Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[najaB]

Seems like no lessons are being learned...

That depends on exactly what's being proposed for Option 2. For nearly £400M you can do a lot to protect the railway from the elements.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Seems like no lessons are being learned

Alternatively the lesson learnt is that the disruption doesn't cost as much of the price of the alternatives?

So therefore doing nothing is the answer, albeit not a palatable one to those affected.

 

[Rapidash]

Your argument seems to be that if Dawlish can't have a rail line then neither can Cornwall or the most populous part of Devon i.e. Plymouth. Actually, it's only Mother Nature that wants to stop Dawlish having a rail service, but if you want to use business case and 'value for money' arguments can we please see actual passenger numbers for Dawlish, Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth? Bet St Ives on its own would beat all three combined.

Annnd,. by the power invested in me by the cup of tea I currently drink.

Teignmouth , Dawlish and the Warren have three times the numbers (combined) of St Ives

Best not mention Mutant Womprat either, since it smooshed 'em all.

Torbay has a higher combined total than the sea wall trio as well. The only station has that has similar numbers in Cornwall is Truro.

 

[21C101]

I am shocked at the figure given to reopen the LSWR route. The study which is online at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/west-of-exeter-route-resilience-study/

states as option A on page 19 "The reinstated railway would use the original alignment throughout. A double track railway would be provided for the whole length". This is costed on page 21 as follows "The cost of Alternative Route A with double track throughout is estimated at £875 million, including a 66 per cent uplift for contingency."

They have priced to rebuild as high speed double track (53 minute journey time for a class 220) the entire route from Plymouth to Exeter.

And "Meldon viaduct, an 165 metre long and 46 metre high listed
structure located immediately south of Meldon quarry, is too
badly deteriorated for re-use". Certainly for a double track high speed line, yes; but it is not possible to provide strengthening for single track with 40mph linespeed over it?

Later on as an afterthought on page 22, they give some consideration to a single track route with dynamic 5km loops but think this will only give "A saving of 20-25 per cent in construction cost may be obtained (i.e. reducing
the total cost to approximately £655 million to £700 million
including 66 per cent contingency uplift).

It dosent seem to me to have taken into account that a single track diversionary route would need little work east of Okehampton and south of Bere Alston. Similarly "The route will not meet current maintenance clearance standards. Some sections would only be maintainable outside
traffic hours." would disappear as an issue with single track. A single line would also not mean closure of the cycleway which is another postive (and would attract passengers and revenue)

And why have the gold plated option of 5km dynamic loops. Static loops at Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston (along with the existing loop at Crediton) would allow an hourly service. They havent seen fit to make dynamic the far busier Tisbury and Gillingham loops after all. If traffic ever justifies it, dynamic loops can go in later.

Finally they reckon a local service using class 165s would take 75 minutes calling at Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock, Bere Alston, Bere Ferrers, St
Budeaux Victoria Road, Keynham, Dockyard and Devonport. Interesting that a through service to Waterloo using class 159s extended from Exeter, calling at Bere Alston, Tavistock, Okehampton and Crediton is not considered, which would be far more useful.

The ghosts of those western region ex GWR staff who shut the SR lines to Plymouth and Ilfracombe and singled the line to Salisbury with such relish will be very pleased indeed with this report. I hope it will be challenged.

 

[najaB]

They have priced to rebuild as high speed double track (53 minute journey time for a class 220) the entire route from Plymouth to Exeter.

Well, that's what the route is intended to replace. There's no point spending many hundreds of millions for a 'diversionary route' that has significantly less capacity than the existing route. For that money they could buy a fleet of 100+ coaches, a depot to store them in until the 20 days a year that the existing route is closed and still come out ahead.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, that's what the route is intended to replace. There's no point spending many hundreds of millions for a 'diversionary route' that has significantly less capacity than the existing route. For that money they could buy a fleet of 100+ coaches, a depot to store them in until the 20 days a year that the existing route is closed and still come out ahead.

That completely understates the value of routes such as Waterloo to Exeter as a diversionary route. This route is neither double track nor high speed, yet on many occasions it has proved vital to keeping the South West connected. It's "day job" role throughout the rest of the year renders it vastly more useful than a fleet of coaches as well, which would also be the case of the Okehampton route were reinstated as single track.

 

[najaB]

That completely understates the value of routes such as Waterloo to Exeter as a diversionary route. This route is neither double track nor high speed, yet on many occasions it has proved vital to keeping the South West connected. It's "day job" role throughout the rest of the year renders it vastly more useful than a fleet of coaches as well, which would also be the case of the Okehampton route were reinstated as single track.

The difference is that those routes are already open. It costs a heck of a lot less to keep a route open than it does to reopen one that's already closed.

 

[21C101]

The difference is that those routes are already open. It costs a heck of a lot less to keep a route open than it does to reopen one that's already closed.

Exactly- this report costs for rebuilding the entire 70 mile route. All but 20 miles are already open and in use for passengers qand freight. All that is needed is to reopen the missing 20 miles (5 miles of which are going to reopen anyway under another project) as single track approx with 75mph speed and add loops at Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston (likely do be done anyway under separate prokect). That would support an hourly service plus additional diverted/freight services

Do you not think it at all odd that the cost to reopen 20 miles of route is priced at nearly three times the cost of reopening the 30 mile Waverley route (£875m / £350m); noting that the Waverley route will have three sections of double track at Shawfair (3.4km), Gorebridge (6.1km) and Stow (6.4km) and included building a bridge under the dual carriageway A720 Edinburgh Bypass which involved building a temporary A720 around the bridge site?

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. Rebuilding the central section then upgrading the open sections as and when maintenance falls due, would be a far more cost effective way of achieving the regions long term aspirations.

 

[najaB]

Indeed. Rebuilding the central section then upgrading the open sections as and when maintenance falls due, would be a far more cost effective way of achieving the regions long term aspirations.

But, unless you are building a complete replacement route, you still have the maintenance costs of the coastal route, as well as the costs of upgrading the inland one.

 

[21C101]

But, unless you are building a complete replacement route, you still have the maintenance costs of the coastal route, as well as the costs of upgrading the inland one.

You have that anyway, even if they built a diversion bypassing just the Dawlish/Teignmouth area as they would never be able to shut Teignmouth.

The point of the diversionary route is that when Dawlish is shut you can still run through trains to Plymouth and Cornwall. Also you cannot bus freight services when Dawlish is shut or easily move stock into position east or west of the breach which was a major headache.

If Waterloo to Exeter services were extended to Plymouth calling at Crediton, Okehampton, a Dartmoor Parkway station right next to the A30/A386 junction at Sourton, Tavistock and Bere Alston the line would also have significant revenue potential in its own right; as it would provide a railhead for North Devon and Cornwall towns that are up to 50 miles from a railway station. (Launceston to a Parkway station at Sourton would take about 20 minutes along the A30). It would also provide rail access into the national park, something the line was increasingly used for in the years before it shut.

The option of opening the LSWR route as cheaply as possible as a single line with static loops at Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston, and the 40 out of 60 miles of existing still open railway left largely "as is" does not seem to have been examined.

 

[infobleep]

For comparison, does anyone know what the cost ratio benefit figures are for the Waverley and HS2 routes?

Do they give cost benefit figures for improving the existing Dawlish line? Could the recent costs of the disruption be cheaper than improving the existing line?

 

[najaB]

The option of opening the LSWR route as cheaply as possible as a single line with static loops at Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston, and the 40 out of 60 miles of existing still open railway left largely "as is" does not seem to have been examined.

It needs to be examined, but as a stand-alone project rather than as a solution for the problems along the Dawlish coast. As was said earlier, the "day job" role has to be strong enough for the scheme to stand on its own two feet, otherwise it's going to lose out to projects to protect and strengthen the existing route until those measures become prohibitively expensive.

However much re-opening the LSWR route costs, there's probably a viable option for protecting the current mainline at half the cost.

 

[The Planner]

The point of the diversionary route is that when Dawlish is shut you can still run through trains to Plymouth and Cornwall. Also you cannot bus freight services when Dawlish is shut or easily move stock into position east or west of the breach which was a major headache.

Just how much freight is there? Very little.

 

[Bill EWS]

The single-line at Usan (Montrose on the ECML) is no more a problem since tokenless block allows trains to run at 50mph through the section without stopping. Would such a system be any more a problem for the single-track Tavistock viaduct! Perhaps speeds there could be even fast than at Usan, I don't know that area to make any judgement.

 

[yorksrob]

It needs to be examined, but as a stand-alone project rather than as a solution for the problems along the Dawlish coast. As was said earlier, the "day job" role has to be strong enough for the scheme to stand on its own two feet, otherwise it's going to lose out to projects to protect and strengthen the existing route until those measures become prohibitively expensive.

However much re-opening the LSWR route costs, there's probably a viable option for protecting the current mainline at half the cost.

But the benefits need to be properly understood together. A reopened L&SW route would be used both for diversions and local inter regional traffic, so what by what possible logic would you not want to properly evaluate both of these outcomes ?

 

[Bald Rick]

For comparison, does anyone know what the cost ratio benefit figures are for the Waverley and HS2 routes?

Do they give cost benefit figures for improving the existing Dawlish line? Could the recent costs of the disruption be cheaper than improving the existing line?

For Waverley, depending who you believe, it is between 0.8 and 1.3. The latter is, apparently, only achieved when you assume significant house building in towns along the route to generate local economic growth and passenger use. Note this is apparently being resisted. The higher figures are also based on a cost south of £300m.

So on the face of it, using the Scottish Government's own numbers, there is a good chance that the Waverley route will make the Scottish nation worse off. Ie that cash would have been much better spent on other projects (including rail projects ) that would make the nation better off. Or being blunt, it is a collossal misallocation of resources.

Nevertheless, those who live along the route, and the people they vote for, will be better off.

Now note the BCRs for the subject of this thread.

 

[yorksrob]

For Waverley, depending who you believe, it is between 0.8 and 1.3. The latter is, apparently, only achieved when you assume significant house building in towns along the route to generate local economic growth and passenger use. Note this is apparently being resisted. The higher figures are also based on a cost south of £300m.

So on the face of it, using the Scottish Government's own numbers, there is a good chance that the Waverley route will make the Scottish nation worse off. Ie that cash would have been much better spent on other projects (including rail projects ) that would make the nation better off. Or being blunt, it is a collossal misallocation of resources.

Nevertheless, those who live along the route, and the people they vote for, will be better off.

Now note the BCRs for the subject of this thread.

That depends on how much you trust the methodology in the first place. Perhaps the Scottish Government has calculated that it misses out or underplays a lot of key benefits.

Note also that none of the BCR figures quoted on the subject of this thread take any account of the benefits of Plymouth and Cornwall not being cut off due to upheaval on the main line.

 

[Bald Rick]

That depends on how much you trust the methodology in the first place. Perhaps the Scottish Government has calculated that it misses out or underplays a lot of key benefits.

Note also that none of the BCR figures quoted on the subject of this thread take any account of the benefits of Plymouth and Cornwall not being cut off due to upheaval on the main line.

I should have mentioned, the 1.3 for Waverley includes all wider economic benefits, whereas the Dawlish ones don't (yet). But as mentioned above the wider economic benefits assumed for the Waverley route rely in part on house building that isn't happening. Ie neither are the benefits happening. In any event, the Scots could always use alternative methods of business case evaluation, that they didn't suggests that the current method is pretty robust.

The Dawlish BCRs do take into account the transport economic costs and benefits of the line being closed for the durations shown in the assumptions, but not the wider economic costs (or benefits!) to Devon, Cornwall or the nation as a whole. I gather that that is not for want of asking, I imagine it is probably pretty difficult to get to a reliable figure for the economic effect of a temporary closure of any rail line.

 

[yorksrob]

I should have mentioned, the 1.3 for Waverley includes all wider economic benefits, whereas the Dawlish ones don't (yet). But as mentioned above the wider economic benefits assumed for the Waverley route rely in part on house building that isn't happening. Ie neither are the benefits happening. In any event, the Scots could always use alternative methods of business case evaluation, that they didn't suggests that the current method is pretty robust.

The Dawlish BCRs do take into account the transport economic costs and benefits of the line being closed for the durations shown in the assumptions, but not the wider economic costs (or benefits!) to Devon, Cornwall or the nation as a whole. I gather that that is not for want of asking, I imagine it is probably pretty difficult to get to a reliable figure for the economic effect of a temporary closure of any rail line.

I think that if you take those very real deficiencies in the assessment of benefits together with the overspecification of the route, pluss the inflated nature of the contingency etc, it all adds up to what looks to be a heavily understated BCR for the L&SWR route.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that if you take those very real deficiencies in the assessment of benefits together with the overspecification of the route, pluss the inflated nature of the contingency etc, it all adds up to what looks to be a heavily understated BCR for the L&SWR route.

But it is the same for every other rail or transport project at this stage. The cost of the Waverley route at this stage was less than £150m with a barely positive BCR. The cost has now more than doubled as the project has developed and risks understood. You must apply the contingency until such time that you understand the risks.

Like the methodology or not, it is the same for everything. There are literally thousands of rail projects out there with positive cases on the same methodology. So you prioritise those with a good case. Even if the methodology changed radically to be even more favourable to rail benefits, it wouldn't change the batting order of priorities, and this one would be just above the extras.

Note that the current hurdle rate for road schemes is much higher (I have seen 8 quoted), ie the playing field is very much skewed to rail at present, and has been for nearly a decade, reversing what was the case through the 70s and 80s. (And rightly so). But this won't last forever.

 

[Class 170101]

BCRs haven't exactly covered themselves in glory lately.

Alloa must have well and truly smashed its BCR to smitherens given its loadings and I wouldn't be surprised Borders does the same. Even the West Coast upgrade is predicted to exceed its planned capacity earlier than expected.

If you load the dice against infrastructure projects with the contingency thats required of them no wonder the BCRs are poor and nothing gets built.

In my view the existing line should remain as a secondary route but a HS line should be built between Plymouth and Bristol calling at Exeter with links to existing lines at these stations (specifically to this thread Plymouth and Exeter St Davids). At Bristol the HS line should divide one route to London and the other to Birmingham joined to the HS2 line in London and Birmingham.

 

[MarkyT]

Note that the current hurdle rate for road schemes is much higher (I have seen 8 quoted), ie the playing field is very much skewed to rail at present, and has been for nearly a decade, reversing what was the case through the 70s and 80s. (And rightly so). But this won't last forever.

Road schemes usually have the built in 'advantage' that developments can be claimed to encourage more vehicles to be purchased and registered, more kilometers to be driven, so more fuel is bought and more duty and other taxes paid, all positive inputs to the treasury despite being contrary to every other urban and rural development, environmental and conservation objective. Long may the playing field skewed towards rail continue!

 

[Bald Rick]

BCRs haven't exactly covered themselves in glory lately.

Alloa must have well and truly smashed its BCR to smitherens given its loadings and I wouldn't be surprised Borders does the same. Even the West Coast upgrade is predicted to exceed its planned capacity earlier than expected.

In other news, predicting the future has proved difficult ever since Noah noticed an approaching thunderstorm.

Alloa has probably well beaten it's BCR (no doubt helped by the new houses that weren't planned when the line was approved), Ebbw Vale ditto. It isn't all one way though. Anyone take a guess on Airdrie-Bathgate? Aylesbury Vale? East Mids Parkway? The Channel Tunnel (much to the displeasure of French banks - ha!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Road schemes usually have the built in 'advantage' that developments can be claimed to encourage more vehicles to be purchased and registered, more kilometers to be driven, so more fuel is bought and more duty and other taxes paid, all positive inputs to the treasury despite being contrary to every other urban and rural development, environmental and conservation objective. Long may the playing field skewed towards rail continue!

Actually they don't; they tend to assume removal of congestion, meaning more economic driving and therefore less fuel and therefore lower tax receipts. But also less time which is where the big benefits are. It's not so very long ago that the railway wasn't permitted to use the equivalent cash value of time saved in business cases, that changed in the late 90s.

 

[najaB]

But the benefits need to be properly understood together. A reopened L&SW route would be used both for diversions and local inter regional traffic, so what by what possible logic would you not want to properly evaluate both of these outcomes ?

By the logic that if pitched as a diversionary route, the people with control of the purse strings will automatically say "cheaper to keep the current line".

Whereas if you can make it stand on its own two feet (which I believe it can do), the fact that it can also serve as a diversionary route is a bonus.

 

[MarkyT]

Actually they don't; they tend to assume removal of congestion, meaning more economic driving and therefore less fuel and therefore lower tax receipts. But also less time which is where the big benefits are. It's not so very long ago that the railway wasn't permitted to use the equivalent cash value of time saved in business cases, that changed in the late 90s.

OK fair enough. Some people also claim that traffic demand in many cases merely expands fairly rapidly to fill the new capacity created, assuming it was being throttled by the previous network capability beforehand, so the result may be more miles driven, albeit more efficiently for each vehicle. As road congestion and unreliable journey times are a major incentive to use public transport where it is segregated from those effects, there is also likely to be some abstraction too. I expect rail to lose some local market share on the Torbay branch when the S. Devon Link Road (AKA Kingskerswell Bypass) opens next year. Car journeys will be much more dependable along this section, as will be the bus routes that currently also get delayed in the nose to tail peak congestion most of the way in both directions between Newton Abbot and Torbay.

 

[yorksrob]

By the logic that if pitched as a diversionary router, the people with control of the purse strings will automatically say "cheaper to keep the current line".

Whereas if you can make it stand on its own two feet (which I believe it can do), the fact that it can also serve as a diversionary route is a bonus.

By the same logic, just keeping the current line won't bring the additional benefits of providing decent services to the Okehampton corridor. I see no benefit to insisting that the Okehampton route "stands on its own two feet" when the reality is that it would be part of the wider strategic network and would be used as such.

 

[najaB]

By the same logic, just keeping the current line won't bring the additional benefits of providing decent services to the Okehampton corridor. I see no benefit to insisting that the Okehampton route "stands on its own two feet" when the reality is that it would be part of the wider strategic network and would be used as such.

You're making the assumption that 'government logic' works the same way as normal logic. How many examples have you seen where projects have been advanced because of how they fit into the 'wider strategic network', versus those where someone's pet project was advanced?

If you can make it into a sexy standalone project that a minister can boast about then it will be built. If it's part of a strategic plan, it'll go where all strategic plans go - into a vault somewhere in Whitehall, never to be seen again.

 

[yorksrob]

You're making the assumption that 'government logic' works the same way as normal logic. How many examples have you seen where projects have been advanced because of how they fit into the 'wider strategic network', versus those where someone's pet project was advanced?

If you can make it into a sexy standalone project that a minister can boast about then it will be built. If it's part of a strategic plan, it'll go where all strategic plans go - into a vault somewhere in Whitehall, never to be seen again.

I'm sure it is a sexy stand alone project, however, Government being Government doesn't tend to fund such projects, which is why it is so important to account for as many beneficial outcomes as possible in the business case. By any stretch of the imagination, a diversionary capability for such an important route where none currently exists, should be one of these.

 

[WatcherZero]

Personally, if you accept that its going to be little used and theres little advantage in a direct route across the moors as it doesnt serve anyone, if all you really want is resilience, then build one along the northern coast with funiculars down to the villages and towns, it should provide a service that stands on its own two feet and provides resiliance, it will be a heck of a lot slower when used for diversions but thats a compromise you will have to accept.