• 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.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,173
Location
SE London
Economists are taught that past investment is irrelevant when deciding policy (or something like that.) If you are in a hole, stop digging. So the recent sea wall expenditure isn't really relevant.

That's true: Something that's a sunk cost should be irrelevant to any business case. However, I'm guessing that all that investment that's already been spent is likely to make it easier/cheaper to continue maintaining the sea wall going forward, and that is important to any business case. Also, the fact that all that money has been spent is important in purely political terms: After spending all that money, it would look politically awful if the route were then closed.

However there is a clear public transport need along that bit of the coast, and there is also a need to improve the resilience of the west of England services, so I would say maintain the first and reopen the LSWR main line.

Agreed.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,932
Location
Nottingham
That's true: Something that's a sunk cost should be irrelevant to any business case. However, I'm guessing that all that investment that's already been spent is likely to make it easier/cheaper to continue maintaining the sea wall going forward, and that is important to any business case. Also, the fact that all that money has been spent is important in purely political terms: After spending all that money, it would look politically awful if the route were then closed.
You could turn that on its head and say the fact that a lot has been spent to date indicates that there will be a need to spend more in future. After all the washout in 2014 (quite literally a sunk cost!) only covered 100 metres or so and the rest of the section may be just as vulnerable as before then.

However, as mentioned the sea wall protects the town as well as the railway, so even if the railway was taken away there would be a need to spend a proportion of the money to protect the town. So the savings from closing the railway might not be as great as some people suggest. But it's important not to frame that decision in the narrow perspective of Network Rail, who might be able to transfer responsibility for the sea wall but someone else would still have to pay for it.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,221
Given this morning's news of the urgent and critical need to accelerate decarbonisation of the whole economy, the answer has got to include massive modal shifts in transport.

Decarbonisation of the economy does not necessarily require transport modal shift. Far from it.

It does require decarbonisation of transport and energy generation, but that is quite different.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,105
Decarbonisation of the economy does not necessarily require transport modal shift. Far from it.
It does require decarbonisation of transport and energy generation, but that is quite different.
So what would be the consequence in energy requirement of abandoning public transport and letting everyone try to use an electric car? Or, the other way round, of banning cars and running intensive bus/train/tram services as required? It's noticeable that the USSR and its satellites (where they were up against shortages of everything due to inept leadership or management or whatever other reason you like to accept) had few cars but invested heavily in trams, still working well in city centres today - in Gdansk and Elblag last week, anyway!
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,221
So what would be the consequence in energy requirement of abandoning public transport and letting everyone try to use an electric car? Or, the other way round, of banning cars and running intensive bus/train/tram services as required? It's noticeable that the USSR and its satellites (where they were up against shortages of everything due to inept leadership or management or whatever other reason you like to accept) had few cars but invested heavily in trams, still working well in city centres today - in Gdansk and Elblag last week, anyway!

There’s a thread elsewhere on it. It would need some fairly big investment in the electricity distribution network in some places. But almost certainly not as big as the investment required in the public transport network to electricify and expand that.

There is a good deal of spare capacity in the U.K. generation network at night (around 20-30GW) which is precisely the time that most road vehicle owners would charge their vehicles. There’s also a fair amount of renewables under construction, mostly wind farms, with more consented to nearly double wind power capacity in this country (to well over 30GW). Obviously that needs the wind to blow (it usually is, somewhere in these isles), but also has the problem that on a windy night there will be too much power generated compared to current demand, and it needs somewhere to go. Ideally this would be a widely distributed network of small scale energy storage to ease the strain on the distribution network. Like, for example, a lot of batteries.

That’s not to say that public transport will be abandoned, far from it, but the social economics of some lightly used lines will become particularly interesting.

The consequences of the electrification of road transport are far reaching, not least on taxation, but rest assured it is happening, and indeed accelerating.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Decarbonisation of the economy does not necessarily require transport modal shift. Far from it.

It does require decarbonisation of transport and energy generation, but that is quite different.


Or we can shift from one public health crisis to another. Electric vehicles will still produce highly carcinogenic tyre waste
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,272
Location
St Albans
Or we can shift from one public health crisis to another. Electric vehicles will still produce highly carcinogenic tyre waste
Then we will be reducing all the other nasties leaving those common to both modes, - including 'highly carcinogenic waste' from tyre wear.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,246
Location
Wittersham Kent
There’s a thread elsewhere on it. It would need some fairly big investment in the electricity distribution network in some places. But almost certainly not as big as the investment required in the public transport network to electricify and expand that.

There is a good deal of spare capacity in the U.K. generation network at night (around 20-30GW) which is precisely the time that most road vehicle owners would charge their vehicles. There’s also a fair amount of renewables under construction, mostly wind farms, with more consented to nearly double wind power capacity in this country (to well over 30GW). Obviously that needs the wind to blow (it usually is, somewhere in these isles), but also has the problem that on a windy night there will be too much power generated compared to current demand, and it needs somewhere to go. Ideally this would be a widely distributed network of small scale energy storage to ease the strain on the distribution network. Like, for example, a lot of batteries.

That’s not to say that public transport will be abandoned, far from it, but the social economics of some lightly used lines will become particularly interesting.

The consequences of the electrification of road transport are far reaching, not least on taxation, but rest assured it is happening, and indeed accelerating.
I think your estimate of the spare capacity is probably considerably overstated as the power generation is currently optimised to meet peak demand we defiantly don't have capacity (generation and distribution) in this country to meet demands of 50GW 24 hours/ 365 days a year.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,932
Location
Nottingham
Then we will be reducing all the other nasties leaving those common to both modes, - including 'highly carcinogenic waste' from tyre wear.
Tyre wear potentially increases because an electric vehicle is a bit heavier than the equivalent IC engine vehicle, and will certainly increase if electric or autonomous leads to an increase in total vehicle mileage. Although this may be outweighed by a reduction in particulates from engines and brakes, it's a reminder that EVs aren't the answer to everything.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Then we will be reducing all the other nasties leaving those common to both modes, - including 'highly carcinogenic waste' from tyre wear.


By both modes, do you mean internal combustion and electric ?

Widespread use of electric vehicles would be a huge leap forward in terms of air quality, but the point I am trying to make is that it is disingenuous to argue that increased private vehicle use would somehow be more environmentally friendly than investing properly in public transport (despite the never-ending stream of people arguing for increased private road vehicle use on what is meant to be a aite about rail)
 
Last edited:

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,246
Location
Wittersham Kent
By both modes, do you mean internal combustion and electric ?

Widespread use of electric vehicles would be a huge leap forward in terms of air qualitu, but the point I am trying to make is that it is disingenuous to argue that increased private vehicle use would somehow be more environmentally friendly than investing properly in public transport (despite the never-ending stream of people arguing for increased private road vehicle use on what is meant to be a aite about rail)
It depends where the public transport is. A lot of the rural lines are already an environmental (as well as financial) basket case. That balance is about to get a whole lot worse.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,105
It depends where the public transport is. A lot of the rural lines are already an environmental (as well as financial) basket case. That balance is about to get a whole lot worse.
That depends on what externalities you include (and goes for bus services too.) If the govt accepts that overall energy use has to fall (which I think is the case and hope will become more widely recognised) then a lot of benefits will follow from putting the clock back, so to speak.
One example: The national Bus Pass Scheme can be justified on the basis that it keeps older people physically mobile, requires them to think and plan their journies (good for mental health,) allows them social contact etc. etc. (Cuts pollution and accidents if they would otherwise persist in trying to drive a car.) Of course it only works if there are buses for them to use.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,262
Location
Torbay
It depends where the public transport is. A lot of the rural lines are already an environmental (as well as financial) basket case. That balance is about to get a whole lot worse.

Rail can also adopt some of the new energy storage and propulsion techniques being used in the automotive sector to keep pace environmentally. Many lines could also become 'lighter' to reduce costs through more basic signalling, and address new traffic opportunities by short streetside extensions and diversions far more economically than with the full traditional heavy rail 'package'. Tram train techniques could allow such 'lightened' branches to still share major corridors with other trains from a junction to access a major interchange or enter a significant urban area quickly where track capacity exists. I accept that a small number of very rural branches may struggle and not survive long term, and public transport is sometimes better served by an integrated high quality road based solution rather than an infrequent and frankly inconvenient rail service. I don't think any branches in Devon are at particular risk, but the Newquay line in Cornwall always seems an anachronism and IMHO should be diverted as proposed in the past from St Dennis Jn to St Austell to provide a far more useful local service.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,409
The national Bus Pass Scheme can be justified on the basis that it keeps older people physically mobile, requires them to think and plan their journies (good for mental health,) allows them social contact etc. etc.
Enabling elderly people to get out and about helps the entire economy. Some sections of the economy are heavily dependant on the custom of retired people. Go into a village pub or visit a stately home in mid-week, and this becomes quickly apparent.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,059
Location
Yorks
It depends where the public transport is. A lot of the rural lines are already an environmental (as well as financial) basket case. That balance is about to get a whole lot worse.

For rural lines to be an "environmental basket case" they would have to be carting around fresh air - which most of them aren't currently.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,262
Location
Torbay
Enabling elderly people to get out and about helps the entire economy. Some sections of the economy are heavily dependant on the custom of retired people. Go into a village pub or visit a stately home in mid-week, and this becomes quickly apparent.
It also has potential to persuade many elderly drivers to drive less, maybe even give up their cars entirely, which must be a benefit to other road users. Costwise it's self limiting and progressive so if a rich Mrs Bucket who would never be seen dead on a bus doesn't apply for a card, or doesn't use it, then the cost (for her) to the council is neglible as the bus companies are paid for it's use, not it's possession.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,059
Location
Yorks
It also has potential to persuade many elderly drivers to drive less, maybe even give up their cars entirely, which must be a benefit to other road users. Costwise it's self limiting and progressive so if a rich Mrs Bucket who would never be seen dead on a bus doesn't apply for a card, or doesn't use it, then the cost (for her) to the council is neglible as the bus companies are paid for it's use, not it's possession.

It does. It has been very useful for my parents since my father's eyesight started failing.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,331
But he didn't check his facts first. It was the usual Voyagers issue.

I thought that there was a wider problem in the day, National Rail Enquiries say:

Exeter St Davids - Paignton / Plymouth / Penzance

All lines between Plymouth and Totnes have reopened, following damage to the overhead electric wires between these stations. However, whilst services recover, trains may be cancelled or delayed.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,081
Location
Airedale
I thought that there was a wider problem in the day, National Rail Enquiries say:
That was about 2 hours after my post and 8 hours after he tweeted.
I think overhead electric wires is not quite correct though!
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
It depends where the public transport is. A lot of the rural lines are already an environmental (as well as financial) basket case. That balance is about to get a whole lot worse.


Essentially, anything cars can do, trains should be able to do better. If battery powered cars are viable, why not lightweight BEMUs or tram trains on branches ?

There is a strong element of the Emperor visiting Primark to the notion that it is desirable for electric cars to replace all other forms of transport
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,447
That was about 2 hours after my post and 8 hours after he tweeted.
I think overhead electric wires is not quite correct though!
Perhaps they weren’t railway wires, but local distribution network. Effect would be almost the same...
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,081
Location
Airedale
Perhaps they weren’t railway wires, but local distribution network. Effect would be almost the same...
My first thought was a National Grid line down across the tracks, but that makes better sense, there are refs to power supply failure on RTT
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,059
Location
Yorks
Essentially, anything cars can do, trains should be able to do better. If battery powered cars are viable, why not lightweight BEMUs or tram trains on branches ?

There is a strong element of the Emperor visiting Primark to the notion that it is desirable for electric cars to replace all other forms of transport

Indeed. Go to any ostensibly pleasant location in the kingdom and it is generally ruined by traffic. Electric cars will do nothing to solve this.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,221
Essentially, anything cars can do, trains should be able to do better. If battery powered cars are viable, why not lightweight BEMUs or tram trains on branches ?

Err, what?

Today, I needed to go to the local tip (recycling centre) with a boot full of construction waste and wood for recycling, then to drop my daughter off at a school 3 miles away for a drama club, then to a supermarket another 2 miles away for the weekly shop, and finally to a builders merchant to pick up some materials, before coming back home. All done in 2 hours.

How could a train (or trains) have done that better? Or even a bus? Surely an electric car would be the most effective and efficient mode of transport for this?
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Err, what?

Today, I needed to go to the local tip (recycling centre) with a boot full of construction waste and wood for recycling, then to drop my daughter off at a school 3 miles away for a drama club, then to a supermarket another 2 miles away for the weekly shop, and finally to a builders merchant to pick up some materials, before coming back home. All done in 2 hours.

How could a train (or trains) have done that better? Or even a bus? Surely an electric car would be the most effective and efficient mode of transport for this?
Indeed. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of trips are very local and of the type you describe. I think the poster was thinking of trips suitable for public transport of some description, but forgot about the ones most people are engaged in. Long distance motoring (above 10 kms, say,) is a minority activity.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,331
Err, what?

Today, I needed to go to the local tip (recycling centre) with a boot full of construction waste and wood for recycling, then to drop my daughter off at a school 3 miles away for a drama club, then to a supermarket another 2 miles away for the weekly shop, and finally to a builders merchant to pick up some materials, before coming back home. All done in 2 hours.

How could a train (or trains) have done that better? Or even a bus? Surely an electric car would be the most effective and efficient mode of transport for this?

A train or a bus? No. However it would be possible to do all of that without you owning a car.

Waste disposal can be done via kerbside collection (Hippo Bag or similar).

Child to drama club could be done by a number of methods depending on location. However according to the rules on when children are entitled to free school transport, 3 miles walk is perfectly acceptable on a daily basis, so by extension a weekly trip should be less of a problem (note, I don't think that it is suitable walk distance but there a lot of children who do have to walk that far because of that rule)

Weekly shipping can be done online with delivery to your door. Likewise building supplies could be delivered.

Therefore with good public transport it would be entirely possible to do all those things, quite possibly taking up less of your time than the two hours it took you.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
A train or a bus? No. However it would be possible to do all of that without you owning a car.

Waste disposal can be done via kerbside collection (Hippo Bag or similar).

Child to drama club could be done by a number of methods depending on location. However according to the rules on when children are entitled to free school transport, 3 miles walk is perfectly acceptable on a daily basis, so by extension a weekly trip should be less of a problem (note, I don't think that it is suitable walk distance but there a lot of children who do have to walk that far because of that rule)

Weekly shipping can be done online with delivery to your door. Likewise building supplies could be delivered.

Therefore with good public transport it would be entirely possible to do all those things, quite possibly taking up less of your time than the two hours it took you.
I think if you alter 'can' to 'could' or 'should' then you may have a point. However this discussion belongs in the thread in the general section on commuting.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...f-travelling-with-northern-for-1-week.171542/

and it doesn't really belong there either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top