Suggestions for solving Dawlish problem: electrification or new route?

[Philip Phlopp]

I was under the impression Meldon Viaduct had been condemned (for any further rail use) and would need rebuilt. What's the likely cost on that ?

 

[AM9]

... and the catenary wire is replaced with contenary (contact wire used in place of catenary wire).

Would that be because the bronze alloy that it is made from is more resistant to saline corrosion than the steel catenary wire?

 

[Cowley]

I was under the impression Meldon Viaduct had been condemned (for any further rail use) and would need rebuilt. What's the likely cost on that ?

Well I thought that reinstating that route (including the cost of replacing Meldon Viaduct) was upwards of £800 million?
Ah. But then if there were some very lightweight 2 axle DMUs sitting around in storage (gazes at ceiling with faraway look in eyes)...

 

[Clayton]

Let’s face it, the Okehampton route would be good fun but it’s a long way round and there’s no one there. Don’t see why an
Okehampton Parkway, serving the wider area, couldn’t work for trains to Exeter though.

 

[Clayton]

I see from Railjournal that - after departing under what might be perceived by many as a cloud from HS2 - Lord Berkeley has popped up in the far west with a plan to fix the Southwest's rail system, complete with Okehampton diversionary route.

https://www.railjournal.com/infrastructure/1-2bn-rail-upgrade-proposed-for-southwest-britain/

Let’s do it!!

 

[squizzler]

Berkeley and co have been quite clever to gather together the Okehampton route into a basket of other new lines and upgrades. It goes from a mere proposed reopening to an inspirational rail vision for the south west. With the large number of other rail improvements taking place round the country people on the Cornish peninsular are bound to feel left out, having had a taste investment in the upgraded mainline west of Plymouth.

The region does not yet have a 'subnational transport body', and these guys seem to have taken it upon themselves to provide such thing.

As for costings, whilst it seems fairly competitive, one would think that Mr Michael Byng, a chartered quantity surveyor and construction cost consultant, would not wish to trash his professional reputation with anything too far out.

 

[class26]

Well I thought that reinstating that route (including the cost of replacing Meldon Viaduct) was upwards of £800 million?
Ah. But then if there were some very lightweight 2 axle DMUs sitting around in storage (gazes at ceiling with faraway look in eyes)...

If light weight DMU`s it wouldn`t really be suitable as a diversionary route though.

 

[Cowley]

If light weight DMU`s it wouldn`t really be suitable as a diversionary route though.

Indeed.
It was a joke by the way.

 

[swt_passenger]

As for costings, whilst it seems fairly competitive, one would think that Mr Michael Byng, a chartered quantity surveyor and construction cost consultant, would not wish to trash his professional reputation with anything too far out.

His professional reputation? Thrown out of RICS 10 years ago, and only just readmitted?

 

[A0]

...And also closed down more mileage of track than any other government. Seeing as labour have hardly been in power since Harold Wilson (Blairs cronies not included) of course they`ve electrified more so a pointless answer.

Only true if you count the pre-Beeching closures of the 50s and early 60s which were being driven by British Rail themselves. Those closures would almost certainly have occurred whoever was in power between 1951 and 1959.

Labour came to power in 1964 committed to stopping the Beeching closures and once in power signed off pretty much all of them, plus a fair few which BR themselves put forward that weren't part of Beeching's proposals but he's been tarred with ever since.

 

[Bald Rick]

As for costings, whilst it seems fairly competitive, one would think that Mr Michael Byng, a chartered quantity surveyor and construction cost consultant, would not wish to trash his professional reputation with anything too far out.

I’m never one for trumpet blowing, but I’m reasonably confident that were I to be provided with the detail of the scope, I could find some significant holes in that cost estimate within an hour.

 

[The Ham]

I’m never one for trumpet blowing, but I’m reasonably confident that were I to be provided with the detail of the scope, I could find some significant holes in that cost estimate within an hour.

Which does appear to be short sighted given the amount of flack that they have applied to a certain other big transport project's cost estimate.

In that it would be easy enough for a journalist to ask "you've clearly adjusted costs on a project which you are looking to promote, as Network Rail's estimate is much higher for the Okehampton route, as such how can we be sure that your cost estimates for HS2 haven't been adjusted to fit your narrative of a scheme that you activity campaign against?"

Whether or not they have or not would be another matter, however it wouldn't stop those seeds of doubt being placed if such a question was asked.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm pretty sure a short section of HSL in the Dawlish area would give more benefits per pound spent.....

 

[The Ham]

I'm pretty sure a short section of HSL in the Dawlish area would give more benefits per pound spent.....

The big problem with this is that how do you get more services from London able to use it?

At least with the Okehampton route you can reduce capacity demands by using WofE line services and running to Plymouth. However, with the potential for extra services from Waterloo following Crossrail 2 and scope for those services to be run faster to Exeter by skipping some stations following the redoubling of the WofE Line there's scope for journey times to be broadly comparable from parts of London. As such the development of extra capacity is easier to identify.

It also isn't the conclusion which Network Rail came to when evaluating the options.

 

[HSTEd]

At least with the Okehampton route you can reduce capacity demands by using WofE line services and running to Plymouth. However, with the potential for extra services from Waterloo following Crossrail 2 and scope for those services to be run faster to Exeter by skipping some stations following the redoubling of the WofE Line there's scope for journey times to be broadly comparable from parts of London. As such the development of extra capacity is easier to identify.

Why can't WofE services run via the GWR line (with HSL cutoff)?
Modern multiple units don't really suffer substantial journey time penalties from reversing!

We don't need to run locomotives around or anything like that.

 

[The Ham]

Why can't WofE services run via the GWR line (with HSL cutoff)?
Modern multiple units don't really suffer substantial journey time penalties from reversing!

We don't need to run locomotives around or anything like that.

Whist we don't need locos, is there going to be the capacity at Exeter for such a reversal as well as the extra Devon Metro services and the services to Okehampton?

At least a straight through service requires less platform capacity than it currently does, a reversal, even with a driver change would need about the same platform capacity as currently.

 

[MCOratia]

If my skim-read of the report is accurate, they want double track all the way from Salisbury to Plymouth and extra loops on the Barnstaple line (with Chapelton AND Umberleigh as P+R stations). No indication of suggested service frequencies, BCR etc.

Has the noble Lord taken the report down because despite a thorough search I cannot find it. Do you have a link or a copy you can attach?

 

[30907]

Has the noble Lord taken the report down because despite a thorough search I cannot find it. Do you have a link or a copy you can attach?

Sorry, it was linked on an an e-mail group I am a member of, which described it as a press release.

 

[MCOratia]

I've seen the Press Release which says the report is attached but there's no file or hyperlink on his own website. A mystery given he wants to sell it as the Great Way Forward. Thanks for the reply.

 

[A0]

One word that has shown contempt of the railways in this country since Marples and his cronies. Tories.

Marples became Minister of Transport in 1959, so 61 years ago.

Since then the Tories have been in power about 31 of those as a majority and 5 as a full coalition - Labour have been in power for 24 of them.

So Labour were in power for almost 40% of that time - if it was such a great idea, why didn't they progress it during their periods of government ? Apart from the fact in 64-70 they were too busy enacting the Beeching proposals that they'd said they'd cancel in the 64 election campaign and then promptly changed their mind and sanctioned all of them and a few more besides once in government.

 

[A0]

Really, generate it`s own traffic. Have you ever used this route? You`ve already admitted that Dawlish will eventually be lost so why not start planning now? If it won`t be worth pursuing short term we`ll all just wait until Dawlish disappears from Google Earth then we`ll have a repeat of the 2014 fiasco only worse. Great idea that...

To a point you're right, but that doesn't make a justification for the Okehampton route - which many are citing as a "diversion" for Dawlish.

If the Dawlish formation needs to be replaced, then you've got to look at what the sensible replacement is - if you look at the places served between Exeter and Plymouth on the GW route you've got towns totalling about 200k people - (Dawlish 15k, Teignmouth 15k, Paignton 50k, Newton Abbott 25k, Totnes 8k, Ivybridge 11k, Torquay 65k), whereas the Okehampton route has Okehampton and Tavistock - that's about it, so 20k.

The correct answer to Dawlish is to reroute inland (which I believe the GWR considered) - probably between Newton Abbott and Starcross.

The current situation where Dawlish is closed for a handful of days a year doesn't justify reopening a rural route for "diversion" purposes. If the Dawlish route is unsustainable then re-routing that is where the time and cost should be invested rather than a pie in the sky scheme which has minimal traffic potential.

 

[BayPaul]

To a point you're right, but that doesn't make a justification for the Okehampton route - which many are citing as a "diversion" for Dawlish.

If the Dawlish formation needs to be replaced, then you've got to look at what the sensible replacement is - if you look at the places served between Exeter and Plymouth on the GW route you've got towns totalling about 200k people - (Dawlish 15k, Teignmouth 15k, Paignton 50k, Newton Abbott 25k, Totnes 8k, Ivybridge 11k, Torquay 65k), whereas the Okehampton route has Okehampton and Tavistock - that's about it, so 20k.

The correct answer to Dawlish is to reroute inland (which I believe the GWR considered) - probably between Newton Abbott and Starcross.

The current situation where Dawlish is closed for a handful of days a year doesn't justify reopening a rural route for "diversion" purposes. If the Dawlish route is unsustainable then re-routing that is where the time and cost should be invested rather than a pie in the sky scheme which has minimal traffic potential.

Absolutely.
Okehampton really isn't a diversionary route at all - its slower, requires 2 reversals, and doesn't serve major stations. A much better diversion for passenger services is a simple rail replacement bus from Tiverton to Newton Abbott on the few days a year that it is needed, just like present - its quicker, and no major cost.

Whist we don't need locos, is there going to be the capacity at Exeter for such a reversal as well as the extra Devon Metro services and the services to Okehampton?

At least a straight through service requires less platform capacity than it currently does, a reversal, even with a driver change would need about the same platform capacity as currently.

To use the same platform capacity (currently 2 services per hour in each direction reversing Exmouth-Paignton), if one Exmouth went back to running through to Barnstaple, and the Waterloo service reversed towards Paignton you would actually reduce platform occupation, as you would no longer have a terminating Waterloo.
It would presumably also be possible to extend the semi-fast Paddingtons beyond Exeter to Plymouth to provide 2tph London-Plymouth, again reducing platform occupancy in Exeter.

One aspect of a Dawlish bypass line via a Haldon Base tunnel that is rarely talked about is the possibility of providing a very much better commuter service from Torbay to Exeter. At the moment the train is slow compared to the road. I suspect it would be possible to run 4tph commuter services from Paignton - Exeter using 110mph fast accelerating stock, calling Paignton, Torquay, Newton Abbott and Exeter stations without getting in the way of the fast services. Teignmouth and Dawlish could be run as individual branches from Newton Abbott and Exeter respectively (personally I would run the Teignmouth as the back half of a Paignton service, splitting at Newton then reversing), allowing the high-risk and expensive line between the two to be closed.

Running Waterloo - Plymouth via Salisbury and Okehampton really doesn't provide any extra London - Plymouth capacity as it is so much slower that noone would use it.

 

[The Ham]

Running Waterloo - Plymouth via Salisbury and Okehampton really doesn't provide any extra London - Plymouth capacity as it is so much slower that noone would use it.

Whilst it wouldn't be much, it does very much depend on where you're traveling from, if you're starting near Clapham Junction then the journey time would be broadly comparable, maybe a bit quicker if there's a new service which allows the removal of some of the stops West of Salisbury.

However even on the current timetable because of the only hourly service depending on when you wish to leave/arrive depends on whether it's worth getting a train which takes longer but leaves later than the proceeding faster train and arrives earlier than the next faster service.

However where it starts to make much more sense in terms of allowing more passengers to travel is between the likes of Salisbury, Yeovil, Southampton, Portsmouth, Weymouth, Woking, Guildford and the like without them having to travel to Reading (or to a lesser extent Westbury).

The extra capacity would mostly be backfilling those traveling out of London who had got off.

Whilst such a service would require some extra rolling stock compared to just running local services (as identified in the NR document on this) the extra income from the long distance passengers would add to the business case quite a bit more than the same number of extra local passengers.

As a rough guide an extra £2 million in costs would only need 8 passengers per train paying an average of £30 to cover those extra costs.

Given that Yeovil to Plymouth is ~£44 return then the ticket price for many from further away is likely to £30 or more, so it's a reasonably figure to use.

 

[BayPaul]

Whilst it wouldn't be much, it does very much depend on where you're traveling from, if you're starting near Clapham Junction then the journey time would be broadly comparable, maybe a bit quicker if there's a new service which allows the removal of some of the stops West of Salisbury.

However even on the current timetable because of the only hourly service depending on when you wish to leave/arrive depends on whether it's worth getting a train which takes longer but leaves later than the proceeding faster train and arrives earlier than the next faster service.

However where it starts to make much more sense in terms of allowing more passengers to travel is between the likes of Salisbury, Yeovil, Southampton, Portsmouth, Weymouth, Woking, Guildford and the like without them having to travel to Reading (or to a lesser extent Westbury).

The extra capacity would mostly be backfilling those traveling out of London who had got off.

Whilst such a service would require some extra rolling stock compared to just running local services (as identified in the NR document on this) the extra income from the long distance passengers would add to the business case quite a bit more than the same number of extra local passengers.

As a rough guide an extra £2 million in costs would only need 8 passengers per train paying an average of £30 to cover those extra costs.

Given that Yeovil to Plymouth is ~£44 return then the ticket price for many from further away is likely to £30 or more, so it's a reasonably figure to use.

But if it ran Exeter - Plymouth via Newton Abbot then this capacity would be more desirable and useful, as the Plymouth journey time would be shorter, and there would be connections to more decent sized towns.

 

[The Ham]

But if it ran Exeter - Plymouth via Newton Abbot then this capacity would be more desirable and useful, as the Plymouth journey time would be shorter, and there would be connections to more decent sized towns.

Two points:

In which case extend the semi fast, which would otherwise be using up platform capacity at St. David's by terminating there.

If the via Okehampton route is the one in the Network Rail report where the journey time was the same as for the existing (at the time) route, then the journey time wouldn't be noticeably shorter. Certainly not for those who would otherwise need to change and virtually the same if there was a reverse put into the service from Waterloo.

 

[83A]

Blame Hitler....

The GWR were ready to build an inland route from Exminster via Haldon to near Newton abbot. They had even bought all the land and some wooden pegs to mark out the route.. Then WWII broke out and it was cancelled........

I believe BR then sold off all the land at a later date.

 

[PTR 444]

Blame Hitler....

The GWR were ready to build an inland route from Exminster via Haldon to near Newton abbot. They had even bought all the land and some wooden pegs to mark out the route.. The WWII broke out and it was cancelled........

I believe BR then sold off all the land at a later date.

Thing is though, if it had been built, would it have likely survived the Beeching cuts of the 60s?

 

[83A]

Thing is though, if it had been built, would it have likely survived the Beeching cuts of the 60s?

Well that’s starts to open up a few hypothesis !

You could suggest if WWII never happened and the line was built that there might never have been nationalisation and then maybe there might not have been the same Beeching cuts.

But if we assume there were, would they not keep the inland diversion and close the expensive sea route?

 

[HSTEd]

More likely the sea route would have been rationalised to death, or simply axed.

 

[MarkyT]

More likely the sea route would have been rationalised to death, or simply axed.

'Rationalised' doesn't mean an inexorable decline at all. The word has been badly contaminated by its use in the Beeching era to mean cuts alone but literally in the transport field it must surely mean adapting the infrastructure to exactly meet required service levels, whatever those are. Theoretically, that could mean expanding the number of tracks and other facilities if necessary. In the case of the sea wall it would probably have meant some singling, but with a double track fast line bypassing the local stations that could have still provided better and more reliable and capacious local as well as bypassing express services, while reducing costs and facilitating sea wall maintenance while trains were still running. It is unlikely the sea wall could have been abandoned in its entirety as in Dawlish particularly it protects the town from the sea, so to retain at least a single track on the structure might not represent a significantly greater cost. Furthermore, the existing stations serve the coast facing towns far better than any inland replacements a few miles away ever could, so would naturally have been very compelling to retain as part of the local service.