Tavistock Re-opening: how should the line be served and could the line be extended beyond Tavistock?

[yorksrob]

It was delivered more quickly because it was an easy reopening. Essentially Boris opened the easiest line possible and slapped the ‘project Speed’ label on it. This does not mean that other projects will be as easy to achieve if said label is applied because the lowest-hanging fruit is now gone. Even projects far simpler than Tavistock eg Fawley branch are taking a while. I agree Project Speed is an admirable idea but it was not the main factor in the speed of Okehampton getting done.

I guess whatever the factors that enabled things to be speeded up need to be replicated.

I remember reading some time ago that the County council already owns the trackbed, which would make land acquisition and planning less of an issue.

No, what matters is whether or not it was a sensible decision to reopen it. So far the evidence suggests that it was, but we're still only in the first could of years.

Again, how can you claim this is down to Project SPEED when you are unable to tell us what Project SPEED is or does?

The Okehampton line is now accepted by the local community as an important part of the transport infrastructure. This is borne out by passenger numbers.

In terms of Project Speed, I don't know exactly how they did it, but it worked. As mentioned above, the Council owning the trackbed would speed things along. Maybe some preliminary works on the tunnel and viaduct could be started as well.

 

[Xavi]

In terms of Project Speed, I don't know exactly how they did it,

It was as simple as a few Teams calls to alliance and supply chain, “How quickly can you mobilise?”.
More importantly, no tendering, no GRIP, professional (consultant/ contractor) opinion not challenged.
Sadly, full reinstatement won’t allow all the same savings. Hypothetically, if you could bypass the planning etc there would be savings of circa 40%.

 

[yorksrob]

It was as simple as a few Teams calls to alliance and supply chain, “How quickly can you mobilise?”.
More importantly, no tendering, no GRIP, professional (consultant/ contractor) opinion not challenged.
Sadly, full reinstatement won’t allow all the same savings. Hypothetically, if you could bypass the planning etc there would be savings of circa 40%.

Thanks for the info.

The planning issue is an interesting one. How much does trackbed ownership confer an advantage in the planning procesd.

How did they manage without tendering out of interest ? Was it just done "in house" by NR employees ?

 

[A0]

The Okehampton line is now accepted by the local community as an important part of the transport infrastructure. This is borne out by passenger numbers.

You can't say that on the basis of the 1 year numbers which are avaialable (21/22) - you need a couple of years to assess the trend properly.

Equally, what isn't yet known is the impact on the other stations in the area which may now drop in use (or at least not return to pre-pandemic use levels) and the impact on the local bus services, which if you look at Borders as an example, it has decimated the X95 which used to run between Edinburgh and Carlisle - and the bus was, IIRC, run commercially, so we have the situation where a state subsidy has been put behind the railway and has resulted in the diminsihing of a commercially operated bus service - what if even half that subsidy had been given to the bus operator ? That would have been better for the taxpayer and resulted in an improved service.

In terms of Project Speed, I don't know exactly how they did it, but it worked. As mentioned above, the Council owning the trackbed would speed things along. Maybe some preliminary works on the tunnel and viaduct could be started as well.

Thanks for the info.

The planning issue is an interesting one. How much does trackbed ownership confer an advantage in the planning procesd.

How did they manage without tendering out of interest ? Was it just done "in house" by NR employees ?

You clearly don't know much (if anything) about running a project. All projects run by balancing time / cost / quality - which means something has been compromised in order to do things "at speed", my bet (having been managing projects for well over a decade) is the budget - in other words money was thrown at it to get it done by a certain time.

In terms of planning - ownership makes no difference whatsoever - and nor should it. The point about planning legilsation means that all submissions are treated equally and subject to the same assessment - it would be absolutely outrageous if a local council's planning applications were treated more favourably, or given a "free pass" (which you seem to think they should) than that of a private individual wishing to extend their house.

 

[Xavi]

All projects run by balancing time / cost / quality - which means something has been compromised in order to do things "at speed", my bet (having been managing projects for well over a decade) is the budget - in other words money was thrown at it to get it done by a certain time.

You couldn’t be more wrong. There were considerable savings against comparable projects (renewals, crossing upgrades, GSM-R).

In terms of planning - ownership makes no difference whatsoever - and nor should it.

There are permitted development rights for Network Rail, but this does not cover all planning matters.

what isn't yet known is the impact on the other stations in the area which may now drop in use

Usage at the nearest station, Crediton has increased considerably since the Okehampton service was introduced.

the impact on the local bus services

Around Okehampton the bus service has been revamped such that it provides connections from the reopened station, including integrated ticketing to Bude.

Was it just done "in house" by NR employees

No, very little was done in-house, some project management, and supply of materials. The South Rail Systems Alliance was the main supplier, plus some call-offs from other existing framework contracts.

 

[SynthD]

Does Okehampton really count as a development project, a reopening? I think too many parallels are being made between a real reopening of a line that has no track, and one that was kept to NR standards for public service.

 

[Xavi]

Does Okehampton really count as a development project, a reopening? I think too many parallels are being made between a real reopening of a line that has no track, and one that was kept to NR standards for public service.

Nobody is saying Okehampton can be the full template for all reopenings. What it has proved (along with several Scottish and Welsh examples) is the unquestionable benefits a railway brings to a community, including connecting rural locations to the national network and urban centres. Also, costs can be reduced through SPEED, some of which would be replicated on a full reinstatement, like Borders.

 

[yorksrob]

No, very little was done in-house, some project management, and supply of materials. The South Rail Systems Alliance was the main supplier, plus some call-offs from other existing framework contracts.

Ah yes, having a framework agreement can save a lot of time on projects !

Does Okehampton really count as a development project, a reopening? I think too many parallels are being made between a real reopening of a line that has no track, and one that was kept to NR standards for public service.

The permanent way is only one aspect of the project, and one which would have still needed upgrade work anyway.

Nobody is saying Okehampton can be the full template for all reopenings. What it has proved (along with several Scottish and Welsh examples) is the unquestionable benefits a railway brings to a community, including connecting rural locations to the national network and urban centres. Also, costs can be reduced through SPEED, some of which would be replicated on a full reinstatement, like Borders.

Hear hear.

 

[Bald Rick]

. Even projects far simpler than Tavistock eg Fawley branch are taking a while.

I agree Project Speed is an admirable idea but it was not the main factor in the speed of Okehampton getting done.

Correct. It’s fair to say that the “JFDI” for Okehampton provided much info on what became Project SPEED. Having said that, much of SPEED was simply relearning what some of us used to do 15-20 years ago.

Also is Oakhampton really beating expectations? I remember someone, possibly Baldrich, posting that the passenger forecasting models were generally pretty accurate except they overestimate how long numbers take to build up. I.e. rather than taking 3 years to build up they happen within a year so years 1 and 2 see numbers beat official expectations but year 3 onwards are well predicted.

It will be interesting to see how the figures bear out over the years.

I remember reading some time ago that the County council already owns the trackbed, which would make land acquisition and planning less of an issue.

Land acquisition is a relatively straightforward part of the planning (consents) process. AIUI, DCC own most, but not all of the track bed. But, as ever, you don’t build a railway just by using a trackbed…

The planning issue is an interesting one. How much does trackbed ownership confer an advantage in the planning procesd.

Not much. It still needs to go through the same process, and still means anyone can object. Typically it is neighbours of the route that object, plus those who feel they need to make their point heard, rather than owners of the land the route is on per se. Land owners normally do very well out of a project, and are usually ‘bought out’ before the inquiry stage. Neighbours are less easy to satisfy (NIMBYs, literally); same with the ramblers / local groups, competition, BANANAs etc.

There is also the principle that you need primary consent to operate a public railway / guided transport system.

 

[yorksrob]

Correct. It’s fair to say that the “JFDI” for Okehampton provided much info on what became Project SPEED. Having said that, much of SPEED was simply relearning what some of us used to do 15-20 years ago.

Sounds like just what's needed to be honest.

Not much. It still needs to go through the same process, and still means anyone can object. Typically it is neighbours of the route that object, plus those who feel they need to make their point heard, rather than owners of the land the route is on per se. Land owners normally do very well out of a project, and are usually ‘bought out’ before the inquiry stage. Neighbours are less easy to satisfy (NIMBYs, literally); same with the ramblers / local groups, competition, BANANAs etc.

There is also the principle that you need primary consent to operate a public railway / guided transport system.

At least the route hasn't been given over to the ramblers.

 

[daodao]

At least the route hasn't been given over to the ramblers.

Meldon to Lydford has been made into a cycle path, so this former rail line should NEVER be restored.

 

[Bald Rick]

At least the route hasn't been given over to the ramblers.

They’ll still have plenty to say!

Another one to watch out for is the Tree people. There’s several million pounds worth of devegetation to do along that line before you even think of getting a bulldozer on it, and you can bet your last penny some of those trees will be special in some way, or be the homes to particularly rare species, and that will need a lot of paperwork

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has project SPEED been heard of since Boris Johnson lost his role in decision making?

 

[yorksrob]

They’ll still have plenty to say!

Another one to watch out for is the Tree people. There’s several million pounds worth of devegetation to do along that line before you even think of getting a bulldozer on it, and you can bet your last penny some of those trees will be special in some way, or be the homes to particularly rare species, and that will need a lot of paperwork

Well, it's not ancient woodland, so it can be relocated.

 

[muddythefish]

Nobody is saying Okehampton can be the full template for all reopenings. What it has proved (along with several Scottish and Welsh examples) is the unquestionable benefits a railway brings to a community, including connecting rural locations to the national network and urban centres. Also, costs can be reduced through SPEED, some of which would be replicated on a full reinstatement, like Borders.

Excellent post.

 

[DPWH2]

Meldon to Lydford has been made into a cycle path, so this former rail line should NEVER be restored.

That didn't stop Airdrie-Bathgate reopening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That didn't stop Airdrie-Bathgate reopening.

Remember that line and station openings in Scotland are decided upon by a different Government to that of England and that the Treasury are currently not in a philanthropic mood.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has project SPEED been heard of since Boris Johnson lost his role in decision making?

Yes. It is effectively the new ‘business as usual’.

Well, it's not ancient woodland, so it can be relocated.

I don’t think you mean relocated - that gets very, very expensive!

But trees so t need to be part of ancient woodland for there to be consents issues, as NR finds out very regularly through its devegetation programme.

 

[uglymonkey]

It used to be a double track mainline throught its length. There is plenty of space for a railway line and a cycle path along side ( with admittedly some deviation for a few passing loops). Cycle track runs alongside the disused track from Okehampton to Meldon if you wanted a look to see what it could look like.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When was the last time in recent time that this aspirational project was officially being discussed since the Kilbride 750 homes project did not proceed some years ago.

 

[Meerkat]

For the price of the rail reinstatement how much bus route improvement work could be done?
Work which would help lots of other bus services - ie P&R and hospital etc.
Re deveg etc the Tavistock extension would be through the Tamar Valley AONB, adding consent and objections issues. Even reinstating single track on an ex double track bed what are the chances of needing ugly (and expensive) cutting/embankment work to reach modern standards? How well was the line built, the twisty alignment doesn’t suggest they were throwing money at it? Probably some rare bats in that tunnel too!

 

[yorksrob]

You can't say that on the basis of the 1 year numbers which are avaialable (21/22) - you need a couple of years to assess the trend properly.

Equally, what isn't yet known is the impact on the other stations in the area which may now drop in use (or at least not return to pre-pandemic use levels) and the impact on the local bus services, which if you look at Borders as an example, it has decimated the X95 which used to run between Edinburgh and Carlisle - and the bus was, IIRC, run commercially, so we have the situation where a state subsidy has been put behind the railway and has resulted in the diminsihing of a commercially operated bus service - what if even half that subsidy had been given to the bus operator ? That would have been better for the taxpayer and resulted in an improved service.

I'm not sure it would have been. The X95 probably took longer than the train and was less comfortable. We shouldn't necessarily settle for poorer services just because they aew cheaper.

You clearly don't know much (if anything) about running a project. All projects run by balancing time / cost / quality - which means something has been compromised in order to do things "at speed", my bet (having been managing projects for well over a decade) is the budget - in other words money was thrown at it to get it done by a certain time.

I read that it was delivered £10m under budget, so your position on this project seems to be based more pn conjecture.

In terms of planning - ownership makes no difference whatsoever - and nor should it. The point about planning legilsation means that all submissions are treated equally and subject to the same assessment - it would be absolutely outrageous if a local council's planning applications were treated more favourably, or given a "free pass" (which you seem to think they should) than that of a private individual wishing to extend their house.

At the very least, owning the route might give them a head start in going through the process.

For the price of the rail reinstatement how much bus route improvement work could be done?
Work which would help lots of other bus services - ie P&R and hospital etc.

Fundamentally, you're talking roadworks, which don't seem to be much cheaper mile for mile than railway ones.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not sure it would have been.
...
so your position on this project seems to be based more pn conjecture.

ahem....

At the very least, owning the route might give them a head start in going through the process.

It doesn't. Although it does save time and therefore money as they don't have to acquire the trackbed first.

Fundamentally, you're talking roadworks, which don't seem to be much cheaper mile for mile than railway ones.

Roadworks are equivalent to railway p-way renewals, new P&R sites akin to stations, and new railway lines akin to brand new roads. Putting in a couple of bus gates and a new P&R would be in the same order of magnitude as, say, Marsh Barton station in Exeter (or Ashley Down in Bristol, Reading Green Park, etc). If all that was required to connect Tavistock was to build a new station on an operational line (average recently is £15/16m IIRC?) I'd say JFDI! but alas to connect Tavistock needs the equivalent of a new single-carriageway A road, such as the new Ely by-pass (Opened 2018 with follow-up works into 2019). That road cost £49m in the end.

https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass,

Why the Ely Southern Bypass project cost £13m more than planned

Pressure to complete the project as fast as possible contributed to the overspend

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

 

[yorksrob]

ahem....

It doesn't. Although it does save time and therefore money as they don't have to acquire the trackbed first.

Roadworks are equivalent to railway p-way renewals, new P&R sites akin to stations, and new railway lines akin to brand new roads. Putting in a couple of bus gates and a new P&R would be in the same order of magnitude as, say, Marsh Barton station in Exeter (or Ashley Down in Bristol, Reading Green Park, etc). If all that was required to connect Tavistock was to build a new station on an operational line (average recently is £15/16m IIRC?) I'd say JFDI! but alas to connect Tavistock needs the equivalent of a new single-carriageway A road, such as the new Ely by-pass (Opened 2018 with follow-up works into 2019). That road cost £49m in the end.

https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/travel-roads-and-parking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass,

Why the Ely Southern Bypass project cost £13m more than planned

Pressure to complete the project as fast as possible contributed to the overspend

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Although most new roads don't have an existing track bed with viaduct and tunnel already built.

 

[The Planner]

Although most new roads don't have an existing track bed with viaduct and tunnel already built.

Which have had no maintenance in multiple decades in the case of Tavistock. It will still need new drainage etc etc...its not a case of de veg and whacking some ballast down.

 

[zwk500]

Although most new roads don't have an existing track bed with viaduct and tunnel already built.

The viaduct is somewhat irrelevant as there's nowhere for the station to go on the far side of it.

 

[Bald Rick]

A good comparison is the Levenmouth line. About the same route length. Much more recently in use with a that has seen maintenance in the past 55 years, and of course no need for a major primary consent (DCO, TWAO, or act of Parliament). £116m with a midpoint of construction of 2022.

Tavistock would need a primary consent (FWIW, I think it will struggle to get that), and substantially more Civils work on the formation. And it would need to be priced at the mid point of construction, the earliest possible time of which is 5-6 years from now.

 

[yorksrob]

Which have had no maintenance in multiple decades in the case of Tavistock. It will still need new drainage etc etc...its not a case of de veg and whacking some ballast down.

It'll still be less than building from new. Given the existing viaduct is now apart of the AONB landscape and probably listed, wouldn't maintenance need to be undertaken anyway ? It's questionable as to whether all of this should come out of the railway budget. National Highways should have been maintaining it to a reasonable state to handover.

The viaduct is somewhat irrelevant as there's nowhere for the station to go on the far side of it.

You're thinking of the wrong viaduct.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It'll still be less than building from new. Given the existing viaduct is now apart of the AONB landscape and probably listed, wouldn't maintenance need to be undertaken anyway ? It's questionable as to whether all of this should come out of the railway budget. National Highways should have been maintaining it to a reasonable state to handover.

Have National Highways ever have been informed of any intimation that such officially referred-to handover had even reached a discussion stage?

 

[zwk500]

It'll still be less than building from new.

Rebuklding existing can be more expensive, although any worl would obviosuly be undertaken before the line reopens so the usual disruption costs don't apply.

Given the existing viaduct is now apart of the AONB landscape and probably listed, wouldn't maintenance need to be undertaken anyway ?

the maintenance required for a viaduct carrying a footpath is somewhat less than that for a viaduct carrying a railway.

It's questionable as to whether all of this should come out of the railway budget. National Highways should have been maintaining it to a reasonable state to handover.

Questionable certainly, but this is where the politicians would have to make major policy changes and while I'd support reallocation of bridges between road and rail as appropriate I don't see the DfT and Treasury having any interest in changing things.

You're thinking of the wrong viaduct.

Fair point, although the fact that you'd still have a viaduct even with the station on the edge of town isn't going to help the financials.

Have National Highways ever have been informed of any intimation that such officially referred-to handover had even reached a discussion stage?

Tbf that's not really the point. The question is whether NH were maintaining it to the agreed/appropriate level when it was in their care.