Proposals to reopen Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton

[21C101]

Well in Summer 2014, the Network Rail West of Exeter resilience the cost of an all singing, all dancing dual track Northern Route complete with brand new Meldon viaduct was £875m.

There were 5 options for diversionary routes considered. The cheapest then was £1.49bn, saving 1 minute of journey time and dearest was over £3bn.

As an additional route, with insurance policy, the Northern Route looks a bargain. Yes invest in the current route but do not think for one minute that a diversionary route would be a cheaper option. Even the cheapest would be double the cost of an entirely double track route.

The Northern route does not need to be double track all the way round either so savings could be made. Even if only just from Okehampton to Sourton single it would save excavations under the A30 and building of single track viaduct

If I recall, that £875 million was for a fully double track, 4 aspect signalled main line with track speeds enabling journey times similar to the existing route.

A single line with dynamic 3 mile long loops at Okehampton (east), Lydford-Brentor, Bere Alston plus half a mile of double track at St Budeaux and reconfiguring Coleford to Crediton as double track would be rather cheaper and enable the Granite Way to stay open.

The most useful thing that could be done right now if anyone has the money is to get an expert to review Meldon Viaduct to see if it really is the case that it it is too weak for trains or whether it is another case of Ribblehead Syndrome and, perhaps with some sympathetic crossbracing to strengthen the lattice structure, it could reopen to trains, albeit with a significant speed restriction, enabling the matter to be settled once and for all.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Well in Summer 2014, the Network Rail West of Exeter resilience Study, stated the cost of an all singing, all dancing dual track Northern Route complete with brand new Meldon viaduct was £875m.

If you google West of Exeter Route Resilience Study (networkrail.co.uk) it will come up

There were 5 options for diversionary routes considered around Dawlish/Teignmouth. The cheapest then was £1.49bn, saving 1 minute of journey time and dearest was over £3bn.

As an additional route, with insurance policy, the Northern Route looks a bargain. Yes invest in the current route but do not think for one minute that a diversionary route would be a cheaper option. Even the cheapest would be double the cost of an entirely double track route.

The Northern route does not need to be double track all the way round either so savings could be made. Even if only just from Okehampton to Sourton single it would save excavations under the A30 and building of single track viaduct

Exactly. In terms of cost the Northern route is the best option. People go on about the double reversal at Plymouth and Exeter but in the case of diversions does they really matter? The local trains using the route (hourly stopping service of whatever) to Plymouth from London Waterloo or maybe just a circle route with GWR 150’s would work fine for 99% of the time.

Any new bridge at Meldon would need to go on the east side (reservoir side) of the existing structure. I don’t see how one could he built to the west as the bank from the Granite Way footpath down the hill is almost vertical and would require a serious amount of backfilling and either a huge slope or a mega retaining wall, both of which are expensive and risky.

Also, unless they move it, there is the under bridge just on the Plymouth side of Meldon Viaduct they the railway would need to align with. This further restricts how far from the existing track bed you could go.

 

[Irascible]

I think in terms of cost beefing up the sea wall & cliff faces in the Dawlish-Teignmouth area is the best option... ( you also strengthen the sea defences for the towns too ). As I've said before I'd rather see Ilfracombe reconnected before the moors line goes back.

In terms of "giving Devon & Cornwall the railway they deserve", that would be rebuilding the current main line into something that can handle late 20th century speeds, if not just giving us a new line full stop - the current one does at least pass through the bigger population spots.

 

[MarkyT]

I think in terms of cost beefing up the sea wall & cliff faces in the Dawlish-Teignmouth area is the best option... ( you also strengthen the sea defences for the towns too ).

Yes, a long-term Devon rail strategy must begin by strengthening the existing route, and in addition to the storm-proofing and cliff protection, that work must include work to protect the route from rising water levels along the Exe and Teign Estuary sections where the track is very close to high water level in places.

As I've said before I'd rather see Ilfracombe reconnected before the moors line goes back.

Can't see that I'm afraid, unless as an extension of the light rail idea mooted from Barnstaple to Braunton.

In terms of "giving Devon & Cornwall the railway they deserve", that would be rebuilding the current main line into something that can handle late 20th century speeds, if not just giving us a new line full stop - the current one does at least pass through the bigger population spots.

Which would be the rationale behind a Dawlish Bypass for expresses as an initial stage of that future significant improvement, followed by some further new straightened sections west of Totnes to improve South Devon and Plymouth journey times while still serving all the principle Devon stations. In both cases, the existing route would remain to host local stopping trains, freights, etc.

 

[Irascible]

Can't see that I'm afraid, unless as an extension of the light rail idea mooted from Barnstaple to Braunton.

It would need a new bridge on a new alignment ( starting to sound familiar? ), at least three overbridges at Braunton and two new stations, but it'd serve 25,000+ population quite a large number of which are some of the most deprived people in Devon. And it's shorter, and of use every day. I can't see it happening either ( I mean, who wants to move deprived people around? ) but I'd still rather it happened than an occasionally used line across Dartmoor.

The light rail idea didn't appear to even go near Barnstaple station. Le sigh.

Which would be the rationale behind a Dawlish Bypass for expresses as an initial stage of that future significant improvement, followed by some further new straightened sections west of Totnes to improve South Devon and Plymouth journey times while still serving all the principle Devon stations. In both cases, the existing route would remain to host local stopping trains, freights, etc.

There's only Newton Abbott ( 25k ), Totnes ( about 9k? plus catchment ) and Ivybridge ( 13k or so plus catchment again ), I think you could just replace large chunks of the existing line completely rather than augmenting or considering it a diversion like anything around Dawlish.

3 hrs Exeter-Penzance by a fast train and it's about 110 miles ( slightly more by rail I suspect, I don't know - call it 120 because that's the approx road distance via Totnes, so that's an average 40mph. For an express. ). Any new route needs to be an improvement, not an alternative with near identical journey times.

 

[MarkyT]

There's only Newton Abbott ( 25k ), Totnes ( about 9k? plus catchment ) and Ivybridge ( 13k or so plus catchment again ), I think you could just replace large chunks of the existing line completely rather than augmenting or considering it a diversion like anything around Dawlish.

3 hrs Exeter-Penzance by a fast train and it's about 110 miles ( slightly more by rail I suspect, I don't know - call it 120 because that's the approx road distance via Totnes, so that's an average 40mph. For an express. ). Any new route needs to be an improvement, not an alternative with near identical journey times.

Agreed. My ideal Dawlish Avoider would basically be a new line most of the way from Exeter to Newton Abbot. My western segment would be new from near Totnes to near Plymouth, roughly following the A38 at a lower level, possibly with an alternative Ivybridge station site, rather than the existing route hugging the side of the moors. I would continue to serve Newton Abbot & Totnes though because they have sizable catchments including Torbay and the South Hams, and represent rich pickings of well-off professionals, arty types etc going long-distance to London and other big cities frequently and there is healthy tourist traffic in summer which is not old fashioned bucket and spade at all now but more spread out short break business etc. I do advocate reducing journey times where possible, but not at the expense of useful and lucrative stops en route, and arbitrary round figure journey time targets to particular extremities irritate me no end. I don't have a problem with the northern route via Okehampton in full or part really as long as it can justify itself on its own merits as a local railway to develop the areas it runs through (wait for local nimbies objecting to thousands of new homes). As a through route it can have a subsidiary function as a planned or emergency passenger diversionary and perhaps as a more resilient and less steeply graded freight route, but I don't believe it can ever be justified solely or mainly for that function. Remember long-distance passengers can be shuttled by road to Plymouth very rapidly from Tiverton Parkway if neccessary, sometimes beating current rail times, rather embarrassingly.

 

[Irascible]

Yes, was absolutely not advocating missing out the current stops at all- I don't think capacity is an issue unless Plymouth develops into a freight port or we start sending produce by rail again though, and removing the more sinuous steeper sections would also aid any freight. Give me a good case for the north route over investment in the southern one and I'll back it 100% ( on an emotive level I've always wanted it restored ) but as it stands it seems diversionary in more ways than for traffic.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that the existing route needs beefing up and protecting, but I don't see the point in a wholesale rebuilding. It doesn't sem to take that long in the scheme of things as a passenger, and if you want a flatter route for freight, the Okehampton line does kust that whilst opening up the rest of Devon.

Ilfracombe is a good call though.

 

[The Ham]

Whilst it would be great to improve journey speeds between Exeter and Plymouth the main reason that is not likely to happen any time soon is that there's no spare capacity for extra services from London or even Reading unless you start using the Bedwyn services and extending them westwards.

However even then it's likely that you'd run into capacity issues at Exeter.

Conversely the SWR services from Waterloo could be increased in frequency with some relatively cheap (at least in comparison to sorting out the GWR route, and probably still coming in at less than the £1.5bn cost) redoubling of the WofE line and maybe a bit of work at Exeter after the opening of Crossrail 2.

Now whilst the passengers traveling from London to Plymouth wouldn't typically use the SWR services, with a small decrease in journey time (doing stop/skip on some of the WofE stations) those traveling from SWR stations wouldn't need to go via Reading or Westbury which would aid with capacity on the existing services.

The other thing to note is that actually the Okehampton route would aid the business case for the DAL (Dawlish Avoiding Line) as it would mean that there was more people traveling by rail between Exeter and Plymouth.

Whilst the DAL could provide some extra services along the existing line (although I suspect not) improving services song the WofE line would likely improve passenger numbers more and provide a direct and more frequent connection between Honiton and Plymouth (as well as Exeter) which would aid local journeys.

Whilst it's true that it's possible to bus passengers from West of Exeter at tonnes of disruption, if there was an alternative route (which people would use over a coach, as trains are much more comfortable and the loos are much nicer) then it would mean that it was much easier to get on a coach for those who still needed it.

As an example of you had a train with 300 people on, currently you may need to wait until the 5th or 6th coach until you can leave Exeter. Now if only 1/2 use the alternative route on the train, most people would only need to wait for the 2nd coach (if they hadn't got on the 1st coach) with it being fairly unlucky to have to wait until the 3rd coach.

Increase the numbers on the train and the wait for could be quite a bit longer if you're bussing everyone but even with a train with 600 passengers and half are going by bus then you're still only looking at most 5 or 6 coach loads of people.

However if the numbers being bussed drop to 1/3 of the partners then you're down to 4 bus loads (compared to 11+ bus loads of people).

That's fine if you've got buses going every few minutes, but if you have a 7 minute gap between departures you could end up waiting about an hour if you're on the 9th or later coach. Even on a 10 minutes gap between departures 4 coaches would only be 1/2 an hour

 

[Bald Rick]

A single line with dynamic 3 mile long loops at Okehampton (east), Lydford-Brentor, Bere Alston plus half a mile of double track at St Budeaux and reconfiguring Coleford to Crediton as double track would be rather cheaper and enable the Granite Way to stay open.

That depends on your defintion of ‘rather’.

As I have posted before, 2 track Railways aren’t that much cheaper than single track railways. Many of the costs are, actually, the same.

 

[21C101]

That depends on your defintion of ‘rather’.

As I have posted before, 2 track Railways aren’t that much cheaper than single track railways. Many of the costs are, actually, the same.

Can we get on with redoubling west of Salisbury then?

A fair chunk of those costs were things like safe cess walkways because the original formation was not deemed to meet modern standards. That wouldn't be needed with single track.

I'm sure you are right with new railways where the civil works have not been done, but this wouldn't be a new railway, it would be reinstatement of a railway on a largely intact originally double track formation that only meets the current standards for a single track formation.

For the reasons you state, I think it is ludicrous that HS2 south of Birmingham wasn't built (tunnels and major viaducts excepted) as a four track formation.

 

[Bald Rick]

tunnels and major viaducts excepted)

It’s an odd thing, but the proportional extra cost of new 4 track Railways compared to 2 is greater than the proportional extra cost of 1 to 2.

Off topic, but an awful lot of HS2 is tunnels and major viaducts - the first 30 miles of so out of London for example, and as such it’s pointless putting 4 tracks anywhere except stations (which is what is being done).

 

[paul1609]

I'm sure you are right with new railways where the civil works have not been done, but this wouldn't be a new railway, it would be reinstatement of a railway on a largely intact originally double track formation that only meets the current standards for a single track formation.

My experience of rebuilding even a light railway to heritage railway standards is that if a railway has been out of regular use for more than 10 years other than the fact that you have a predetermined linear site there's really not that much difference in building a new railway to " reopening on an existing foundation". On the 11 miles of the K&ESR we've reopened so far we've only been able to re-use one of the existing bridges and I think all of the culverts have been rebuilt. Thats with doing things very much to a budget and without the reliability considerations of the national network.

 

[Bald Rick]

My experience of rebuilding even a light railway to heritage railway standards is that if a railway has been out of regular use for more than 10 years other than the fact that you have a predetermined linear site there's really not that much difference in building a new railway to " reopening on an existing foundation". On the 11 miles of the K&ESR we've reopened so far we've only been able to re-use one of the existing bridges and I think all of the culverts have been rebuilt. Thats with doing things very much to a budget and without the reliability considerations of the national network.

Absolutely spot on. Of course it does depend on four things:

1) the local geology and weather
2) how well it was built originally
3) how long it has been closed for
4) what has happened to it in the interim.

Unless it was very well built, and had some sort of maintenance in the interim, most civils - especially earthworks - will need major work if they have been left to nature for more than about 40 years.

As I have said before, from a civils perspective it can be more difficult (and therefore expensive) to reopen a line on it’s old formation than on open ground - demolishing and rebuilding bridges (see Bletchley), rebuilding embankments (lots of examples!), digging out old cuttings full of rubbish (East Grinstead), endless devegetation, Etc.

 

[21C101]

My experience of rebuilding even a light railway to heritage railway standards is that if a railway has been out of regular use for more than 10 years other than the fact that you have a predetermined linear site there's really not that much difference in building a new railway to " reopening on an existing foundation". On the 11 miles of the K&ESR we've reopened so far we've only been able to re-use one of the existing bridges and I think all of the culverts have been rebuilt. Thats with doing things very much to a budget and without the reliability considerations of the national network.

The Okehampton to Bere Alston route is fairly unique in several regards

The structures (other than Meldon Viaduct an occupation underbridge at Sourton and an overbridge over the A386 are intact, very solid Granite structures, many of which have been extensively restored.

The majority of the line is owned by one owner (Devon County Council) who are very much in favour of reopening.

There are no level crossings over roads to worry about

No infilled cuttings with rubbish.

The trackbed is also virtually intact. The only building on the line is some publically owned housing association houses at Tavistock Station, a single house at the A386 missing bridge and a single house north of the town, that I think only has its garden on the trackbed.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Okehampton to Bere Alston route is fairly unique in several regards

Yep, that’s what every reopening proposal says. And then reality bites.

 

[21C101]

.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2021 ==

Yep, that’s what every reopening proposal says. And then reality bites.

Reality on that line is as I outlined, its been pretty thoroughly catalogued over the years.

Certainly whoever came up with the £875 million took the same view as you. I think it had 60% contingency added on.

I gather they also added on ludicrous gold plating like continuous multiple aspect signalling and raising the trackbed of miles of the line between Okehampton and Cowley Bridge, asnwell as the entire route being double track, because they priced for a new full blown main line to replace the route via Dawlish not a secondary main line to complement it.

 

[Irascible]

I think that the existing route needs beefing up and protecting, but I don't see the point in a wholesale rebuilding. It doesn't sem to take that long in the scheme of things as a passenger, and if you want a flatter route for freight, the Okehampton line does kust that whilst opening up the rest of Devon.

Exeter to Plymouth is timed at about an hour right now, which is a few minutes slower than a route planner will give you city centre to city centre by road. Given the usual traffic in Exeter that's probably debatable but we're comparing modes in general rather than exact start/finish points.

Okehampton reopening is already opening up the rest of Devon by itself! how many people from Bideford or Bude want to go to Plymouth I wonder, and would they bother getting out of their cars after driving at least half the way. Plymouth is getting more and more depressed as the Navy declines, but it needs to be less the other side of the mountain from Exeter to help that out before being better connected to northwest Devon.

Whilst it would be great to improve journey speeds between Exeter and Plymouth the main reason that is not likely to happen any time soon is that there's no spare capacity for extra services from London or even Reading unless you start using the Bedwyn services and extending them westwards.

However even then it's likely that you'd run into capacity issues at Exeter.

Conversely the SWR services from Waterloo could be increased in frequency with some relatively cheap (at least in comparison to sorting out the GWR route, and probably still coming in at less than the £1.5bn cost) redoubling of the WofE line and maybe a bit of work at Exeter after the opening of Crossrail 2.

I don't have any ridership figures - how much could we absorb before we'd need more services rather than just faster ones? a chunk of the service is currently short XC Voyagers too, so there's room for improvement via Bristol without adding more paths. Need to point out again that the issue here is that west of Exeter is *slow* - extra capacity via SWR is not going to do anything for that, nor is extra capacity via Okehampton.

Where would the capacity issues in Exeter be? the station itself or somewhere else? if it's the station then how is it going to handle extra SWR services? ( and irrespective of any extra services to Plymouth that needs to be resolved anyway ).

Now whilst the passengers traveling from London to Plymouth wouldn't typically use the SWR services, with a small decrease in journey time (doing stop/skip on some of the WofE stations) those traveling from SWR stations wouldn't need to go via Reading or Westbury which would aid with capacity on the existing services.

The other thing to note is that actually the Okehampton route would aid the business case for the DAL (Dawlish Avoiding Line) as it would mean that there was more people traveling by rail between Exeter and Plymouth.

Whilst the DAL could provide some extra services along the existing line (although I suspect not) improving services song the WofE line would likely improve passenger numbers more and provide a direct and more frequent connection between Honiton and Plymouth (as well as Exeter) which would aid local journeys.

Whilst it's true that it's possible to bus passengers from West of Exeter at tonnes of disruption, if there was an alternative route (which people would use over a coach, as trains are much more comfortable and the loos are much nicer) then it would mean that it was much easier to get on a coach for those who still needed it.

As an example of you had a train with 300 people on, currently you may need to wait until the 5th or 6th coach until you can leave Exeter. Now if only 1/2 use the alternative route on the train, most people would only need to wait for the 2nd coach (if they hadn't got on the 1st coach) with it being fairly unlucky to have to wait until the 3rd coach.

Increase the numbers on the train and the wait for could be quite a bit longer if you're bussing everyone but even with a train with 600 passengers and half are going by bus then you're still only looking at most 5 or 6 coach loads of people.

However if the numbers being bussed drop to 1/3 of the partners then you're down to 4 bus loads (compared to 11+ bus loads of people).

That's fine if you've got buses going every few minutes, but if you have a 7 minute gap between departures you could end up waiting about an hour if you're on the 9th or later coach. Even on a 10 minutes gap between departures 4 coaches would only be 1/2 an hour

The WoE line needs improvements by itself. As an ad-hoc user of it IMO most of those right now need to be between Axminster & Exeter ( as planned, to a degree ) but doing some lifting to aid the GWR route to London would be a good idea - that would need a study of customer behaviour ( and future trends in travel ) that's a bit beyond me to decide exactly what to do, but the service is generally liked by it's users as it is. It'd be faster to me to drive the wrong way to Exeter ( let alone the right way to Taunton ) & get a GWR service but I'd rather take the comfort of the WoE, even with the extra hour+. I however am neither a regular or probably a typical customer. People do also want to go north from the SW rather than to London though, so extra ridership does not have to necessarily be absorbed by a different route to the GW routes.

Given a choice of driving, taking the coach, or taking a train to London or points north then the train wins hands-down. Given the choice if I'm going west, then the train is not a clear winner at all and that is from someone who's inclined to take the train over any other mode - it's not a case of not finding a seat, it's a case of it just being slow & not worth the effort. Sadly adding an extra route that is not any faster is not going to change that. I know that goes against what I said about the WoE line just now, but the WoE service east has extra points for comfort ( big selling point for me ) and convenience over GWR ( and of course London has easy local transport ).

The killer time comparison isn't Exeter-Plymouth by road, it's Plymouth-Tiverton Parkway, which is just over an hour in the car ( 10 mins of that is just getting out of Plymouth so if you're on the east side to start with it's even worse ) and an hour and a quarter by train. It only gets worse for the train comparing it west of Plymouth until you're looking at a whole hour longer via train from Penzance.

I can't support a case for a *new* alternate route if it's main point is it's better than bustitution - there's not *that* much disruption at Dawlish and if it's bad enough to affect the railway then it's probably getting a bit dangerous for the inhabitants at Dawlish too, so they need improvements to the seawall regardless if there's a railway on it.

--

Could the Okehampton route be made noticeably quicker than the South Devon route if you messed with the alignment? it may be fast to Okehampton but I seem to remember it's very twisty below Lydford.

 

[The Planner]

Reality on that line is as I outlined, its been pretty thoroughly catalogued over the years.

Certainly whoever came up with the £875 million took the same view as you. I think it had 60% contingency added on.

I gather they also added on ludicrous gold plating like continuous multiple aspect signalling and raising the trackbed of miles of the line between Okehampton and Cowley Bridge, asnwell as the entire route being double track, because they priced for a new full blown main line to replace the route via Dawlish not a secondary main line to complement it.

But one of the biggest things people go on about with this is "oh but we would have a diversionary route" to try and justify it. To provide a basic service on the line between Exeter - Okehampton - Tavistock you probably don't need a mass of infrastructure, but as soon as you make assumptions on what would expect to be diverted then you are going to be tipped over the edge, especially when I suspect you would want a XC and 1tph GWR diverted when Dawlish goes underwater. We shouldn't be signaling a "new" line with 2 aspect signals or long sections anyway as it will soon bite you on the backside. The ironymeter would also soon explode when you cannot divert because you didn't do enough flood mitigation work and it floods!

 

[21C101]

Exeter to Plymouth is timed at about an hour right now, which is a few minutes slower than a route planner will give you city centre to city centre by road. Given the usual traffic in Exeter that's probably debatable but we're comparing modes in general rather than exact start/finish points.

Okehampton reopening is already opening up the rest of Devon by itself! how many people from Bideford or Bude want to go to Plymouth I wonder, and would they bother getting out of their cars after driving at least half the way. Plymouth is getting more and more depressed as the Navy declines, but it needs to be less the other side of the mountain from Exeter to help that out before being better connected to northwest Devon.



I don't have any ridership figures - how much could we absorb before we'd need more services rather than just faster ones? a chunk of the service is currently short XC Voyagers too, so there's room for improvement via Bristol without adding more paths. Need to point out again that the issue here is that west of Exeter is *slow* - extra capacity via SWR is not going to do anything for that, nor is extra capacity via Okehampton.

Where would the capacity issues in Exeter be? the station itself or somewhere else? if it's the station then how is it going to handle extra SWR services? ( and irrespective of any extra services to Plymouth that needs to be resolved anyway ).



The WoE line needs improvements by itself. As an ad-hoc user of it IMO most of those right now need to be between Axminster & Exeter ( as planned, to a degree ) but doing some lifting to aid the GWR route to London would be a good idea - that would need a study of customer behaviour ( and future trends in travel ) that's a bit beyond me to decide exactly what to do, but the service is generally liked by it's users as it is. It'd be faster to me to drive the wrong way to Exeter ( let alone the right way to Taunton ) & get a GWR service but I'd rather take the comfort of the WoE, even with the extra hour+. I however am neither a regular or probably a typical customer. People do also want to go north from the SW rather than to London though, so extra ridership does not have to necessarily be absorbed by a different route to the GW routes.

Given a choice of driving, taking the coach, or taking a train to London or points north then the train wins hands-down. Given the choice if I'm going west, then the train is not a clear winner at all and that is from someone who's inclined to take the train over any other mode - it's not a case of not finding a seat, it's a case of it just being slow & not worth the effort. Sadly adding an extra route that is not any faster is not going to change that. I know that goes against what I said about the WoE line just now, but the WoE service east has extra points for comfort ( big selling point for me ) and convenience over GWR ( and of course London has easy local transport ).

The killer time comparison isn't Exeter-Plymouth by road, it's Plymouth-Tiverton Parkway, which is just over an hour in the car ( 10 mins of that is just getting out of Plymouth so if you're on the east side to start with it's even worse ) and an hour and a quarter by train. It only gets worse for the train comparing it west of Plymouth until you're looking at a whole hour longer via train from Penzance.

I can't support a case for a *new* alternate route if it's main point is it's better than bustitution - there's not *that* much disruption at Dawlish and if it's bad enough to affect the railway then it's probably getting a bit dangerous for the inhabitants at Dawlish too, so they need improvements to the seawall regardless if there's a railway on it.

--

Could the Okehampton route be made noticeably quicker than the South Devon route if you messed with the alignment? it may be fast to Okehampton but I seem to remember it's very twisty below Lydford.

I suspect that some of the points you allude to are one reason why a minority serm to view the idea of Okehampton to Waterloo service with such horror.

From Bodmin and points west it would likely be quicker to drive up the A30 to Okehampton and get a Waterloo train, even with the current timings and all the stops east of Exeter. Plus it deposits you in Central London, rather than a west London inner suburb.

 

[yorksrob]

I very much expect that the key to Plymouth's regeneration will be improving its accessibility to the rest of Devon. That includes links North.

 

[RT4038]

Certainly whoever came up with the £875 million took the same view as you. I think it had 60% contingency added on.

Bicester to Bletchley 19.5 miles, including 1 viaduct requiring rebuilding, two stations and no blockages at all on the formation = £760 million. Okehampton to Bere Alston 22.75 miles, including 1 viaduct requiring rebuilding, at least 2 (?) stations [if not more] and a few blockages on the formation = the mileage pro rata is £887 million. If we assume that the viaduct and stations are cost comparison neutral, I would expect a higher figure just for the blockage eliminations. (say £900 million?) . And that won't buy any improvements east of Okehampton or on the St. Budeaux-Bere Alston section.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

How much of a major issue is the single track tunnel under the M5 east of Pinhoe? Obviously it prevents double track, but I am assuming that they would never be allowed to widen it just because of the hassle it would cause.

Any service to Plymouth via Okehampton should be run by SWR as an extension of their London to Exeter services. Personally, even though it’s cheaper, I think that rebuilding the route as single track would be a stupid idea. It should be double all the way. If single track is selected then major pieces of infrastructure should be made wide enough to accommodate double track in the future. One of these is Meldon Viaduct. The replacement structure should be wide enough for double track to prevent issues later on.

 

[Irascible]

I suspect that some of the points you allude to are one reason why a minority serm to view the idea of Okehampton to Waterloo service with such horror.

From Bodmin and points west it would likely be quicker to drive up the A30 to Okehampton and get a Waterloo train, even with the current timings and all the stops east of Exeter. Plus it deposits you in Central London, rather than a west London inner suburb.

Extending some of the services out to Oke seems fine to me, especially if the train would just lay over at Exeter otherwise - I suspect they'll end up Okehampton-Axminster & back though. As a former resident of N. London, regular user of Paddington & less regular user of Waterloo, they're both mildly awkward to get out of ( you could say that about London in general tbh ) but not a factor I'd use to pick a route unless I worked in the actual City. I spent a lot of time working in parts of the west end, which is easy Bakerloo & walk from either, and some time working in the docklands which is horrible whatever you do - time saved on the W&C was fairly minimal compared to the drudgery of the DLR ( no Jubilee then ) and now the Jubilee is only marginally more annoying from Paddington than Waterloo. Don't even mention how long it took from north of Finsbury Park...

If you're going that far up the A30 there's not that much to stop you carrying on to Tiv. Parkway either.

I very much expect that the key to Plymouth's regeneration will be improving its accessibility to the rest of Devon. That includes links North.

Maybe if "north" is Tavistock, I note no-one is looking at Launceston when it's twice the size of Okehampton, which direction are they going to drive to get a train? the A30 goes to Okehampton or there's an A road straight to Plymouth, or there's a B road to Tavistock ( which doesn't necessarily mean it's not usable daily, A roads in Devon aren't always any better... ). I doubt the 10k inhabitants of Bude are going to want to commute anywhere, let alone right across the peninsula.

Exeter is pulling in business because it's on the motorway network, a main line with moderately fast connections to the North & East ( there are a few who commute to London - that's a bit too far for me, but it happens ), and reasonable ( and improving ) commuter infrastructure - certainly can't call it "good" when the place is near gridlocked every day, but there's rail and railheads from all directions & an attempt at a regional bus network. The airport was well served until Flybe went under too. Plymouth lost it's airport, the rail links we're discussing now are slower than the road, the A38 isn't a bad road honestly but doesn't shout "motorway" ( out of Exeter is "interesting" ) and I have no idea about regional commuter infrastructure other than the Gunnislake line which is only there because there's no alternative. Plymouth City Council are attempting to grow the population - their target is about 300k iirc and that certainly deserves faster connections to the rest of the country unless the eventual aim is for D&C to become an independent region...

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Where would the capacity issues in Exeter be? the station itself or somewhere else? if it's the station then how is it going to handle extra SWR services? ( and irrespective of any extra services to Plymouth that needs to be resolved anyway ).

The issue at Exeter St David’s is with platform 1 and 3, the run up to Exeter Central and Exeter Central itself.

Only two platforms can be accessed from Exeter Bank and those two platforms currently handle a lot of trains. There was talk of reconnecting P4 with the bank just like the old days to help ease congestion on those two platforms

Also, on the approach to St David’s from Central there is a facing crossover but no trailing one which limits what trains can go from each platform without having to wrong line.

Ideally Exeter would be completely rebuilt and set out properly. At the moment the point work isn’t great.

 

[Irascible]

The issue at Exeter St David’s is with platform 1 and 3, the run up to Exeter Central and Exeter Central itself.

Only two platforms can be accessed from Exeter Bank and those two platforms currently handle a lot of trains. There was talk of reconnecting P4 with the bank just like the old days to help ease congestion on those two platforms

Also, on the approach to St David’s from Central there is a facing crossover but no trailing one which limits what trains can go from each platform without having to wrong line.

Ideally Exeter would be completely rebuilt and set out properly. At the moment the point work isn’t great.

I'm juist about old enough to remember the maze it used to be - I guess it's been good enough for a few decades now. Some S&C work at one end does seem an achievable goal without needing a fortune for once. When was the last signalling renewal? the one that removed most of the track there is 35 years ago now.

I have wondered why there's no turnback facility at Central itself given how much space there is up there, but going to be a moot point soon I guess.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I'm juist about old enough to remember the maze it used to be - I guess it's been good enough for a few decades now. Some S&C work at one end does seem an achievable goal without needing a fortune for once. When was the last signalling renewal? the one that removed most of the track there is 35 years ago now.

I have wondered why there's no turnback facility at Central itself given how much space there is up there, but going to be a moot point soon I guess.

That “maze” was a solid track plan that lower flexibility. The current plan is so restrictive it’s unreal. It has been good enough for decades, but the time has come for some major track alterations.
As for Centra, adding a middle road to use as a turn back/stabling siding wouldn’t be a bad idea.

 

[21C101]

But one of the biggest things people go on about with this is "oh but we would have a diversionary route" to try and justify it. To provide a basic service on the line between Exeter - Okehampton - Tavistock you probably don't need a mass of infrastructure, but as soon as you make assumptions on what would expect to be diverted then you are going to be tipped over the edge, especially when I suspect you would want a XC and 1tph GWR diverted when Dawlish goes underwater. We shouldn't be signaling a "new" line with 2 aspect signals or long sections anyway as it will soon bite you on the backside. The ironymeter would also soon explode when you cannot divert because you didn't do enough flood mitigation work and it floods!

Get it open, then upgrade it later. If you pile all the upgrade costs on before reopening it will always be to expensive to reopen.

Not the cheapest way overall, but realpolitik.

 

[yorksrob]

Extending some of the services out to Oke seems fine to me, especially if the train would just lay over at Exeter otherwise - I suspect they'll end up
Maybe if "north" is Tavistock, I note no-one is looking at Launceston when it's twice the size of Okehampton, which direction are they going to drive to get a train? the A30 goes to Okehampton or there's an A road straight to Plymouth, or there's a B road to Tavistock ( which doesn't necessarily mean it's not usable daily, A roads in Devon aren't always any better... ). I doubt the 10k inhabitants of Bude are going to want to commute anywhere, let alone right across the peninsula.

Exeter is pulling in business because it's on the motorway network, a main line with moderately fast connections to the North & East ( there are a few who commute to London - that's a bit too far for me, but it happens ), and reasonable ( and improving ) commuter infrastructure - certainly can't call it "good" when the place is near gridlocked every day, but there's rail and railheads from all directions & an attempt at a regional bus network. The airport was well served until Flybe went under too. Plymouth lost it's airport, the rail links we're discussing now are slower than the road, the A38 isn't a bad road honestly but doesn't shout "motorway" ( out of Exeter is "interesting" ) and I have no idea about regional commuter infrastructure other than the Gunnislake line which is only there because there's no alternative. Plymouth City Council are attempting to grow the population - their target is about 300k iirc and that certainly deserves faster connections to the rest of the country unless the eventual aim is for D&C to become an independent region...

If you wanted to link in Launceston, I imagine it would be easy to link to the old Great Western branch trackbed, given it ran alongside for a long way. Would be a bit of a branch though.

 

[21C101]

Bicester to Bletchley 19.5 miles, including 1 viaduct requiring rebuilding, two stations and no blockages at all on the formation = £760 million. Okehampton to Bere Alston 22.75 miles, including 1 viaduct requiring rebuilding, at least 2 (?) stations [if not more] and a few blockages on the formation = the mileage pro rata is £887 million. If we assume that the viaduct and stations are cost comparison neutral, I would expect a higher figure just for the blockage eliminations. (say £900 million?) . And that won't buy any improvements east of Okehampton or on the St. Budeaux-Bere Alston section.

If it was rebuilt as a double track 100mph main line like Bicester to Bletchley is going to be I might agree with you.

And the white elephant rebuilding at Bletchley is worse than Meldon, which wont have a high level station on top of it and dosen't have the West Coast Main Line running underneath it.

Even with the cost of the White Elephant rebuilding I would certainly be interested as to why Blrtchley Bicester is costing nearly three times as much as reinstating the Waverley line did.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2021 ==

That “maze” was a solid track plan that lower flexibility. The current plan is so restrictive it’s unreal. It has been good enough for decades, but the time has come for some major track alterations.
As for Centra, adding a middle road to use as a turn back/stabling siding wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Why not do what was done at Greenwich with one through road reinstated and the other having a platform added to it?