• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Any news on proposals to build an alternative route between Exeter & Plymouth?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Hmm, I'll click on this thread and see whether people are discussing a new fast alignment from Exeter to Newton Abbot, which could provide a much faster service (currently around twenty five minutes to do a distance that's around seventeen minutes as the crow flies)...

...or will people be discussing through services from Waterloo to Okehampton like they had back in the Good Old Days...

...I wonder :lol:



"in theory"?

Journey times from Waterloo/ Exeter to Plymouth would be longer via Okehampton than via Dawlish.

Looking at the times...

Current Exeter - Plymouth services take fifty-something minutes for fifty-something rail miles (about forty five miles by road) . Not exactly "fast" for that distance, but let's call it 55 minutes as a benchmark.

Exeter St Davids to Okehampton is about 45 minutes (looking at proposed timings for the recent HST charter plus the Summer Sunday service).

Bere Alston to Plymouth is about 25 minutes.

So even if you build "HS4" through the undulating Devon landscape and get from Okehampton to Bere Alston in the blink of an eye, you're going to be taking well over an hour from Exeter to Plymouth via the "scenic" route.

Realistically, you're probably talking closer to an hour and a half that way (given that it'll probably take over twenty minutes to cover twenty something miles).

Any time saving from somewhere in the South East to Exeter will be cancelled out by the longer journey via Okehampton.



It'd still be faster to change at Exeter (for a current InterCity service via Dawlish).

If there's a market from Portsmouth/ Southampton to Devon then that should stand/fall on its own feet though - I'm not against that (I just don't agree that it adds anything to your Okehampton idea).

We used to have such services (in the Wessex Trains days) IIRC.



It'd still be slower going via Okehampton though



What demand is there to get from Honiton to Okehampton or from Tavistock to Cranbook? Look at the local commercial bus services (or lack of).



Agreed

The idea that we can give up on maintaining a resilient service to Torbay... but that we need to spend tens of millions of pounds to avoid the need for hypothetical Waterloo - Plymouth services to need to reverse at Exeter... :lol:



I've no problem with direct services from Plymouth to places like Yeovil/ Basingstoke.

There's no reason why you need a new line through Okehampton to justify reintroducing SWT services to Exeter though.



Who are you quoting?

The population of Newton Abbot and Torbay justify a reliable service to the nearest cities. A fast new alignment from Exeter to Newton Abbot provides that (and a much faster service plus more capacity). Patching up Dawlish provides that. A route through Okehampton doesn't solve that.

Although journey times could be half an hour longer, with the current GWR services only planned to be running hourly then it could still be quicker to get to Plymouth going via Okehampton, or at the very least offer people the chance of leaving a bit later to arrive a bit sooner, which could be more convenient.

You also have to remember that the fewer changes people need to make the more likely they are to undertake a journey. As such even if it meant leaving a bit earlier to get there people would be willing to do so.

Then there's cost, the route via Salisbury is normally cheaper, so people would use that in exchange of a small time penalty (although this could lead to a small drop in income for GWR, given the rate of passenger growth that would soon be overtaken by new passengers using their services).

Then there's the issue of capacity, the are probably limited extra paths available or if Paddington and also limited train lengthening options. As such, if there is an alternative route where getting a seat is more likely then that could allow passenger growth to continue. It is why a more direct route is going to struggle to be beneficial, as it wouldn't remove much of a bottle neck, so there wouldn't​be scope for additional services without doing other works.

Personally my view is that HS2 is a good thing and would like to see HS3, 4, etc., However, in this case a new faster​ line doesn't justify the extra cost. It has nothing to do with whether​ I think that it would be lovely to reopen a closed route. In fact, I think that reopening could at a future date mean that there is a better case for the faster line as there would be more people travelling between Exeter and Plymouth (and possibly other improvements to reduce journey times via the B&H).

We are potentially in a time where going forward where with rail growth we could see the need for significant ongoing improvements to increase capacity on our rail network. I am not convinced at this time the faster route provides this whilst the Okehampton route can help with this more (at least for those traveling from further afield).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Although the time from Exeter St Davids Plymouth is circa 1 hour the time from Central is between 70 and 90 minutes on a 2tph frequency. Therefore, given that the route via Okehampton would probably be 90 minutes, there could well be a reasonable flow between the two on the via Okehampton route. The reason for this is that some people would rather take the direct route rather than change trains, some would do so to ensure a seat and some wood do so as it would enable then to leave later/arrive sooner than the existing services either side.

With regards to income to cover the Exeter Plymouth section, based on 1tph formed of a pair of 159's then it would likely need to be £2.7 million. Based on 300 days a year (to allow for reduced levels of service at weekends and bank holidays), that would be £9,000 per day. If we assume an average ticket price of £8 each way (some examples Exeter to Plymouth £5 based on half a return, Exeter to Basingstoke, to give an idea for longer distance travelers, is £20 based on half a return, based on those 2 alone that would be based on 4 local trips and 1 long disce, however there would need to be closer to 3:1 ratio to cover for the local passengers that start and finish from stations between Exeter and Plymouth) that would mean that you would need 1125 passengers a day or an average of 75 per hour or 38 per train (10 of those being longer distance travelers). Note this doesn't allow for any further class tickets.

In reality you could need more than that of the average ticket price was lower, but even at £4 (allowing for fewer long distance travelers and discounted tickets, but again no first class tickets) that would only be 75 people per train. That would be easy to fit into a 6 coach 159 (396 seats).

At two trains per hour you would need double the number of passengers per day but only broadly the same number of passengers per train (it would however need to be a bit higher as there would be extra costs in providing the units from Salisbury or Yeovile to Exeter which the long distance travelers would also need to fund). Although if that were to happen a splitting of services after Exeter so that they ran the Plymouth and and increased frequency Barnstaple service could be beneficial.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
At two trains per hour you would need double the number of passengers per day but only broadly the same number of passengers per train (it would however need to be a bit higher as there would be extra costs in providing the units from Salisbury or Yeovile to Exeter which the long distance travelers would also need to fund). Although if that were to happen a splitting of services after Exeter so that they ran the Plymouth and and increased frequency Barnstaple service could be beneficial.[/QUOTE said:
Nice to see a discussion that doesn't assume everyone wants to go to London!

Also don't forget that increased frequency dramatically increases the take-up: Trans Pennine services were almost saturated from day 1 when they went from 1 6-coach l/h train an hour to 3 2-car DMUs, and Virgin made the same mistake when they doubled the NE-SW Cross-country service through new St, but only had their poxy 4-coach Voyagers to carry the crowds.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Nice to see a discussion that doesn't assume everyone wants to go to London!

Also don't forget that increased frequency dramatically increases the take-up: Trans Pennine services were almost saturated from day 1 when they went from 1 6-coach l/h train an hour to 3 2-car DMUs, and Virgin made the same mistake when they doubled the NE-SW Cross-country service through new St, but only had their poxy 4-coach Voyagers to carry the crowds.

Well 20 years ago the main flow was to/from London, and although it still is with passenger growth it is now getting to the point (and will certainly be the case if growth continues) that there could be enough demand for non London bound trains.

Assuming that at privatisation there were 100 people per day going between two points, that has now gone up to over 200 and by mid 2030's it could be circa 400. Scale that up by those along the route between those two points and add in the ability to go direct or with just one change at a more minor station (i.e. less likely to get lost finding the right platform and less likely to miss connections as the walk distance between extreme outer edge platforms is less) and there could be quite a good case in the next few years for non London bound trains (for clarification this could just be an extension of a service which happens to continue to London but mostly is there to serve non London flows).

If we assume that passenger numbers are likely to double by the mid 2030's then any schemes that come forward should be mindful of that.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
If we assume that passenger numbers are likely to double by the mid 2030's then any schemes that come forward should be mindful of that.

If passenger numbers are likely to double anyway then I would suggest that a significantly better service will lead to a quadrupling instead. (As many more journeys become possible as timetables get "denser.")
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
If passenger numbers are likely to double anyway then I would suggest that a significantly better service will lead to a quadrupling instead. (As many more journeys become possible as timetables get "denser.")

But then you don't get the additional improvement in journey opportunities from Tavistock, Okehampton and West Devon.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,063
But then you don't get the additional improvement in journey opportunities from Tavistock, Okehampton and West Devon.

er, I actually meant if you double the service frequency and passenger numbers are likely to double anyway (with no improvements) then you can expect a better service to deliver 4 times as many passengers [...on the LSWR line that we were discussing, with all the calling points.)
A
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
er, I actually meant if you double the service frequency and passenger numbers are likely to double anyway (with no improvements) then you can expect a better service to deliver 4 times as many passengers [...on the LSWR line that we were discussing, with all the calling points.)
A

Apologies. I always think of track in relation to the word "quadruple".

I agree that a more frequent service will tend to attract more passengers at a greater rate than the increase in the number of services. The increased convenience has an effect as well.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
If passenger numbers are likely to double anyway then I would suggest that a significantly better service will lead to a quadrupling instead. (As many more journeys become possible as timetables get "denser.")

That is quite possible. It is however where I think that the Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) options fall down. Yes they allow a marginal faster service but shaving about 5 minutes of a 3 hour journey time isn't going to make that much difference.

Although the cost benefit ratio is marginally better (IIRC at best 0.17 Vs 0.14 in favour of the DAL) the cost is significant more (£0.8 billion for via Okehampton Vs £1.4 billion for the option for the DAL with the best rate of return). As such the rate of return isn't high enough to cover the extra cost. As such, I think that it would be better to use the difference to redouble (or at least significantly reduce the about of single track) to Exeter, this could then improve the rate of return potentially to a point where it is significantly more than the best DEAL.
 

Wookiee

Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
221
via Dawlish).

If there's a market from Portsmouth/ Southampton to Devon then that should stand/fall on its own feet though - I'm not against that (I just don't agree that it adds anything to your Okehampton idea).

We used to have such services (in the Wessex Trains days) IIRC.

There was a Portsmouth (could have been Brighton, or both) to Paignton service for a while in the NSE days, operated by 50s. In the SR days, there was a Fridays only service from Portsmouth to Penzance, operated by Cromptons, sometimes top-and-tailed.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,145
Location
Churn (closed)
Paddington to Exeter is quicker than Waterloo to Exeter.

Hmmm, anything to do with 125mph trains and Billions of investment on the Great Western? AND turning the Waterloo L&SW route into a low cost single track route with an all stops service?

I am sure that investment on the L&SW route, double tracking, faster trains etc could easily bring the journey time down to that of the Great Western.

2h00 to 2h31 from Paddington
3h23 from Waterloo (very slow on the clickety clack after Basingstoke and all stations)

Exeter to Plymouth times are currently based on slow stopping services and low quality tracks. I am sure (based on the report) that similar times could be achieved.

Whilst the GWR will always be 'quicker' the L&SW could be close behind but quicker for many destinations and certainly result in much lower fares!
 

reddragon

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2016
Messages
3,145
Location
Churn (closed)
There was a Portsmouth (could have been Brighton, or both) to Paignton service for a while in the NSE days, operated by 50s. In the SR days, there was a Fridays only service from Portsmouth to Penzance, operated by Cromptons, sometimes top-and-tailed.

I travelled on the Portsmouth to Penzance service in about 1986 with double header class 33's
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Paddington to Exeter is quicker than Waterloo to Exeter.

Hmmm, anything to do with 125mph trains and Billions of investment on the Great Western? AND turning the Waterloo L&SW route into a low cost single track route with an all stops service?

I am sure that investment on the L&SW route, double tracking, faster trains etc could easily bring the journey time down to that of the Great Western.

2h00 to 2h31 from Paddington
3h23 from Waterloo (very slow on the clickety clack after Basingstoke and all stations)

Exeter to Plymouth times are currently based on slow stopping services and low quality tracks. I am sure (based on the report) that similar times could be achieved.

Whilst the GWR will always be 'quicker' the L&SW could be close behind but quicker for many destinations and certainly result in much lower fares!

Try Clapham Junction to Exeter, as the journey time is broadly the same whichever of the two routes you take for the fastest services, however the journey time is faster more often via Basingstoke.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Try Clapham Junction to Exeter, as the journey time is broadly the same whichever of the two routes you take for the fastest services, however the journey time is faster more often via Basingstoke.
Yes, this is a valid point. On the SWT Franchise thread, one correspondent predicted the possibility of the Exeter services missing out the Clapham Jcn stop in the peak, as one already does (1727). People do not travel from Waterloo or Paddington to Exeter. They travel from somewhere within or near the London conurbation to somewhere within Devon and reverse.


You are correct that a South Coast fast-ish service from Brighton to Okehampton and Plymouth, would find many takers, especially among the many wealthier and elderly folk who live on this South Coast route. If the chord at Yeovil Jcn was restored, or even reversal at Pen Mill, a through service via Bournemouth (reverse at Dorchester) or, as a back stop, missing out Bournemouth via Salisbury, would be a well-used service, I am sure.

Our franchise system is simply not alive to these possibilities that require new infrastructure, however modest, (Chiltern excused) or an 'invasion' of another's territory. In fairness, the Stagecoach SWT has done some good stuff on 'GWR' territory.
 

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
It's election time, and we must therefore exercise caution; but this might be good news?

http://www.okehampton-today.co.uk/a...trials planned&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2017

RAIL campaigners in Okehampton are rejoicing after the Secretary of State for Transport revealed there are plans to trial a commuter rail service from Okehampton to Exeter.

Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, said: ‘We are working with Great Western Railway to put in place a trial service.

‘Exeter is a pretty congested place. It’s an example of the kind of medium-sized city that is very congested at peak times. I hope we can move ahead with a trial relatively soon.’
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
It won't happen in our lifetime unless dawlish completely washes away. (Alternative routes, Plymouth to exeter)
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Note: Split from Potential New Central Pennine Rail Line (Colne-Skipton)
All of the enhancements mentioned by yourself, whilst extremely important in their own right, actually serve the same markets as the Beeching network, so I stand by my point that we are stuck with a Beeching era network (airport branches excepted). Infact, route closures continued after he left, so what we actually have left is a sub-Breeching network.

In terms of reopenings making sense, both Tavistock and Okehampton are isolated from the everyday passenger network, and like the Waverley the area has substantial tourist potential, yet because our administration is stuck in Beeching aspic, little has been done.

Tavistock and Okehampton are not valid comparisons.

Firstly Tavistock isn't a tourist destination, but more importantly is not isolated from the national rail network in the way Hawick or Galashiels were.

Tavistock to Gunnislake is 5 miles.

Okehampton is more of a tourist destination I agree, but is only about 20 miles to Exeter and has half the population of Galashiels or Hawick (7,000 against 14,000 for each of the latter). Additionally the Okehampton branch serves nowhere of significance between Okehampton and Exeter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bbrez

Member
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Messages
32
Tavistock and Okehampton are not valid comparisons.

Firstly Tavistock isn't a tourist destination, but more importantly is not isolated from the national rail network in the way Hawick or Galashiels were.

Tavistock to Gunnislake is 5 miles.

Okehampton is more of a tourist destination I agree, but is only about 20 miles to Exeter and has half the population of Galashiels or Hawick (7,000 against 14,000 for each of the latter). Additionally the Okehampton branch serves nowhere of significance between Okehampton and Exeter.

Isn't it a case of rather than looking at current population, it should be looking at further developments and demand?

E.G if Okehampton/Tavistock and it's surrounding area are due to have some housing developments then reopening lines, just like new stations could be beneficial.

It's OK for anyone to say x place is 5 miles away but the reality is that the railways will be used by commuters if it is there at the doorstep. In my case, I live 2 mins from an old station - I would use that line daily had it not been axed but I will not travel three miles to the nearest station to commute.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Tavistock and Okehampton are not valid comparisons.

Firstly Tavistock isn't a tourist destination, but more importantly is not isolated from the national rail network in the way Hawick or Galashiels were.

Tavistock to Gunnislake is 5 miles.

Okehampton is more of a tourist destination I agree, but is only about 20 miles to Exeter and has half the population of Galashiels or Hawick (7,000 against 14,000 for each of the latter). Additionally the Okehampton branch serves nowhere of significance between Okehampton and Exeter.

It is a perfectly valid comparison. The route skirts Dartmoor, which is a national park, and by definition a tourist draw. As nearby towns, Okehampton and Tavistock will be gateway towns for this traffic.

I'm afraid that a country halt five miles away isn't an adequate way into the network for a decent sized town. For the large proportion of public transport users who don't drive to connect with public transport, it doesn't matter if the railway station is five or fifty miles away, it is still beyond walking distance. Besides, I doubt that the local road network or parking facilities are suited to large numbers of Tavistock commuters driving up to 'Gunnislake Parkway'.

An improved service towards Okehampton would also provide better capacity and connectivity at Crediton.

The only reason why one route is open and running whilst one isn't is because one is situated in a country with responsive Government attuned to peoples needs whilst the other is in England.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
It is a perfectly valid comparison. The route skirts Dartmoor, which is a national park, and by definition a tourist draw. As nearby towns, Okehampton and Tavistock will be gateway towns for this traffic.

I'm afraid that a country halt five miles away isn't an adequate way into the network for a decent sized town. For the large proportion of public transport users who don't drive to connect with public transport, it doesn't matter if the railway station is five or fifty miles away, it is still beyond walking distance. Besides, I doubt that the local road network or parking facilities are suited to large numbers of Tavistock commuters driving up to 'Gunnislake Parkway'.

An improved service towards Okehampton would also provide better capacity and connectivity at Crediton.

The only reason why one route is open and running whilst one isn't is because one is situated in a country with responsive Government attuned to peoples needs whilst the other is in England.

Sorry but you're wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, Borders rail is unique for the reasons outlined. Those communities had no access to the national rail network. Skipton - Colne does, so does Tavistock.

Outside of major cities and their immediate 'urban' areas, very few places have a station 'in walking distance' - certainly when you get into rural areas stations are frequently some distance away from the town / village they purport to serve.

Tavistock is NOT a "decent sized town" - it has a population of 11,000 - even if you build 2000 homes there, that'll only head towards 15,000, which is a small town.

Okehampton - Tavistock won't get re-opened as the 'diversion' route for the GWML either - because it avoids all the key population areas Teignmouth, Newton Abbott, Torquay, Totnes - all of which have much higher population than Dartmoor - which is why any diversion will be a new formation in that area.

Borders rail provided a service to a group of communities which were completely cut off from the rail network as I've demonstrated. Which is the sole reason its reopening could be justified. It's got nothing to do with being in Scotland or even political will - you name me a location in England which is as far detached from the national rail network as Hawick and Galashiels were with the same level of population and the same traffic demand to a major city.

Going back on topic SELRAP makes little sense because it doesn't have a high level of demand for the traffic flow they're trying to promote. And to make another 'cross Pennine' link can be done far more easily as has been pointed out by extending the Clitheroe service to Hellifield and Skipton - the route is open, the track is there, some infrastructure in terms of signalling etc may be required, but that's it. Whereas Colne - Skipton has gone, there has been building over the formation, it would cost many millions to reinstate it for pretty much no benefit.

Part of me wishes that someone would just rebuild one of these madcap schemes just so I could watch it fail monumentally and make the crayonistas finally admit their wilder ideas are just fantasy.

And I still don't think Bald Rick will be paying out on his bet any time soon.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Sorry but you're wrong on so many levels.

Firstly, Borders rail is unique for the reasons outlined. Those communities had no access to the national rail network. Skipton - Colne does, so does Tavistock.

Outside of major cities and their immediate 'urban' areas, very few places have a station 'in walking distance' - certainly when you get into rural areas stations are frequently some distance away from the town / village they purport to serve.

Tavistock is NOT a "decent sized town" - it has a population of 11,000 - even if you build 2000 homes there, that'll only head towards 15,000, which is a small town.

Okehampton - Tailstock won't get re-opened as the 'diversion' route for the GWML either - because it avoids all the key population areas Teignmouth, Newton Abbott, Torquay, Totnes - all of which have much higher population than Dartmoor - which is why any diversion will be a new formation in that area.

Borders rail provided a service to a group of communities which were completely cut off from the rail network as I've demonstrated. Which is the sole reason its reopening could be justified. It's got nothing to do with being in Scotland or even political will - you name me a location in England which is as far detached from the national rail network as Hawick and Galashiels were with the same level of population and the same traffic demand to a major city.

Going back on topic SELRAP makes little sense because it doesn't have a high level of demand for the traffic flow they're trying to promote. And to make another 'cross Pennine' link can be done far more easily as has been pointed out by extending the Clitheroe service to Hellifield and Skipton - the route is open, the track is there, some infrastructure in terms of signalling etc may be required, but that's it. Whereas Colne - Skipton has gone, there has been building over the formation, it would cost many millions to reinstate it for pretty much no benefit.

Part of me wishes that someone would just rebuild one of these madcap schemes just so I could watch it fail monumentally and make the crayonistas finally admit their wilder ideas are just fantasy.

And I still don't think Bald Rick will be paying out on his bet any time soon.

Sorry but you're talking out of the side of your hat. Hawick and Galashiels themselves have populations of less than 15k, and like Tavistock and Okehampton they serve (will serve) a wider hinterland.

Tavistock is not on the national network by any stretch of the imagination. Outside the major commuting areas of the South East, most passengers don't drive to the station. The whole of central Devon, including Tavistock, the Dartmoor national park and Okehampton, is an underserved railway desert.

The only reason why you're claiming that the Borders line is so vastly different is because it has been built and spectacularly disproves everything you say and believe. Had it not have already been built, you would be characterising it as 'madcap' and 'crayonista' like every other reopening proposal.
 
Last edited:

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Sorry but you're talking out of the side of your hat. Hawick and Galashiels themselves have populations of less than 15k, and like Tavistock and Okehampton they serve (will serve) a wider hinterland.

Try using some facts:

Hawick 14,294 in 2011 census

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawick

Galashiels 14,994 in 2011 census

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galashiels

Tavistock is not on the national network by any stretch of the imagination. Outside the major commuting areas of the South East, most passengers don't drive to the station. The whole of central Devon, including Tavistock, the Dartmoor national park and Okehampton, is an underserved railway desert.

It's a damn site closer to the national network than anywhere on the southern end of Borders rail was. It's 5 miles to Gunnislake station. It's 13 miles to Plymouth by road.

So where are these mystical places with masses of population that justify a re-opening to Tavistock and indeed a reopening through to Okehmapton then? Look at a map - there is NOWHERE of any size between Tavistock and Okehampton. There simply isn't the people there who would use a regular rail service.

The only reason why you're claiming that the Borders line is so vastly different is because it has been built and spectacularly disproves everything you say and believe. Had it not have already been built, you would be characterising it as 'madcap' and 'crayonista' like every other reopening proposal.

No - it's because I've actually looked at both areas. The Borders railway closure was always dubious - and it left a number of communities not just cut off but isolated with a very significant journey just to get to the national rail network.

I notice you've not been able answer the question I previously posed "you name me a location in England which is as far detached from the national rail network as Hawick and Galashiels were with the same level of population and the same traffic demand to a major city. "

Go on then - find an example. But I can tell you now, Tavistock isn't one.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Try using some facts:

Hawick 14,294 in 2011 census

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawick

Galashiels 14,994 in 2011 census

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galashiels



It's a damn site closer to the national network than anywhere on the southern end of Borders rail was. It's 5 miles to Gunnislake station. It's 13 miles to Plymouth by road.

So where are these mystical places with masses of population that justify a re-opening to Tavistock and indeed a reopening through to Okehmapton then? Look at a map - there is NOWHERE of any size between Tavistock and Okehampton. There simply isn't the people there who would use a regular rail service.



No - it's because I've actually looked at both areas. The Borders railway closure was always dubious - and it left a number of communities not just cut off but isolated with a very significant journey just to get to the national rail network.

I notice you've not been able answer the question I previously posed "you name me a location in England which is as far detached from the national rail network as Hawick and Galashiels were with the same level of population and the same traffic demand to a major city. "

Go on then - find an example. But I can tell you now, Tavistock isn't one.

Thank you for suggesting that I "try using some facts" before going on to confirm the population figures that I mentioned.

You state that you've "looked at both areas", in which case you will no doubt be aware that Okehampton already has a Sunday service and has been proposed for a commuter service. Tavistock is also undergoing development and proposed for a commuter link, so obviously "Gunnislake Parkway" isn't suitable to serve the settlement. The area between contains a national park with waterfalls, castles, and the sort of views that will attract visitors from elsewhere. These are the facts pertinent to the case.

Questions about unspecified towns which may or may not be nearer to the network than Hawick may be suitable for a pub quiz, but I'm afraid they bear no relevance to the merits of reopening the Dartmoor route.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
The thing with reopening the Okehampton is that it could improve journey times between Plymouth and lots of places like Basingstoke, Southampton, Salisbury, Portsmouth, Clapham Junction, etc.

This is because the is the potential for extending the WofE line services to Plymouth. Now there may not be millions of people who want to make that journey but since of the tickets are over £20 each way (compared with ticket costs for within Devon which would be about £5 each way or less).

Given the extra costs with running a through service compared with two branch lines would be fairly small for the TOC and once it is built it could be very well used and be a good income stream for the TOC.

It may not directly serve the large centres of population in south Devon, but could be the catalyst for the redoubling of the WofE line which could then allow direct services to those settlements to also return.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
An off peak ticket from Salisbury to Exeter is £39.20 off peak, meaning even if you took the half cost of that as cost each way for passengers to travel from the south central area to Plymouth (still allowing the TOC an income for most of the journey before taking the income for the extra to get to Plymouth) that gets you £20 each way as income.

Both Okehampton to Exeter and Gunnislake to Plymouth is just over £2.50 each way (half the cost of an off peak return), whilst an off peak return between Plymouth and Exeter is £9.50 (£5 each way).

The cost to lease 3 * 159's (enough to run an hourly frequency each way on a 3 hour round trip) is likely to be £1 million (£110,000 per coach), double that to allow for other costs and the service would need to bring in £2 million per year.

If we assume that there's 75 existing movements per hour and a further 25 local movements per hour are generated, then the income for the local services (based on a 12 hour day and 300 day year, so as to allow for lower use over certain days or certain time periods) would be about £900,000.

Then if you assume that the new service then attracts 15 long distance passengers per hour and that would generate £1,080,000.

Giving a total of £1,980,000, which then should cover the cost of the extra trains. Although I would suggest that my passenger​ numbers are potentially low, likewise I've made no Allende for higher ticket costs for anytime ticket sales. Also, even if there was a shortfall based on the above, there would be the extra income generated from passengers who were traveling from further afield and who's ticket price I've not included in my calculations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top