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

[MotCO]

If you build a causeway, will the stations also be out at sea?

 

[edwin_m]

I'd have thought if you were going to go to all the trouble of building a causeway, you would just use it to protect the existing railway which could stay where it is.

 

[30907]

If you build a causeway, will the stations also be out at sea?

There aren't any between Parsons Tunnel and Teignmouth.

I'd have thought if you were going to go to all the trouble of building a causeway, you would just use it to protect the existing railway which could stay where it is.

No, the causeway is to move the railway clear of cliff falls. An artificial reef is IIRC planned for Dawlish which gets the worst seas.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

I was under the impression that this was more a case of reclaiming more land from the sea to build up more of a sea wall and move the track slightly further away from the cliffs. Is that not the case? All this talk of "causeways" and "replacing the line" isn't what I had in mind but is that just poor reporting?

 

[HowardGWR]

I just wonder if there would be any room for 4 tracking to provide an extra passing loop? The present infrastructure makes for long delays to local trains at Dawlish Warren, that are passed by expresses.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was under the impression that this was more a case of reclaiming more land from the sea to build up more of a sea wall and move the track slightly further away from the cliffs. Is that not the case? All this talk of "causeways" and "replacing the line" isn't what I had in mind but is that just poor reporting?

I think though that these reports fed to the media about further sea wall improvements, and building out the line to avoid cliff rock falls, are a pretty good indication that an inland bypass line or reopening via Okehampton are completely off the agenda...

 

[fowler9]

If people are bickering about HS2 being built I can't see any of this being done. Not saying I don't personally think that the rail connection should be strengthened.

 

[The Ham]

I think though that these reports fed to the media about further sea wall improvements, and building out the line to avoid cliff rock falls, are a pretty good indication that an inland bypass line or reopening via Okehampton are completely off the agenda...

Although given the £500 million cost cited in the report for a line which doesn't appear to improve capacity, journey times or provide connections to other settlements seams a significant percentage of those schemes that do.

 

[swt_passenger]

The linked news article above only has a figure of £50 million agreed, quoting the MP
The original source Network Rail announcement seems to suggest that £15 million is the spend so far on design. Have you any another source for the figure of £500 million being likely to be ever spent?

With an extra £30m of funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) provided immediately following the storms, Network Rail began repair works on the line. In 2016 DfT provided a further £15m to fund development and preparation work to improve long-term resilience between Dawlish and Teignmouth. Network Rail is now beginning the next phase of work with a detailed geological and marine study now underway to help them understand what is happening to the cliffs and coastline. This will enable them to consider what measures could be put in place in these areas to maintain the railway.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...s-to-safeguard-vital-route-to-the-south-west/

 

[Cowley]

The linked news article above only has a figure of £50 million agreed, quoting the MP
The original source Network Rail announcement seems to suggest that £15 million is the spend so far on design. Have you any another source for the figure of £500 million being likely to be ever spent?

Is the £30 million what was spent to repair it last time?
I can’t see this scheme being built for that kind of money. It’s going to be a large operation to reroute the line somewhere where there’s no decent road access etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the £30 million what was spent to repair it last time?
I can’t see this scheme being built for that kind of money. It’s going to be a large operation to reroute the line somewhere where there’s no decent road access etc.

Yes what I’m really saying is that the evidence appears to be that they’ll be spending a lot more money (possibly up to £500M) mainly on the civils required to achieve this diversion away from the cliffs. So it isn’t going to provide any of The Ham’s other wishes, such as speed, capacity or ‘connections to other settlements’.
I think the indications for the last couple of years have all been about seaward improvements to the current route only.

 

[The Ham]

Yes what I’m really saying is that the evidence appears to be that they’ll be spending a lot more money (possibly up to £500M) mainly on the civils required to achieve this diversion away from the cliffs. So it isn’t going to provide any of The Ham’s other wishes, such as speed, capacity or ‘connections to other settlements’.
I think the indications for the last couple of years have all been about seaward improvements to the current route only.

The point I was making was that upto £500 million could be spent and not achieve anything other than the goal of a more reliable railway (due to removing the risk of rock falls). I would suggest that a lot of people would think it would be a lot to spend when you aren't really gaining very much.

In fact there was a lot said about projects (be that either of the via Dawlish or new line options) that they had to stand on their business cases and providing resilience had no value. Yet now apparently it appears to have a value of circa £500 million.

Unless there's some business case that I'm missing that justifies that spend.

If there isn't then there's going to be the question "if we're going to spend £500 on something with no business case then why can't we spend it on something with a business case to make the business case better?"

It could also lead to questions about why can't other regions can't just just have £x million to spend on nice to have projects?

 

[Cowley]

Yes what I’m really saying is that the evidence appears to be that they’ll be spending a lot more money (possibly up to £500M) mainly on the civils required to achieve this diversion away from the cliffs. So it isn’t going to provide any of The Ham’s other wishes, such as speed, capacity or ‘connections to other settlements’.
I think the indications for the last couple of years have all been about seaward improvements to the current route only.

Oh ok I see what you mean.
30907 mentioned in post #183 an artificial reef being put in to protect Dawlish from the worst of the waves.
This seems like a reasonably easy win for the whole stretch of line to take the sting out of the waves. Obviously that won’t help with the cliff problem though.
If any of this gets done it’s going to look very different compared to how it has for the last hundred years.

 

[MarkyT]

I just wonder if there would be any room for 4 tracking to provide an extra passing loop? The present infrastructure makes for long delays to local trains at Dawlish Warren, that are passed by expresses.

Even a third track in places might be useful for overtaking, but not where this particular work is proposed. I suggest a better place for widening would be between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren, including through Dawlish platforms. Then more resilient and less time consuming overtaking manoeuvres might take place than can happen in the short loops of Dawlish Warren today, where overtaken locals are timed to wait 8 minutes. There's now quite a lot of unscheduled overtaking using the reversible signalling feature on the up line, ever since signallers were permitted to make ad hoc use of it whenever expedient, rather than only in emergencies and for planned engineering work. If there's a suitable gap on the up line, a late running down fast service can cross over at Dawlish Warren and overtake a stopper which it would otherwise be stuck behind as far as Newton Abbot. The train regains the down line just west of Teignmouth.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I despair. It is total madness to spend £500 million to bodge-up a line that has been fundamentally unsatisfactory ever since it opened in 1842 and in the medium-term will become completely unusable. Climate-change is already kicking in, and the increase in incidence and severity of storms has become all too apparent. I did attend the presentation NR gave in Dawlish last Autumn and can confirm that there is no improvement to line-speed or journey times. The possibility of a loop to aid 'Devon Metro' services was, however, mooted.

The Network Rail study in September 2014 estimated the cost of reinstatement of the Okehampton route at £875 million and a new direct route between Exminster and Bishopsteignton (roughly following the GWR pre-WW2 proposal) at £1.5 billion. Presumably we can double that for 2018 to allow for NR's rate of inflation, but I would submit that either scheme represents far better value for money than this crackpot project and offers a long-term solution The latter is clearly preferable , serving the more populus parts of Devon and speeding up journey times to Plymouth and Cornwall. The coastal route can be retained for local traffic, with partial singling to aid cliff-maintenance and any future disruption on this line is not going have the severe consequences that it now does.

 

[MarkyT]

I despair. It is total madness to spend £500 million to bodge-up a line that has been fundamentally unsatisfactory ever since it opened in 1842 and in the medium-term will become completely unusable. Climate-change is already kicking in, and the increase in incidence and severity of storms has become all too apparent. I did attend the presentation NR gave in Dawlish last Autumn and can confirm that there is no improvement to line-speed or journey times. The possibility of a loop to aid 'Devon Metro' services was, however, mooted.

The Network Rail study in September 2014 estimated the cost of reinstatement of the Okehampton route at £875 million and a new direct route between Exminster and Bishopsteignton (roughly following the GWR pre-WW2 proposal) at £1.5 billion. Presumably we can double that for 2018 to allow for NR's rate of inflation, but I would submit that either scheme represents far better value for money than this crackpot project and offers a long-term solution The latter is clearly preferable , serving the more populus parts of Devon and speeding up journey times to Plymouth and Cornwall. The coastal route can be retained for local traffic, with partial singling to aid cliff-maintenance and any future disruption on this line is not going have the severe consequences that it now does.

I fully agree with your argument, but I would suggest that as largely new construction on a green field site, or more likely mostly in a tunnel under a green field site the, costs of a new inland route should be more containable and closely related to general civil engineering costs. Clearly there will be elements that tie in to the existing railway at both ends and they no doubt will be subject to the usual railway price excesses. Such a new route would be shorter and faster and could form stage one of a long term scheme to rebuild the remainder of the route from Newton Abbot to Plymouth, perhaps continuing with a Dainton base tunnel for stage 2

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The point I was making was that upto £500 million could be spent and not achieve anything other than the goal of a more reliable railway (due to removing the risk of rock falls). I would suggest that a lot of people would think it would be a lot to spend when you aren't really gaining very much.

In fact there was a lot said about projects (be that either of the via Dawlish or new line options) that they had to stand on their business cases and providing resilience had no value. Yet now apparently it appears to have a value of circa £500 million.

Unless there's some business case that I'm missing that justifies that spend.

I'm just guessing here, but is it possible that the calculation is that spending £500 million today (if that's the correct figure) is cheaper in the long run than having to close the line and clean up the mess every time there's a rock fall or an exceptionally strong wind, and therefore represents the best way to keep the line open (given that closing that line would be politically unacceptable even if an alternative route was built)?

 

[yorksrob]

Does the £500 million include the works on the cliff and the artificial reef ?

 

[John S2]

I despair. It is total madness to spend £500 million to bodge-up a line that has been fundamentally unsatisfactory ever since it opened in 1842 and in the medium-term will become completely unusable. Climate-change is already kicking in....

I also despair. Sea level is rising die to man-made global warming and the increase has not merely continued in recent years but is accelerating. A decision should be taken between the 2 inland alternatives. Once one of these is built the existing route should be relegated to branch line status - if it is still there. Sooner or later it will end up in the sea.

 

[paul1609]

I just wish they would stop messing about and get the LSWR route between Exeter and Plymouth via Okehampton rebuilt.

Would need an awful lot of demolition in the western Plymouth suburbs. I struggled to find a lot of the route through Ford

 

[yorksrob]

Would need an awful lot of demolition in the western Plymouth suburbs. I struggled to find a lot of the route through Ford

It would just join onto the existing route at Bere Alston. No demolition in Plymouth needed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I also despair. Sea level is rising die to man-made global warming and the increase has not merely continued in recent years but is accelerating. A decision should be taken between the 2 inland alternatives. Once one of these is built the existing route should be relegated to branch line status - if it is still there. Sooner or later it will end up in the sea.

Sure, sea levels are rising. But currently, even the very worst estimates are to rise by 'only' 4m over the next century, and more realistic estimates (assuming, very plausibly, that work to reduce CO2 emissions continues over the next few decades) suggest 2.5m over the next century. That's not going to drown the line through Dawlish beyond our ability to safeguard it, though it may require better sea wall defences (not just there but around numerous coastal communities in the UK). Remember, substantial parts of the Netherlands are below sea level, but they somehow seem to manage. I wouldn't write off that entire railway line because of possible sea level rises (though I do agree that we should be building an inland route as well).

 

[paul1609]

It would just join onto the existing route at Bere Alston. No demolition in Plymouth needed.

That's not the LSWR route it uses an interconnection to the slow GWR line via Keyham

 

[yorksrob]

That's not the LSWR route it uses an interconnection to the slow GWR line via Keyham

I think we could share that section easily enough !

 

[Busaholic]

Oh ok I see what you mean.
30907 mentioned in post #183 an artificial reef being put in to protect Dawlish from the worst of the waves.
This seems like a reasonably easy win for the whole stretch of line to take the sting out of the waves. Obviously that won’t help with the cliff problem though.
If any of this gets done it’s going to look very different compared to how it has for the last hundred years.

I believe the reef proposal has been shelved (if that's the appropriate word) except possibly for a tiny segment - a reef-ete, I guess.

 

[paul1609]

I think we could share that section easily enough !

I'm sure they could but the pathing issues would mean it would never be competitive journey time wise

I

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure they could but the pathing issues would mean it would never be competitive journey time wise

I

I doubt it. Its not the most overstretched section of double track in the country.

 

[Busaholic]

Sure, sea levels are rising. But currently, even the very worst estimates are to rise by 'only' 4m over the next century, and more realistic estimates (assuming, very plausibly, that work to reduce CO2 emissions continues over the next few decades) suggest 2.5m over the next century. That's not going to drown the line through Dawlish beyond our ability to safeguard it, though it may require better sea wall defences (not just there but around numerous coastal communities in the UK). Remember, substantial parts of the Netherlands are below sea level, but they somehow seem to manage. I wouldn't write off that entire railway line because of possible sea level rises (though I do agree that we should be building an inland route as well).

Substantial parts of the Netherlands below sea level are not impacted by prevailing SW winds - besides which, the country largely got to grips with the situation in the 1950s and 1960s and invested huge amounts of money in order that the likelihood of a recurrence was minimised. Any comparison with what we did in this country (beyond the creation of the Thames Barrier, which was very laudable but would never be sanctioned today) is odious.

 

[Busaholic]

I think though that these reports fed to the media about further sea wall improvements, and building out the line to avoid cliff rock falls, are a pretty good indication that an inland bypass line or reopening via Okehampton are completely off the agenda...

Hard to conclude otherwise.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Substantial parts of the Netherlands below sea level are not impacted by prevailing SW winds - besides which, the country largely got to grips with the situation in the 1950s and 1960s and invested huge amounts of money in order that the likelihood of a recurrence was minimised. Any comparison with what we did in this country (beyond the creation of the Thames Barrier, which was very laudable but would never be sanctioned today) is odious.

My point was that if the Netherlands was able more than 50 years ago to protect thousands of square km of land that was below sea level, then surely it can't be be beyond today's technology to reasonably protect a few km of railway line that's actually several metres above sea level (and will continue to be slightly above sea level with any realistic scenarios of sea level rise). And besides, if we have no means to protect that railway line, then it's basically curtains for a fair few seaside town centres around the UK as well.

I can understand that you'd disagree with me, but why 'odious'? Seems a strong term to describe a disagreement.