Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Bald Rick]

But had you been starting from scratch with Airdrie - Bathgate and you were contemplating either re-building or rejuvenating the ends of the route as well, I think you would be better off rebuilding the whole route than just two dead end branches because the route as a whole would be more use to the area than individual sections. This is the logic that Scotland has grasped but so many on here haven't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The logic here is that the end nearest Airdrie - metropolitan Glasgow - has a population the same as the whole of Devon. While the other end has a population broadly the same as the whole of Cornwall. In a rather more concentrated area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let's also not forget that a considerable amount of that section needing upgrading, would be of great benefit to North Devon services as well.

I didn't count anything Exeter side of Crediton. That's extra Guv!

 

[yorksrob]

The logic here is that the end nearest Airdrie - metropolitan Glasgow - has a population the same as the whole of Devon. While the other end has a population broadly the same as the whole of Cornwall. In a rather more concentrated area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that the Borders railway doesn't have a metropolitan settlement at both ends, yet it has still been judged worthwhile and built.

I didn't count anything Exeter side of Crediton. That's extra Guv!

Then contrary to your previous post, rather more than half of the route exists already.

 

[HSTEd]

How much of the route exists or is usable already is irrelevant.

All that matters is how much it would cost to implement the rest, and I can't see it having a better BCR than a Giant Dawlish flood defence wall.

 

[21C101]

Let's stick to facts; little more than half exists already, and rather more than half of that is single track, or low speed, or knackered, or all of the above. There's at least 40 miles of railway to upgrade or build to run even the most basic of services for a diversion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Quite. Not a popular tactic in East Sussex though.

A couple of Nick Cleggs Garden cities at Isfield and Barcombe Mills would certainly seal Uckfield Lewes reopening..........

 

[po8crg]

How many places are there that a couple could live with one working in Exeter and the other in Plymouth?

 

[yorksrob]

How much of the route exists or is usable already is irrelevant.

All that matters is how much it would cost to implement the rest, and I can't see it having a better BCR than a Giant Dawlish flood defence wall.

It's not irrelevant at all. The less of the route that exists, the more has to be rebuilt and the more cost there is for your given benefit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The logic here is that the end nearest Airdrie - metropolitan Glasgow - has a population the same as the whole of Devon. While the other end has a population broadly the same as the whole of Cornwall. In a rather more concentrated area.

It's also worth noting that whilst Edinburgh might have a population roughly the size of Cornwall and Glasgow a population the size of Devon, those Scottish cities already had three fairly robust rail links between them. There is only one railway linking the whole equivalent population of Edinburgh in Cornwall (and a fairly substantial chunk of the equivalent population of Glasgow if you count the western end of Devon ) with the rest of Britain and that is mkre susceptible to weather disruption.

 

[Bald Rick]

A couple of Nick Cleggs Garden cities at Isfield and Barcombe Mills would certainly seal Uckfield Lewes reopening..........

Indeed. The previously very keen local councils lost interest when that was pointed out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then contrary to your previous post, rather more than half of the route exists already.

To explain my rudimentary maths, and even more rudimentary measurement (which I will happily be corrected on) ... I reckon it is approx 51 miles from Cowley Bridge to St Budeaux. 28 miles of that exists, 23 would have to be built. 28/51 I contend is little more than half as per my post.

Of the 28, 18 is single track, or slow, or knackered, and that is being kind to the Cowley Bridge - Crediton stretch (being the other 10). 23 new plus 18 needing a decent upgrade = over 40 miles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's also worth noting that whilst Edinburgh might have a population roughly the size of Cornwall and Glasgow a population the size of Devon, those Scottish cities already had three fairly robust rail links between them. There is only one railway linking the whole equivalent population of Edinburgh in Cornwall (and a fairly substantial chunk of the equivalent population of Glasgow if you count the western end of Devon ) with the rest of Britain and that is mkre susceptible to weather disruption.

Railways thrive on volume. Volume requires concentration. Almost all of Edinburgh's half million people live within 3 miles of a station, and Edinburgh Waverley alone has 23million annual passengers trips as a result (going by station entry / exits).

Meanwhile in Cornwall the population is dispersed across over 3,500 sq km, most of which is nowhere near a railway, and thus sees a little over 6million station entry / exits across the whole county between them, some of which we have to assume is wholly within the county and thus double counted.

So in this example I would argue that the railway in Cornwall does anything but serve the whole population therein, whereas the railways of Edinburgh do a pretty good job of serving the whole city.

Sorry to keep using facts!

 

[21C101]

Indeed. The previously very keen local councils lost interest when that was pointed out.

My recollection is that the council has always been a bit lukewarm. AIUI they also have to pay for a bridge on the Uckfield bypass as they promised to do so when it was built.

My suspicion is that with county hall at Lewes, a good number of workers there will live in the villages north of Lewes and probably arn't too keen on a railway through their villages.

However, sooner or later continuing development at Crowborough and Uckfield will force the issue, although I think a new alignment south of Isfield via Ringmer (with station there) joining the main line with a Brighton facing junction at Glynde would make more sense.

Dosen't help when you have activists suggesting it will be some sort of second Brighton Main line with a northward extension via Elmers End though and Tramlink booted off......

To explain my rudimentary maths, and even more rudimentary measurement (which I will happily be corrected on) ... I reckon it is approx 51 miles from Cowley Bridge to St Budeaux. 28 miles of that exists, 23 would have to be built. 28/51 I contend is little more than half as per my post.

Of the 28, 18 is single track, or slow, or knackered, and that is being kind to the Cowley Bridge - Crediton stretch (being the other 10). 23 new plus 18 needing a decent upgrade = over 40 miles.

If we're going to stick to facts lets get them right

The track west of Crediton to Meldon isn't that bad, as it is designed and was maintained for heavy stone trains.

The bufferstops at Meldon are at 199m 29ch; The bufferstops at Bere Alston are at 219m 75ch; So the gap is 20.5 miles not 23, thats a third of the 59m 25 chains from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton

If Tavistock reopens with a new station half a mile south of the old one (213m 60ch) at 214m 20ch then the gap is only 14 miles 71 chains of the 59m 25ch from Exeter St Davids to Plymouth via Okehampton, so 25% missing.

Tavistock reopening (which seems to have graduated from Flying Pig to credible) is I think the game changer here.

If I were Devon Council wanting to see this done, I would be quietly buying up the remaining bits of disused track that Devon dosen't already own (basically about 7 miles from Lydford to north of Tavistock plus bits and pieces in Tavistock). Fortunately Brentor station could be bypassed by using the ex GW trackbed there, so saving the cost of buying the station, ie saving the cost of buying an expensive property. I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing it anyway to enable the Granite Way to link up with the other Cyclepath south of Tavistock.

I would put all public effort into the Tavistock - Bere Alston opening but get whatever passive provision I could for going northwards into that.

Thirdly I would get some specialists consultants to look at options for strengthening instead of replacing Meldon Viaduct as, if that has to be replaced, I think the cost would blow reopening out of the water.

With something like this, with a marginal financial case at best in national terms, it has to be gently, slowly, catchy monkey... Failing that build a 50,000 population New Town in Okehampton....

 

[HowardGWR]

I think that at root is the idea that every railway line, everywhere, has to be profitable in the BCR sense. Lines such as Settle / Carlisle, Whitby / Middlesbrough, Central Wales line, are only there because by hook or by crook they escaped the closures.

I am with Yorksrob that, just as we subsidise rural areas in all sorts of ways, decent rail connections are one of those ways. The North Devon Railway should be rebuilt and kept open as a national asset for economic , social and environmental reasons. The last two do not appear on the BCR, but are equally relevant planning considerations.

That there is this bonus of helping in the event of another coastal blockage is welcome.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not irrelevant at all. The less of the route that exists, the more has to be rebuilt and the more cost there is for your given benefit.

Yes, but this is sort of covered by the cost of the project as I said.
Including assets already in place to justify spending the rest is a variant of the sunk cost fallacy.

If something takes £100m to finish but only has benefits of £50m its still a bad deal, even if £1100m has already been expended on it.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Beechings surveys were flawed. I heard this from someone working at Chasewater at the time.
Only certain tickets were analyzed.
Eg The Truro - Chacewater - St Agnes - Perranporth - Newquay branch line.
The branch left the main line just after Chasewater at Blackwater Junction.
The tickets were bundled up ready for the people doing the survey.
The guy called at Chasewater, and there were bundles of tickets - Truro to Newquay, Truro to St Agnes. Truro to Goonavern, Chasewater to Newquay etc etc. (Many trains started from Truro)
They only took the tickets between Chasewater to Newquay. Chasewater is a small village. Many felt it was more important branch than Par to Newquay.

BCRs Just as an example- Is the Camel Trail in Cornwall profitable?
There is a small income from Cycle Hire companies, but probably costs more to maintain, than the income generated. But it brings millions of pounds worth of tourism to North Cornwall every year!
The LSWR through Devon would do likewise.
A park & Ride at eg Souton would make easy access to rail for people of North Cornwall & Devon. Express buses could give a much enhanced public transport back to those areas.
The government want major houses building projects - best to expand Tavistock/ Okehampton rather than create a new town.
There is no reason for Dawlish to lose its mainline status, but one day it may have to be a branch line when the through route has to be abandoned, hopefully not in the next 30 years or more.

Torre Torquay Paignton railway - almost closed?
In the 70's there was a proposal to turn the railway into a road - the only way to relieve traffic congestion through the conurbation!!!
Only because the line made a small profit, the Council could not get its hands on it!

 

[Grumpy]

This is all interesting but seems to be wholly about running via Okehampton.

With all respect to the residents on the former route, in terms of population numbers, and thus potential passengers, they aren’t a potential major flow. Also the route is not going to do anything to make rail travel from the rest of the UK to Plymouth and Cornwall more attractive in terms of reduced journey times.

The need is to avoid the Dawlish problems and improve the service to the biggest market. The new build options do this, offering a 6 minute journey time reduction.

It’s OK pointing out that the costs quoted to reinstate the Okehampton route are too high. However this also applies to the new build routes. When compared to other new build projects such as the Scottish Borders or new build motorway the costs quoted in the report are almost 10 times too high.

Okehampton is a red herring. The new build options C1-C5 are the ones to develop.

 

[The Ham]

But had you been starting from scratch with Airdrie - Bathgate and you were contemplating either re-building or rejuvenating the ends of the route as well, I think you would be better off rebuilding the whole route than just two dead end branches because the route as a whole would be more use to the area than individual sections. This is the logic that Scotland has grasped but so many on here haven't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Let's also not forget that a considerable amount of that section needing upgrading, would be of great benefit to North Devon services as well.

Also, as I have pointed out before, there is the issue that the number of trains required to run two branch lines is more than running a through service. This then means that by building the link through the costs of running the trains goes down, whilst increasing fair revenue.

Although that may not justify the cost of building it in the first place it is likely to be something that when a politician is making a judgement as to which option to go for (and it will be a political judgement as to what ends up happening rather than a pure CBR judgement)is taken on board.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How much of the route exists or is usable already is irrelevant.

All that matters is how much it would cost to implement the rest, and I can't see it having a better BCR than a Giant Dawlish flood defence wall.

As I have pointed out before, upgrading of the Dawlish sea wall will require line closures. That is going to take a brave politician to basicly say (i.e. without the spin):

"To ensue that this line doesn't close due to storm damage we are going to close the line on and off for a prolonged period of time (possible totalling more than it was closed after the storm took out the tracks). Oh and by the way, to ensure that the works can be completed on time and on budget there may need to be some closures during peak school holidays as that's when the good weather can be guaranteed."

Likewise it'll take a fairly brave politician to say:

"We've gone for the most expensive route at a time when we are making cuts to things that a lot of you hold dear. This option saves a fairly small number of people a few minutes each time they travel between Exeter and Plymouth."

It is much safer (political) ground to say something along the lines of:

"Although not the best value for money, nor likely to provide much time saving, we have opted for the route through Okehampton so as to ensure that the likelihood of Plymouth et al are not cut off for any prolonged period of time for whatever reason. This will provide many rural areas of Devon with a boost to their economy by providing better transport connections. This is also a fairly popular choice for many people in the area effected and we hope to capitalise on this at the next election."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is all interesting but seems to be wholly about running via Okehampton.

With all respect to the residents on the former route, in terms of population numbers, and thus potential passengers, they aren’t a potential major flow. Also the route is not going to do anything to make rail travel from the rest of the UK to Plymouth and Cornwall more attractive in terms of reduced journey times.

The need is to avoid the Dawlish problems and improve the service to the biggest market. The new build options do this, offering a 6 minute journey time reduction.

It’s OK pointing out that the costs quoted to reinstate the Okehampton route are too high. However this also applies to the new build routes. When compared to other new build projects such as the Scottish Borders or new build motorway the costs quoted in the report are almost 10 times too high.

Okehampton is a red herring. The new build options C1-C5 are the ones to develop.

The thing is Okehampton reopening is a lot cheaper than the new build options C1-C5. Assuming that the costs across the board are all inflated then this still makes no difference to the comparisons. The only time that it could make a difference is if there were elements which are inflated more than others which occur more under Okehampton route which appear less under the the new build options (or vice a versa).

There is an element (following the publication of the Western RUS) which could be argued that given that extra lines between Exeter and Newton Abbot are required in the next 25 years due to capacity that we might as well build a new alignment. However, the counter argument is that with the route via Okehampton the TOC's could just price people to opt to take the longer route and so achieve the same benefit.

As I have pointed out before, going to Exeter from much of the South of England (i.e. basicly anywhere served by South West Trains or Southern where it is quicker to get to a station served by the Waterloo - Exeter services quicker than you can get to a station served by the Paddington - Exeter services) is as fast by using the Waterloo - Exeter service as by using FGW's services. Therefore, some passengers would (assuming an extension of the SWT's service to Plymouth) have no problem with going the long way round freeing up capacity on FGW's services. This would especially be the case if the SWT's service was a regular clock-face timetable compared with the not quite of FGW's services. This would reduce the need for the extra lines between Exeter and Newton Abbot.

 

[yorksrob]

Railways thrive on volume. Volume requires concentration. Almost all of Edinburgh's half million people live within 3 miles of a station, and Edinburgh Waverley alone has 23million annual passengers trips as a result (going by station entry / exits).

Meanwhile in Cornwall the population is dispersed across over 3,500 sq km, most of which is nowhere near a railway, and thus sees a little over 6million station entry / exits across the whole county between them, some of which we have to assume is wholly within the county and thus double counted.

So in this example I would argue that the railway in Cornwall does anything but serve the whole population therein, whereas the railways of Edinburgh do a pretty good job of serving the whole city.

Sorry to keep using facts!

If we're looking at facts, you'll find that Edinburgh and Glasgow don't have one railway serving them, they have a number of railways radiating in various directions (particularly so with Glasgow) so to try and suggest that a railway can only be supported by having a vast City at each end is a fallacy. In reality, the Airdrie - Bathgate route will only serve a slither of Glasgow and Edinburgh's passengers, ad what's more it will only serve a proportion of Glasgow to Edinburgh journeys. You say so yourself that Waverley gets 23m passengers per year. This will be divided between several routes.

Contrast this with the South West of England where one can get on a lightly loaded train at Penzance and see it become progressively busier as it moved East until it is packed at Exeter, and you will see how the Regions railway have the effect of funnelling passenger east. Compared to a network, 6m passengers on a single route isn't an insignificant number at all, and that's before you add in Devon's travellers looking to go East !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, but this is sort of covered by the cost of the project as I said.
Including assets already in place to justify spending the rest is a variant of the sunk cost fallacy.

If something takes £100m to finish but only has benefits of £50m its still a bad deal, even if £1100m has already been expended on it.

But then one should really include the benefits to travellers in North Devon if we are going to include the cost of improving Cowley Bridge etc (as the NR study does).

 

[bnm]

It is much safer (political) ground to say something along the lines of:

"Although not the best value for money, nor likely to provide much time saving, we have opted for the route through Okehampton so as to ensure that the likelihood of Plymouth et al are not cut off for any prolonged period of time for whatever reason. This will provide many rural areas of Devon with a boost to their economy by providing better transport connections. This is also a fairly popular choice for many people in the area effected and we hope to capitalise on this at the next election."

It obviously won't be a politician from Torbay or the South Hams who makes this allegedly safer political statement. They aren't going to add:

"We are sorry that the Okehampton option does nothing to ensure continuity of rail service to quarter of a million people in South Devon, or the large number of tourists who visit every year, but we think the benefits provided to a much smaller rural population outweigh this consideration, and rail users in Torquay, Paignton and Totnes can continue to be provided with Rail Replacement transport in times of disruption."

The answer for the 'Dawlish' issue is not Okehampton as a diversionary route. Okehampton getting a rail service should stand on it's own merits, not be lumped in with the need to find an alternative route to Plymouth and Cornwall, as it does nothing to provide for continuity of rail services to a vast population in South Devon. 1.9 million passenger journeys per annum in total for Torre, Torquay, Paignton and Totnes.

Options C1-C5 it has to be for the greater good. Study and fund Okehampton separately.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I have pointed out before, upgrading of the Dawlish sea wall will require line closures.

Will it? I'm not so sure (talking to those involved).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we're going to stick to facts lets get them right

The track west of Crediton to Meldon isn't that bad, as it is designed and was maintained for heavy stone trains.

I did say I was happy to be corrected!

The track west of Crediton may not be bad, but nevertheless it is single track and definitely slow. Certainly not suitable to take regular traffic without a decent upgrade.

Agree that Tavistock reopening does change the game. Whether it changes it enough remains to be seen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Compared to a network, 6m passengers on a single route isn't an insignificant number at all, and that's before you add in Devon's travellers looking to go East !

The 23m at Edinburgh isn't a network. It's at Edinburgh. Were we to look at the total number in the Edinburgh 'network' it would be a lot more. Meanwhile the 6m in Cornwall is a network. Mostly one route, although in my experience about half those 6m are on the St Ives shuttle on summer Saturdays!

Agreed that it is rather different scenarios for comparison - which does explain why we have to have common currency for assessing schemes - which leads us to our old friend - Transport Assessment Guidelines and the BCRs. (Great name for a band btw).

 

[Busaholic]

Agreed that it is rather different scenarios for comparison - which does explain why we have to have common currency for assessing schemes - which leads us to our old friend - Transport Assessment Guidelines and the BCRs. (Great name for a band btw).

Have this band now changed their name to Power Assessment Guidelines and the Electricity Generators,also with a common currency (but not current, apparently, either AC or DC) to prove the government has been wholly right and not criminally wilful to let our power reserves dwindle to the level where a cold snap of only a few days will see widespread blackouts and/or pleas to industry to cut back production (just the thing to revive the economy)?

 

[The Ham]

It obviously won't be a politician from Torbay or the South Hams who makes this allegedly safer political statement. They aren't going to add:

"We are sorry that the Okehampton option does nothing to ensure continuity of rail service to quarter of a million people in South Devon, or the large number of tourists who visit every year, but we think the benefits provided to a much smaller rural population outweigh this consideration, and rail users in Torquay, Paignton and Totnes can continue to be provided with Rail Replacement transport in times of disruption."

The answer for the 'Dawlish' issue is not Okehampton as a diversionary route. Okehampton getting a rail service should stand on it's own merits, not be lumped in with the need to find an alternative route to Plymouth and Cornwall, as it does nothing to provide for continuity of rail services to a vast population in South Devon. 1.9 million passenger journeys per annum in total for Torre, Torquay, Paignton and Totnes.

Options C1-C5 it has to be for the greater good. Study and fund Okehampton separately.

Although Okehampton doesn't directly benefit passengers to South Devon during a closure at Dawlish in that they can not get there by train, it does indirectly benefit them as they will be able to get on a bus more easily at Exeter as those going to Plymouth and beyond will go by train via Okehampton.

There is also the possibility that single line shuttle working could still continue to an extent to allow trains to the Torbay area when the line couldn't be used to its full extent.

The problem with the C1-C5 options is that the cost a lot more than the Okehampton route, meaning that the route via Okehampton and the sea wall improvements could be funded for less money than they would cost.

 

[21C101]

The problem with the C1-C5 options is that the cost a lot more than the Okehampton route, meaning that the route via Okehampton and the sea wall improvements could be funded for less money than they would cost.

Indeed C1 to C5 are wholly unaffordable, and there is little point considering them further.

Its either continue as is with just the sea wall route, or provide a single track "second string" via Okehampton that would give a backup for wall incidents and routine engineering works. (just as Exeter - Yeovil - Castle Cary does now). Doing it would never be viable as a commercial proposition, but if the costs can be screwed to the floor it might just fly as a political proposition.

 

[LateThanNever]

Although Okehampton doesn't directly benefit passengers to South Devon during a closure at Dawlish in that they can not get there by train, it does indirectly benefit them as they will be able to get on a bus more easily at Exeter as those going to Plymouth and beyond will go by train via Okehampton.

There is also the possibility that single line shuttle working could still continue to an extent to allow trains to the Torbay area when the line couldn't be used to its full extent.

The problem with the C1-C5 options is that the cost a lot more than the Okehampton route, meaning that the route via Okehampton and the sea wall improvements could be funded for less money than they would cost.

Agreed, (although some sea wall improvements seem to be already on their way). And unfortunately the 250k population of South Hams and Torbay are less numerous than the 500k of Cornwall and the 250k of Plymouth.

 

[Grumpy]

Indeed C1 to C5 are wholly unaffordable, and there is little point considering them further.

.

Not so. The report has deliberately inflated the costs in order to discount them. Thus for example they are specified as having gradients of 1 in 150 max to benefit freight and be designed to full interoperability and electrification standards although no benefits are allowed in the figures. Building C1 to C5 with steeper gradients would shorten the route and involve less tunnelling and thereby cut costs. By comparison the Okehampton option is allowed to get away with 1 in 75 gradients.

 

[LateThanNever]

Not so. The report has deliberately inflated the costs in order to discount them. Thus for example they are specified as having gradients of 1 in 150 max to benefit freight and be designed to full interoperability and electrification standards although no benefits are allowed in the figures. Building C1 to C5 with steeper gradients would shorten the route and involve less tunnelling and thereby cut costs. By comparison the Okehampton option is allowed to get away with 1 in 75 gradients.

But those gradients are AIUI still less than the 'Devon banks' the other side of Newton Abbot.

 

[Grumpy]

But those gradients are AIUI still less than the 'Devon banks' the other side of Newton Abbot.

Indeed. That's the point, they've deliberately over-specified in order to increase costs. I believe the French build their TGV lines at 1 in 30 or below in order to minimise the need for tunnelling and route length

 

[21C101]

Indeed. That's the point, they've deliberately over-specified in order to increase costs. I believe the French build their TGV lines at 1 in 30 or below in order to minimise the need for tunnelling and route length

I don't think they have deliberately over specified to increase costs, I think they have specified it to current group standards (which is what I would do in this litigious world if I was a consultant unless I had been given a remit not to)

However if you are planning to divert the Penzance Mainline in a latter day "selby diversion" providing a new mixed traffic route, you would be a bit daft not to build it to current group standards such as allowing for 25KHz electrification and sensible gradients, along with 125mph linespeed. It would be used by class 158 DMUs etc not TGVs and the last thing you would want is the capacity reduced by the devon metro pacer services struggling to get up a 1 in 75 or 1 in 30 bank. No point in replacing one pig-in-a-poke with another one.

On the other hand if you are planning to reopen the Okehampton route as a secondary/diversion route, then there would be a good case for derogration against group standards that might for example require existing bridges to be demolished and rebuilt with clearance for 25KV OHLE that isn't going ever to be installed.

My main disappointment is that a significant chunk of the report for the LSWR route detailed and costed restoration as a double track high speed main line which is totally and utterly in flying pig territory.

I think they should have been asked to provide two options for the LSWR route:

• A single track line with dynamic loops and compliant to group standards, with capacity options of hourly and half hourly, including price of replacing Meldon Viaduct, suitable for journey time of 1 1/4 hours from Exeter to Plymouth.
  
• A think outside the box solution for a single track line with hourly capacity and journey time of one and a half hours that is absolutely as cheap as humanly possible, with an assumption that derogations will be obtained from group standards wherever that is remotely credible (eg provide short loops in stations rather than dynamic loops). It would need to include a detailed section on how Meldon viaduct could be strengthened rather than replaced, even if that meant a severe permanent speed restriction over the viaduct.

 

[Grumpy]

However if you are planning to divert the Penzance Mainline in a latter day "selby diversion" providing a new mixed traffic route, you would be a bit daft not to build it to current group standards such as allowing for 25KHz electrification and sensible gradients, along with 125mph linespeed. It would be used by class 158 DMUs etc not TGVs and the last thing you would want is the capacity reduced by the devon metro pacer services struggling to get up a 1 in 75 or 1 in 30 bank. No point in replacing one pig-in-a-poke with another one.

]

Well as observed by LateThanNever above, there are already gradients steeper than 1 in 75 West of Newton Abbot, so why restrict the new line to 1 in 150?

With regard to the point re Devon Metro Pacer services, Pacers should be long gone by the time anything was built and the stopping services would normally use the current route.

Apart from the gradients west of NA many trains will be carrying on North over the Lickey which I believe is 1 in 37 or thereabouts, yet the IC125/220/221's seem to manage OK as do the modern DMU'S on the route.

 

[deltic08]

Well as observed by LateThanNever above, there are already gradients steeper than 1 in 75 West of Newton Abbot, so why restrict the new line to 1 in 150?

With regard to the point re Devon Metro Pacer services, Pacers should be long gone by the time anything was built and the stopping services would normally use the current route.

Apart from the gradients west of NA many trains will be carrying on North over the Lickey which I believe is 1 in 37 or thereabouts, yet the IC125/220/221's seem to manage OK as do the modern DMU'S on the route.

The Lickey incline is quite an obstruction to smooth operation of freight trains between much faster passenger train ascents. There is also a limit on unbanked freight train weights due to couplings.

Motorway construction has been much more expensive than need have been due to keeping gradients shallow for lorry use. If this has been done for roads at great cost then new construction for railways should have gradients that are operationally capable for 4,000 tonnes freight trains unassisted. Had there been heavy freight trains in 1840, the Lickey would not have been built straight and steep

 

[Altnabreac]

But had you been starting from scratch with Airdrie - Bathgate and you were contemplating either re-building or rejuvenating the ends of the route as well, I think you would be better off rebuilding the whole route than just two dead end branches because the route as a whole would be more use to the area than individual sections. This is the logic that Scotland has grasped but so many on here haven't.

But that's exactly what did happen in Scotland.

Bathgate reopened in 1986, Drumgelloch reopened in 1989. Both ends of the service developed, building up passenger numbers over time until the Bathgate / Livingston North / Uphall end had over 1million entries and exits per year linking as they did 3 towns of 60,000, 20,000 and 15,000 people to a city of 500,000 that is also a major employment centre.

Only at that point after 25 years of growth was the central section proposed and built, linked to further housebuilding both at each end as well as at Armadale - a town of 10,000 with several thousand new houses planned.

That's the sort of scale you need to make these schemes work. Lots of new houses and development, of a significant scale.

 

[yorksrob]

But that's exactly what did happen in Scotland.

Bathgate reopened in 1986, Drumgelloch reopened in 1989. Both ends of the service developed, building up passenger numbers over time until the Bathgate / Livingston North / Uphall end had over 1million entries and exits per year linking as they did 3 towns of 60,000, 20,000 and 15,000 people to a city of 500,000 that is also a major employment centre.

Only at that point after 25 years of growth was the central section proposed and built, linked to further housebuilding both at each end as well as at Armadale - a town of 10,000 with several thousand new houses planned.

That's the sort of scale you need to make these schemes work. Lots of new houses and development, of a significant scale.

I suppose you wouldn't have had any choice, having to build it under our unenlightened system pre-devolution, come to think of it.

As has been said, both Tavistock and Okehampton have significant housing developments planned, albeit possibly not quite on the same scale as Scotlands central belt.

 

[Grumpy]

The Lickey incline is quite an obstruction to smooth operation of freight trains between much faster passenger train ascents. There is also a limit on unbanked freight train weights due to couplings.

Motorway construction has been much more expensive than need have been due to keeping gradients shallow for lorry use. If this has been done for roads at great cost then new construction for railways should have gradients that are operationally capable for 4,000 tonnes freight trains unassisted. Had there been heavy freight trains in 1840, the Lickey would not have been built straight and steep

No doubt all very true but how is it relevant? There isn't any significant freight.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Just to add as Cliveblackpool pointed out. A park & ride station at Sourton (on the central section) also could potentially add considerable business to the route with a dedicated bus service(s) from Launceston/Bude etc. populations of around 7k & 10k respectively, in much the same way as Padstow & Wadebridge (both with slightly lower populations) have an hourly service to Bodmin Parkway.