Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Chris125]

The Network Rail report is available here - West of Exeter Route Resilience Study (.pdf)

Basically anything that involves a new route is not good value for money, which really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Chris

 

[Ash Bridge]

Interesting to read towards the end of the report that British Rail considered reinstating the former Southern Mainline in the early 1990s, though I suppose by then we were getting a bit too close to the start of the privatisation process and all the upheaval that brought...

 

[Xavi]

Without a whopping 66% contingency (unheard of in industry) the Okehampton route has a BCR of 0.52 and that is without any consideration of the loss / disruption caused by the Dawlish closure or any similar incident in the future. Without the contingency the cost for a full double-track route and new Meldon viaduct is just over £500M. Journey times from Exeter to Plymouth would be just 4 mins longer than existing route! Given what is spent elsewhere in the UK on infrastructure this should be an absolute no brainer!

 

[The Planner]

0.52 is a no brainer?

 

[Ash Bridge]

Think the journey time estimate of 29mins for a class 220 running non stop from Okehampton-Exeter St.Davids is a little conservative too. Have read an account of the last Plymouth-Brighton express to travel the route back in I think May 1968, with the Warship Class 42 & 7/8 Mk1s in tow managing it in 27 minutes!

 

[LateThanNever]

0.52 is a no brainer?

Certainly! The fact that DaFT have constructed a system which doesn't cost being cut off for eight weeks is their fault not ours!

Incredibly there is all this fuss about reversing trains and capacity at Exeter St David's but South West Trains who currently reverse but who wouldn't need to reverse if they went to Plymouth via Okehampton were not even consulted!

 

[jmc100]

So, it would appear that the most sensible option has been deferred along with the Exe valley route leaving five other options. Whichever of the five other options is selected would be no financial match for the northern route that is practically still in place. In the long term I still think a twin-track tunnel is the most viable as an alternative should the elements affect operations on the sea wall route.

 

[iantherev]

Certainly! The fact that DaFT have constructed a system which doesn't cost being cut off for eight weeks is their fault not ours!

Incredibly there is all this fuss about reversing trains and capacity at Exeter St David's but South West Trains who currently reverse but who wouldn't need to reverse if they went to Plymouth via Okehampton were not even consulted!

South West Trains have not run beyond Exeter since the service went hourly.

 

[The Planner]

They weren't consulted because they don't run trains to Plymouth, no conspiracy in that.

 

[Xavi]

0.52 is a no brainer?

Absolutely. To get a BCR of that level when there is no consideration of the cost of the disruption of the Dawlish route being severed earlier in the year is a massive plus to the reinstatement. Particularly when considering the loss to the local economy was £20m per week (or day?) I recall and the cost before contingency is just £500m to rebuild a double-track route - a tiny fraction of government spending. Not forgetting the multiplier effect of spending a real £500m of investment. If those supporting reinstatement of the Okehampton route get their act together I think the DfT and Network Rail may have scored a huge own goal (we all know they'd rather do nothing) with this report. It really does strengthen the case for reinstatement.

 

[LateThanNever]

They weren't consulted because they don't run trains to Plymouth, no conspiracy in that.

They used to and could do in the future! Not a conspiracy - just lack of thought!

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah they did factor in length of line closure in severe weather, even trying to be over optimistic to see if it significantly improved the business case (Table 7)

A range of sensitivity tests were undertaken:

• An enhanced timetable scenario with nearly twice the number of
trains.
• Reduction of 50 per cent in the capital cost outlay.
• Increased duration of railway closure following damage.
• Reduction of 50 per cent in the capital cost outlay, and increase in certain revenue and unpriced benefi ts of 100 per cent.

These tests show that even if certain revenue and unpriced benefits were doubled and the capital outlays halved in combination, the financial business case and transport economic case for all of the additional route options appear to remain significantly negative, with each one still offering poor value for money.

The issue is even under the most positive forecasting its still at the bottom of even the Poor ranking, and the line has no other benefit as over a 60 year period local services using a new line would not even pay for themselves let alone benefit the cost-benefit of the building the line in the first place.

 

[Xavi]

Yeah they did factor in length of line closure in severe weather, even trying to be over optimistic to see if it significantly improved the business case (Table 7)



The issue is even under the most positive forecasting its still at the bottom of even the Poor ranking, and the line has no other benefit as over a 60 year period local services using a new line would not even pay for themselves let alone benefit the cost-benefit of the building the line in the first place.

Nobody ever expected a local service to pay for itself. Neither did anyone expect a positive BCR. We might as well have never bothered with any report if that was the sole criteria! The whole point is that for just £500m investment you don't cut off Cornwall and Plymouth again together with the economic losses that brings. Common sense required not BCR.

 

[Rapidash]

Can't access the report for some reason - link no worky.

But from the sounds of it, there is nothing surprising in it. Even the prospect of an election won't get the the cheque books out down here for a large project like this. I doubt Torbay commuters figured into the considerations as per the norm.

The hilarity of Cornwall being considered for the spaceport just adds extra irony sauce all over the top.

 

[ironstone11]

Can't access the report for some reason - link no worky.

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

Then click on the one you want.

 

[Busaholic]

Without a whopping 66% contingency (unheard of in industry) the Okehampton route has a BCR of 0.52 and that is without any consideration of the loss / disruption caused by the Dawlish closure or any similar incident in the future. Without the contingency the cost for a full double-track route and new Meldon viaduct is just over £500M. Journey times from Exeter to Plymouth would be just 4 mins longer than existing route! Given what is spent elsewhere in the UK on infrastructure this should be an absolute no brainer!

No reason not to electrify down the Hants and Berks to Exeter then over Dartmoor to Okehampton and Plymouth. When that is finished, re-create the line to Launceston from Okehampton with a new build from Launceston down to Liskeard (or Bodmin Parkway if following the A30) and send most Paddington trains this way. Then hourly metro service Penzance to Exeter and S.W. Trains Paington to Waterloo: Night Sleeper continuing over present route and Cross Country filling in gaps. I can dream!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I look forward to seeing on what grounds the inland routes have been ruled out.

On the grounds that ,suddenly, Cameron has found that money is an object. Oh, what an old cynic I am.

 

[Xavi]

No reason not to electrify down the Hants and Berks to Exeter then over Dartmoor to Okehampton and Plymouth. When that is finished, re-create the line to Launceston from Okehampton with a new build from Launceston down to Liskeard (or Bodmin Parkway if following the A30) and send most Paddington trains this way. Then hourly metro service Penzance to Exeter and S.W. Trains Paington to Waterloo: Night Sleeper continuing over present route and Cross Country filling in gaps. I can dream!

Yep. With few parliamentary seats to chase, the Cornwall resignalling will probably be it for another 30 years in this part of the world. Politicians chase power, they don't bother with investment that the less densely populated parts of the country need in order to prosper.

As many have mentioned before, the seawall needs maintaining whether there's another rail route or not since it's also the sea defence for Dawlish. So no real rail expenditure there!

 

[Rapidash]

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

Then click on the one you want.

Ta Muchly.

As I figured, no real mention of us in there, (don;t even get labelled on the map) apart from 'Uh, they might need to take a replacement bus'

 

[Bald Rick]

Without a whopping 66% contingency (unheard of in industry)

But very much heard of in every single major transport project in this country, at this stage of development, that is funded by government. Level playing field.

 

[HowardGWR]

But very much heard of in every single major transport project in this country, at this stage of development, that is funded by government. Level playing field.

Fair enough, but does the word 'strategy' not have a wider influence than BCR? If the Okehampton route had not been closed, does anyone here think it would now be recommended for closure?

Which is more valuable overall, strategically, the Okehampton route or the Central Wales or Settle to Carlisle line?

That's the issue for real strategists. Anyone seen the BCR for Trident?

 

[Bald Rick]

Fair enough, but does the word 'strategy' not have a wider influence than BCR? If the Okehampton route had not been closed, does anyone here think it would now be recommended for closure?

Which is more valuable overall, strategically, the Okehampton route or the Central Wales or Settle to Carlisle line?

Settle to Carlisle

a) to cater for a very real freight demand all year round that cannot be accommodated on other routes
b) because it exists.

 

[The Ham]

One thing I did spot is that Option 2 (basicly making the existing route more resiliant) would cost about £400m to £660m, yet the alternitive routes A and B are priced at between £470m and £1,165m.

Although the upper end of the alternitive routes is three times that of the lower end of the extra works on the existing line, it would appear that there is the possibility that the extra funding for one of the routes could be pushed through if there was the political will.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing I did spot is that Option 2 (basicly making the existing route more resiliant) would cost about £400m to £660m, yet the alternitive routes A and B are priced at between £470m and £1,165m.

Although the upper end of the alternitive routes is three times that of the lower end of the extra works on the existing line, it would appear that there is the possibility that the extra funding for one of the routes could be pushed through if there was the political will.

Yes, but, Option 2 gets all the benefits of the diversionary route (except for the journey time reductions of the all new lines) without the additional maintenance / operating costs of another route, and also saves the ongoing additional maintenance costs of keeping the existing route open in all weathers, as it would then be resilient. Any diversionary route cannot claim these latter benefits unless the existing route is abandoned, see this thread passim.

Personal view: it all now hangs on the value of wider economic benefits an alternative route would have to the local areas it passes through. As the report says, this is still being assessed.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, initial thoughts:

"As a potential source of benefi t arising from this route option, the
introduction of a regular hourly planned train service operating
between Plymouth and Exeter, calling all stations to Bere Alston,
Tavistock, Sourton Parkway, Okehampton, Crediton and Exeter St.
Davids has been assessed. The assessment and appraisal of such a
service based upon current demographics and assumed trip rates
has found that the transport economic benefi ts would fail to cover
the marginal costs of train operation, with a BCR (over a 60-year
period) of 0.82. Table 2 summarises the findings"

So table 2 summarises these findings which comes up with a BCR of 0.14. But hang about - The table in the executive summary on page 5 says the Okehampton route has a BCR of 0.14, so it's presumably the same calculation of Table 2 on page 30, as alluded to above, which says it doesn't include the local service, as it supposedly worsens the BCR So what is this BCR which doesn't mention a local service ?

As is always the case with our wholly inadequate way of calculating these things, I'd like to know where they've accounted for increased leisure and employment opportunities. We have a rather euphemistic section entitled "Unpriced user and non-user benefits". How are these calculated ? Are we to take it on trust that these include these benefits outlined above, and that they are realistic ? (I certainly don't).

Also, the report alludes to an option of a single track railway with dynamic loops that would be similar to the Borders railway. Yet this option, which would alleviate some of the issues highlighted with the Okehampton route (issues which the rest of the railway seems to manage with but never mind) is not costed at all.

Finally, there has been no attempt to quantify the cost to the local economy of the closure of the Dawlish route. "We've not done it before, it's too hard".

All in all, it looks like a dog's dinner of a report, however, I will try and look at it in more detail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But very much heard of in every single major transport project in this country, at this stage of development, that is funded by government. Level playing field.

Why should we have a level playing field ? Road based transport hasn't been decimated over the past sixty years in the same way as the railway network has been, therefore there should be a bias in favour of expanding the railway network to make good some of the damage that has been done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Finally, I observe that some tu'penny ha'penny cruise ship firm is refloating and scrapping the Costa Concordia at a cost of £1.3 billion. Yet we can't spend however many hundred million (we don't know because they haven't costed a single track option in the report) to reopen the second route to Plymouth.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why should we have a level playing field ? Road based transport hasn't been decimated over the past sixty years in the same way as the railway network has been, therefore there should be a bias in favour of expanding the railway network to make good some of the damage that has been done.

As my dad used to say, two wrongs don't make a right?

And I may stand corrected, but the rail network has not seen decimation, on any scale, for at least the last thirty of those sixty years.

 

[yorksrob]

As my dad used to say, two wrongs don't make a right?

And I may stand corrected, but the rail network has not seen decimation, on any scale, for at least the last thirty of those sixty years.

We're still starting from a low base. The decimation thirty years ago has been bad enough.

We have one mode of transport which has been continually expanded over the same time and another which has been decimated on the basis of discredited government policy and dubious evidence. Unless we go some way to address that underlying historical bias, then all talk of a "level playing field" is hokum.

 

[The Ham]

Finally, I observe that some tu'penny ha'penny cruise ship firm is refloating and scrapping the Costa Concordia at a cost of £1.3 billion. Yet we can't spend however many hundred million (we don't know because they haven't costed a single track option in the report) to reopen the second route to Plymouth.

Within the report it says that single track with dynamic loops (about 5km long) would be about 20% cheaper at about £655m to £700m (page 22, under the photo of the former goods yard at Tavistock). It also says that it overcomes some of the problems listed for the double track options.

 

[yorksrob]

Within the report it says that single track with dynamic loops (about 5km long) would be about 20% cheaper at about £655m to £700m (page 22, under the photo of the former goods yard at Tavistock). It also says that it overcomes some of the problems listed for the double track options.

Ah thanks (easy to miss at 23:30 !)

So given they've presumably already included a cost to replace the L&SWR's oversized Meccano set at Meldon, and given they've added a whopping 66% contingency, we're really only likely to be looking at a cost of £300 - £400m.

 

[jmc100]

Ah thanks (easy to miss at 23:30 !)

So given they've presumably already included a cost to replace the L&SWR's oversized Meccano set at Meldon, and given they've added a whopping 66% contingency, we're really only likely to be looking at a cost of £300 - £400m.

In the short term, I think that reinstatement of the Dartmoor route would seem to be the most cost-effective solution compared to the huge costs of the other alternatives.

Even with a contingency figure included of 66% it is still the most practical solution to providing what is required - effective long-term resilience. The route and track bed over the majority of the northern route is still in place so this would provide a saving compared to any new constructional projects.

Even at a projected cost of £834m over a term of say 30 years is still a reasonable figure for the reinstatement of an old route that can provide North and Central Devon with a railway again as well as providing the required effective resilience to keep the south-west railway infrastructure fully operational.

As a matter of interest, how much has it cost to repair the small stretch of line along the sea wall?

 

[HowardGWR]

Settle to Carlisle

a) to cater for a very real freight demand all year round that cannot be accommodated on other routes
b) because it exists.

Yes I agree, but I thought putting the question could help. It's the lack of goods traffic (at present) to the west country that makes the difference. I think Plymouth to Exeter via Okehampton scores heavily on social and environmental benefits and more so than the CWL or S-C. This is aside of course from its credentials as a strategic alternative route.