Offtopic but I'm curious as to why you lumped the Fort William sleeper in with those other two, given that from what I gather it's very popular (correct me if I'm wrong), especially with tourists (walkers, etc.) during the summer
It's busy in the summer, especially around the weekend (Friday night northbound, Sunday night southbound), but the new franchise will keep a six day a week/ fifty two week a year service, which is going to require a large subsidy for most of the time.
Just trying to find an example of something that we wouldn't dare scrap today, but wouldn't necessarily introduce (if it didn't exist), because the "
ah, but you wouldn't scrap the Okehampton route if it was currently in operation" argument doesn't work for me (as there are plenty of weak routes/stations that we are keeping in operation with no plans to scrap - but you couldn't get funding to open a station with only a dozen passengers a day)
My position is - if there is funding specifically available for improving railways in Devon+Cornwall, and this money would not be spent on rail at all if it is not spent, reopening the route through Okehampton is probably one of the more sane things you could do with it. That's not to say there aren't other projects in Devon+Cornwall more worthy of money of this order of magnitude - it's just I can't immediately think of any
. If it's a case, however, of "here's N hundred million pounds, let's spend it somewhere, where doesn't matter", reopening Okehampton would be quite far down the list.
If it's a case of "
either use this money to build the Okehampton route or lose it" (which is basically the way that HS2 is being "offered") then fair enough, build it...
...but I previously suggested in this thread other "rail" things that you could spend money on in south west England (doubling the single track sections of main line through Cornwall, re-opening to Portishead, doubling the single track sections from Exeter to Salisbury, electrifying the B&H) - so its not like we are lacking things that we could spend money on.
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
I just find it odd that those keen for Okehampton to be re-opened are keen to point out how essential it is for a fully resilient railway to Penzance, but there's no need to give Torbay that kind of protection.
Is that opposed to those self appointed experts who feel that we should be forced to stay with a network, designed for half the number of passengers, forty years ago
I don't think anyone is saying that the 1970s railway should be preserved in aspic (?) - there have been many good extensions/ upgrades/ stations built since then - we'd be lost without improvements like the the Thamelink tunnel in London, the Windsor Link in Manchester or the Merseyrail "loop" in Liverpool - we see around four million journeys a year at modern stations like Stansted Airport and Milton Keynes...
...however I don't buy the argument that any new section of railway has to be on the pathbed of something that Dr Beeching closed. Just as the examples I've given above are "new builds", I think that routes like Crossrail and HS2 will be very busy - I don't think we should be hamstrung by ideas like "how can we reintroduce the old LSWR route from Waterloo to Plymouth" and should focus on 21st century problems instead.
Tees Side Airport isn't really a very useful comparison. Salisbury - Exeter and Settle - Carlisle would be a meaningful comparison, and yes, no government would dare to close them. With good reason.
No Government dares close *anything* - not even a basket case like Teesside Airport Station - so the argument that "
if Okehampton was up and running then no Government would dare close is" is a strawman one.
True, but it would be the best way of bolstering strategic rail links to the south west whilst at the same time improving local links to Okehampton, Tavistock and the Dartmoor national park.
It depends on the question that you ask. If you want to frame it in terms of "
how can we improve local links to Okehampton, Tavistock and the Dartmoor national park" then of course you'll get the answer "reopen the Okehampton route"...
...but if your question is "
what should we do in Devon, in light of the recent wettest winter in almost 250 years" then you could get the answer "upgrade the Dawlish wall" or even "don't do anything as the costs would outweigh the benefits".
They are indeed lovely, but they are also real. The ability for people to look for work in a wider area, find education opportunities, attract trade, operate in an area that hasn't ground to a halt through congestion and the ability for the elderly, the young and those who simply don't have the means to run a car, to get around quickly and comfortably are very real indeed.
Those things come at a cost though. If there's not enough demand for a proper hourly bus service from Okehampton to Exeter (and nothing from Okehampton to Plymouth, or Tavistock to Exeter, from what I can find) then that doesn't sound like there are going to be large numbers of people who are going to be relying on an Okehampton railway line (I've already said that Tavistock to Plymouth looks to have a decent demand, based on current bus services - a reasonable bellweather when you remember the seven or eight buses from Alloa to Stirling per hour)
The West Coast main line passes through a very sparsely populated area, yet it links several settlements and serves the area in terms of tourism. By your logic, that would have a poor business case
The "sparsely populated" section of the WCML links Edinburgh/Glasgow (etc) to Manchester/ Birmingham/ London (etc) - and carries thousands of people every day.
An Okehampton route wouldn't carry thousands of people a day. If it were to then I'd be in favour.
You are being disingenuous to suggest that the route would only be of use once or twice a year
The much trumpeted "diversionary" case is based on a handful of times a year though. If the Okehampton route can't stand on its own two feet for the other 95% of the time then it has a week case, sorry.
Worth remembering that there are a number of routes where closure (engineering works etc) sees passengers put onto buses, even if there are potential diversionary routes (e.g. Virgin not always bothering to divert services up the S&C).
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.
True
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.
Agreed - it's not going to be a popular answer in Plymouth, but we have to consider the cost of doing nothing, alongside all of the expensive "solutions".
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.
Rapidash has saved me a job!
Also worth pointing out that a large number of those St Ives passengers are making journeys wholly within Cornwall (or no further than Plymouth), so would still have a train service if the Dawlish line were closed, whereas those Torbay passengers are going to be scuppered if there's no train to Exeter.
Something worth remembering when we are told about Cornwall being "cut off" (but people are seemingly less bothered about the "resilience" for Newton Abbott/ Torbay)
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 Waterloo - Exeter line is busy all day long/ all week long (an extra 50,000 journeys a year at Yeovil Junction in the past decade) - it's in need of redoubling - it "washes its face" regardless of the fact it can be used for diversions...
...whereas an Okehampton line would be pretty quiet for 95% of the time. Handy for diversions, yes, but that comes at a large cost (and there are lines needing investment for all year round demands).
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.
True. And, if you are going to properly maintain the coastal route then the need for diversions elsewhere becomes weaker
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?
Good point that "doing nothing" is an option - we seem to approach threads like this with the mindset of "how can we spend hundreds of millions of pounds" rather than considering that the "at any cost" approach isn't always the right one
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.
I don't think that the Waverley route would be built were it not for the fact that a minority Labour administration at Holyrood needed the support of the LibDems to form/maintain a Government in the Scottish Parliament...
...I'm talking around a decade ago, when the LibDems played hard-ball as the price of them supporting a larger party, rather than the "roll over and have their tummy tickled" approach that they have taken in Westminster...
...with the LibDems having the Borders as one of their "strongholds" back then (it was David Steel's seat at Westminster/ Holyrood, for example), spending a large sum of Holyrood money in "their" area was a price that they were happy for someone to pay for. The business case wasn't important. That's not to say that we should take the same "at all costs" approach in Devon.
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.
If you don't like the answer, then the methodology must be wrong?
Based on the same factors as other schemes, the Okehampton route has a much weaker case than other schemes (all of which could equally make a case for "inflated contingency costs" / "understated demands" etc).
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.
Well put
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
You remember the good results and forget about the bad results.
Someone (
pumbaa, AFAICR) posted a link that showed a graph of recently opened stations and how they've compared to expected passenger numbers. Some are winners, some are losers. Even in the same area we've seen discrepancies (passenger numbers at Newcraighall were significantly below expectation, but they didn't learn their lesson about accurate forecasting and significantly underestimated passenger numbers for the next station to open in Edinburgh - Edinburgh Park).
Worth remembering that there's a difference between whether passenger numbers match/beat the expected numbers and whether a scheme gets the go-ahead - the fact that the Waverley route may beat the benchmark for passenger numbers wouldn't necessarily mean that it gets enough passengers to make a positive business case.
