the issue.
 

[Tim]

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) make the very true point that if there wasn't a railway on that coast you would still need to strengthen the sea wall because of the buildings behind it.  These gran schemes for re-routing the line would not be good for the locals.  Not only would they loose the railway's train service they would loose the railway's sea-defense services too.

[woody]

Interestingly Brunels original plan to skirt the coast at Dawlish envisiged an offshore railway built on piers skirting around the headlands rather than through them in tunnels but the admiralty objected so hence the present route which had to cross over the "lawn" at Dawlish much to the annoyance of locals at the time.Given established rail travel patterns in Devon and of course cost considerations it is probably the most realistic solution to the effects of climate change at this most exposed of locations.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Dredging plan to replace Dawlish Warren's shifting sands


Dawlish Warren's beach is estimated to have lost 2m in height in about 10 years

Thousands of tonnes of sand could be moved from one east Devon town to another as part of a plan to shore up flood defences and restore a beach.

Dawlish Warren had lost about 100,000 tonnes of sand over 15 years, with most of it ending up at Pole Sands, near Exmouth, the Environment Agency said.

The agency and Teignbridge Council are considering dredging and bringing sand back along the River Exe to Dawlish. The project could go ahead in the next three to four years, they said.

Tides and currents have been sucking the sand off the beach and moving it eastwards on to the sand bar in the estuary off Exmouth.

Martin Davies, from the agency, said the "dramatic loss of sand" had meant the Dawlish beach had dropped by about 2m (6ft) over the last decade.

As well as the possible damage to tourism, the agency and council said they were concerned it was affecting local flood defences, as the Warren helps protect nearby villages and the main railway line behind the beach.

Neil Baglow, from Teignbridge District Council, said the project - which could cost up to ^7m - would be quite simple. He said: "We'd have a massive dredger that would suck up the sand, and then and come and spray it back on to the beach."

However, concerns have been raised such dredging could leave Exmouth, on the other side of the estuary, vulnerable to flooding.

Exmouth councillor Eileen Wrag said: "Pole Sands protects Exmouth. It could leave Exmouth vulnerable from inundation from the sea."

Mr Davies said this would not be the case: "There are rigorous licensing procedures. Before the project goes ahead, there has to be a guarantee that that won't happen."

Discussions are ongoing into the initial project.

[devon_metro]

Humans have caused the problem. Sea defences around Langstone rock disrupt the longshore drift that occurs due to the prevailing current directions, meaning there is limited delivery of sand to the beach spanning the estuary. The currents still remove sand from the beach however. Fighting a losing battle!

[Nottage_Halt]

Picture of latest progress on repairs ...

http://www.railway-centre.com/november-2012.html

Go to picture for 30 November 2012

Nick

[Nibat]

One of my colleagues, now retired, always said that the 'new line' would never happen as NR^» (Network Rail - home page) o some other organization would still have to mantain the sea wall...

Operationally too would be useless, as apart from missing the towns already mentioned, it would add having to reverse at Exeter and Plymouth.  And that in my opinion would play against those who always complain about Plymouth and Cornwall not having good rail links because it would increase the journey times considerably, and those arguing for both things seem to be mainly the same people.

If any diversionary route should be considered in my opinion is the one from Exeter to Newton Abbot via Hethfield, or some kind of variation along the same route.  This wouldn't involve reversing and would only miss Dawlish and Teignmouth as main population areas.

The prblem: as said before, somebody would have to pay to maintain the sea wall, but without the trains running to generate some revenue.  If the wall goes, Dawlish goes with it!

[paul7575]

One of my colleagues, now retired, always said that the 'new line' would never happen as NR^» (Network Rail - home page) o some other organization would still have to mantain the sea wall...

NR also confirmed that they have responsibility to maintain the sea wall 'in perpetuity' in something I read online within the last year or so.

Paul

[Umberleigh]

Would it be necessary to abandon the sea wall route if a diversion from Exeter to Newton Abbot (via a Haldon tunnel) were built?

Teignmouth, Dawlish x 2 and Starcross seem to generate enough passengers to retain a local stopping service, and also accommodate freight, engineering trains etc that would slow up express services on the new route.

[JayMac]

Teignmouth, Dawlish x 2 and Starcross seem to generate enough passengers to retain a local stopping service, and also accommodate freight, engineering trains etc that would slow up express services on the new route.

And you could still have long distance services to/from Paignton go via the sea-wall. With inland EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains)-NTA^» (Newton Abbott - next trains) services mostly for Plymouth/Penzance.

[The Grecian]

As I've posted before, there's almost zero chance of the Teign Valley line reopening as:
a) It was a single track branch line built on a low budget and the infrastructure - including two tunnels, one nearly half a mile long, reflects that;
b) It would barely generate any local traffic when not used for diversions - it closed in 1958, 5 years before Beeching, due to lack of use;
c) The half mile tunnel at Perridge has collapsed and the BRB^‡(resolve) have permission to infill it, though they haven't yet.

Given that it wouldn't be suitable for fast running and would require major work just to restore a single track tunnel, I can't see it. Given the lack of political will to do anything about the slow speeds west of Newton Abbot it hardly seems a viable solution as diverted trains would probably take longer than a rail replacement bus. Any inland route would really have to be a new one. If the old GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) plan of the 1930s was viable it would seem the best bet to take advantage of the fast running along the Exe and the Teign.

[broadgage]

As others post, building/reopening an inland rail route wont remove the need to maintain the sea wall at Dawlish.

It would seem to me that even substantial improvements to the sea defences would be cheaper than a new rail route.
On the seaward side of the wall, large rocks or boulders should be dumped in order to break up the force of the waves, this is established technology and the rocks last a long time, though they are eventually erroded or broken up by wave action.

It might also be possible to slightly raise the track, in order to partialy compensate for rising sea levels.

In some cases vulnerable bits of coastline should be allowed to errode, we cant save it all ! but NOT at Dawlish on account of the importance of the rail route.

[Tim]

IF the route was abandoned, what would happen to the buildings which are currently protected by the railway?

Presumably the old railway formation would still have to be maintained against the sea in order to protect the properties behind.

The only change would be that the cost of the sea defences would shift from NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to the Environment Agency.

Therefore to my mind closing the railway doesn't make much sense - unless the space taken up by the tracks ends up being needed for raising the height of the sea wall.   

[swrural]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) it is the cliff behind that is crumbling all the time and not the sea wall.  I believe that is why NR^» (Network Rail - home page) is sanguine (no, better than that, technically confident) that the sea wall route is capable of maintenance.

That takes nothing from the strategic case for an inland route which I am sure the Okehampton route justifies.

Both that route and the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) converge at Cowley and to my mind, it is the Exe valley that is the headache.