paul1609
Established Member
No but it is pedestrian compared to the approach from the East and complicated by the pathing over the single track Royal Albert Bridge beyond the junction at St Budeaux
-
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?
- Thread starter longylong
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Pedestrian maybe, but fortunately the section between junction and station is all double. I think you're overstating any problem here.
I would hazard a guess that, unlike me, you have never tried cycling from east to west in a Dutch polder! In winter, I can only describe it as like trying to cycle up a steep hill while freezing to death at the same time.
They had windmills there and now turbines, thousands, for a very good reason.
To get back £500 million over the lifetime of the project (at least within the timeframe that the cost/benefit calculation is done over) either each rock fall would need to be very costly and/or happen fairly frequently. For instance it would require 5 a year for 50 years costing £2 million a time just to get back the money spent (although there's the savings in maintenance of the rock fall prevention systems, so that's a fairly simplistic calculation, but that's likely to just be numbers in the + column in the business case and you'd still need a fair amount to get to, say, a figure of 1.5).
It is only proposed to fix part off the problem, isn't going to mean that there's likely to be a route to Plymouth all the time.
The Dawlish avoiding line (DAL) would cost about 3 times as much but would solve the rock fall problems, increase capacity (in that the stoppers could still use the coast route, which would then be easier to keep operational with fewer trains in), reduces journey times (by about 10-15 minutes quicker). There could even be scope for an inland station on the DAL which although may not have many services during normal operations could be a useful point to then replacement bus services from to some or all of the places along the existing line to reduce the impact when the line is closed.
The route via Okehampton would cost about twice as much but would make getting around but public transport in this area a lot better and if diversions were required for those heading to Plymouth/Cornwall the added delay would be fairly small, although South Devon would still be reliant on bus replacement of you for on a rail replacement bus you would more sure that you were going where you wanted and getting on/off the trains at Exeter would be a lot easier as only some of the passengers would be getting off (it's not ideal but very few places can avoid bus replacement services, even with the DAL option if there works at, say, Totnes there would still be a need to get everyone on to replacement buses and probably at Exeter due to the nature of a lot of the existing stations, again a station on the DAL could be useful in that regard) . It already has the best (published) business case so unless this new option has a better business case then many would be looking for one of the two favoured options.
If there was a way of improving the business case for either option then these should be looked at. I Fit the DAL the could include:
- a new station to generate extra passengers
- running more trains (maybe even looking at what benefits you gain by reinstating Waterloo - Paignton services)
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Likewise with the via Okehampton route, these could include:
- running through services between Plymouth and Waterloo, on the Western end of the WofE line (where there's an aspiration for more services), or on other services (XC and/or GWR running one or two services a day, mostly for staff training, which run as a pair of units to Exeter and then split to serve Paignton and Plymouth with the latter going via Okehampton. Such a service, if there was demand could possibly call at Okehampton and/Tavistock, giving direct connections to Bristol, Birmingham and beyond or Reading and London it could benefit tourism quite significant)
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification or some redoubling of the WofE line to provide for 2tph on the Western end) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Just because the first answer isn't quite as good as it should be to normal get funding shouldn't stop people from making suggestions which could result in the answer being better and therefore more likely to be built.
As I understand it the main problem with running through services on the new line would be the risk of a problem on the new line causing delays elsewhere. Although this is a real concern I do wonder how much of an impact it would really be and why this isn't cited as a good reason to split services (especially those like XC services which can get delays from all over the place). For instance if someone suggested that the WofE line services split at Yeovil so that the mostly single track line doesn't cause problems into Waterloo, those who suggested it would be shoot down in no uncertain terms. Yet proposing that changing from the existing situation where people change at Exeter for Plymouth from the WofE line is (epically bearing in mind that the route via Okehampton would involve a lot of double track with a lot of measures to try and ensure it's reliability and would be about 80 minutes of a circa 5 hour journey) so that there's through services is treated by some as a crazy idea and why would we do this.
Even though such a through service would make rail travel from a large area of Southern England to Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth a LOT more attractive than the existing options. I wonder if a service between Portsmouth and Cardiff didn't exist how much support that would receive of it were suggested, yet that is in need of longer trains.
As suggested above, if through services to Waterloo are too risky (or even in addition to them), there could be scope for XC services from Manchester or Leeds to be routed on the via Okehampton route. If this was paired with a unit that also run to Paignton then XC wouldn't miss out on much income (or could even have more) but would have a longer train running through their core. It would also mean that the via Okehampton route would directly benefit South Devon in that they would have more XC services. Such a service, with a station stop at Okehampton or Tavistock, could be very beneficial to the local tourist industry as it would be very much more on people's radar (in that it is much more on people's radar). It's likely that with a circa 65 minutes journey time it wouldn't be that much longer than the service to Paignton so there shouldn't be too much of a miss match of journey times between the two units (if needed the Paignton unit could run an extra shuttle up to Totnes and back).
So much of this potentially interesting post is unintelligible. I gave up a third the way through. Could you not re-read, correct and punctuate it so we have a chance of understanding it. I have asked you to do this previously, but you don't seem to agree with me that editing one's mistakes is needed.
Sorry, I did a bit of a brain dump and so it didn't flow very well, I'll try again in shorter sections below:
To get back £500 million project cost over the lifetime of the project (for example over a 50 year period) either each rock fall would need to be very costly and/or happen fairly frequently.
For instance it would require 5 rock falls each year over that 50 year period, with each one costing £2 million to clean up/in lost revenue to just get back the money spent.
It should be noted that although there would be savings in maintenance of the rock fall prevention systems which are already in place. This means that the above calculation is fairly simplistic.
However, even allowing for that benefit which will improve the business case you would still need a fair amount of maintenance savings to get to, say, a figure of 1:1.2 or higher.
Given that the out to sea option is only proposed to fix part off the problem (that being the rock fall issue), it will mean that that there's still going problems that could lead to the old route being blocked when either of the other "traditional" options wouldn't be blocked.
This compares with the other options which are summarised below.
The Dawlish avoiding line (DAL) would cost about 3 times as the sea option but in addition to solving the rock fall problems would :
- increase capacity (in that the stoppers could still use the coast route, which would then be easier to keep operational with fewer trains on).
- reduces journey times (by about 10-15 minutes quicker).
There could even be scope for an inland station on the DAL. Although this station may not have many services during normal operations it could be a useful point to run replacement bus services from.
This replacment bus service could be to some or to all of the places along the existing line from this station (either as a hub or as a point along the replacement bus service route so people are on buses for less time), so as to reduce the delay associated with running buses when the line is closed.
The route via Okehampton would cost about twice as much as the sea route. However it would make getting around by public transport in this area a lot better.
Also when diversions were required for those heading to Plymouth/Cornwall (with the train running via Okehampton) the added delay would be fairly small.
Although those heading to/from South Devon would still be reliant on bus replacement, however rail replacement buses would only be serving South Devon and so you would more sure that you were going where you wanted.
In addition when getting on/off the trains at Exeter it would be a lot easier as only some of the passengers would be doing so.
As such, although it's not ideal, very few places can avoid bus replacement services totally, even some fairly major places like Milton Keynes.
For instance even with the DAL option if there works at (say) Totnes there would still be a need to get everyone on to replacement buses. With this probably being done at Exeter due to the nature of a lot of the existing stations (although again a station on the DAL could be useful in that regard).
The via Okehampton route already has the best (published) business case so unless this new option has a better business case then many would still be looking at having one of the two favoured options go forward.
If there was a way of improving the business case for either option then these should be looked at. I think the DAL the could include the following options to improve the business cases:
- a new station to generate extra passengers
- running more trains (maybe, as an example, even looking at what benefits you gain by reinstating Waterloo - Paignton services)
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Likewise with the via Okehampton route, these could include:
- running through services between Plymouth and Waterloo, on the Western end of the WofE line (where there's an aspiration for more services)
- running through services on XC and/or GWR. Possibly running one or two services a day, mostly for staff training. Such a service, if there was demand could possibly call at Okehampton and/Tavistock, giving direct connections to Bristol, Birmingham and beyond or Reading and London.
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification or some redoubling of the WofE line to provide for 2tph on the Western end) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Just because the first answer isn't quite as good as it should be to normal get funding shouldn't stop people from making suggestions which could result in the answer being better and therefore more likely to be built.
As I understand it the main problem with running through services on the new line would be the risk of a problem on the new line causing delays elsewhere.
Although this is a real concern I do wonder how much of an impact it would really be and why this isn't cited as a good reason to split services (especially those like XC services which can get delays from all over the place).
For instance if someone suggested that the WofE line services split at Yeovil so that the mostly single track line doesn't cause problems into Waterloo, they would be shoot down in no uncertain terms.
Yet proposing that changing from the existing situation where people change at Exeter for Plymouth from the WofE line is (epically bearing in mind that the route via Okehampton would involve a lot of double track with a lot of measures to try and ensure it's reliability and would be about 80 minutes of a circa 5 hour journey) is treated by some as a crazy idea and why would we do this.
Even though such a through service would make rail travel from a large area of Southern England (either direct or with one change) to Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth a LOT more attractive than the existing options.
I wonder if a service between Portsmouth and Cardiff didn't exist how much support that would receive of it were suggested, yet now that service is in need of longer trains.
As suggested above, if through services to Waterloo are too risky (or even in addition to them), there could be scope for XC services from Manchester or Leeds to be routed on the via Okehampton route.
If this was paired with a unit (joining/splitting at Exeter) that also run to Paignton then XC wouldn't miss out on much income (or could even have more) but would have a longer train running through the XC core (i.e. 8-10 coaches to Exeter and then 4-5 coaches between Exeter and Plymouth/Paignton).
It would also mean that the via Okehampton route could directly benefit South Devon in that they would have more XC services.
Such a XC service, with a station stop at Okehampton or Tavistock, could be very beneficial to the local tourist industry as it would be very much more on people's radar (in that it would be seen on timetables, there would be station announcements and prior would go through it on the train).
It's likely that with a circa 65 minutes journey time between Exeter and Plymouth it wouldn't be that much longer than the other unit running the service to Paignton. This would mean there shouldn't be too much of a miss match of journey times between the two units (if needed the Paignton unit could run an extra shuttle service up to Totnes and back to get a closer connection time) for connecting the two units back together for a return journey from Exeter heading north.
To get back £500 million project cost over the lifetime of the project (for example over a 50 year period) either each rock fall would need to be very costly and/or happen fairly frequently.
For instance it would require 5 rock falls each year over that 50 year period, with each one costing £2 million to clean up/in lost revenue to just get back the money spent.
It should be noted that although there would be savings in maintenance of the rock fall prevention systems which are already in place. This means that the above calculation is fairly simplistic.
However, even allowing for that benefit which will improve the business case you would still need a fair amount of maintenance savings to get to, say, a figure of 1:1.2 or higher.
Given that the out to sea option is only proposed to fix part off the problem (that being the rock fall issue), it will mean that that there's still going problems that could lead to the old route being blocked when either of the other "traditional" options wouldn't be blocked.
This compares with the other options which are summarised below.
The Dawlish avoiding line (DAL) would cost about 3 times as the sea option but in addition to solving the rock fall problems would :
- increase capacity (in that the stoppers could still use the coast route, which would then be easier to keep operational with fewer trains on).
- reduces journey times (by about 10-15 minutes quicker).
There could even be scope for an inland station on the DAL. Although this station may not have many services during normal operations it could be a useful point to run replacement bus services from.
This replacment bus service could be to some or to all of the places along the existing line from this station (either as a hub or as a point along the replacement bus service route so people are on buses for less time), so as to reduce the delay associated with running buses when the line is closed.
The route via Okehampton would cost about twice as much as the sea route. However it would make getting around by public transport in this area a lot better.
Also when diversions were required for those heading to Plymouth/Cornwall (with the train running via Okehampton) the added delay would be fairly small.
Although those heading to/from South Devon would still be reliant on bus replacement, however rail replacement buses would only be serving South Devon and so you would more sure that you were going where you wanted.
In addition when getting on/off the trains at Exeter it would be a lot easier as only some of the passengers would be doing so.
As such, although it's not ideal, very few places can avoid bus replacement services totally, even some fairly major places like Milton Keynes.
For instance even with the DAL option if there works at (say) Totnes there would still be a need to get everyone on to replacement buses. With this probably being done at Exeter due to the nature of a lot of the existing stations (although again a station on the DAL could be useful in that regard).
The via Okehampton route already has the best (published) business case so unless this new option has a better business case then many would still be looking at having one of the two favoured options go forward.
If there was a way of improving the business case for either option then these should be looked at. I think the DAL the could include the following options to improve the business cases:
- a new station to generate extra passengers
- running more trains (maybe, as an example, even looking at what benefits you gain by reinstating Waterloo - Paignton services)
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Likewise with the via Okehampton route, these could include:
- running through services between Plymouth and Waterloo, on the Western end of the WofE line (where there's an aspiration for more services)
- running through services on XC and/or GWR. Possibly running one or two services a day, mostly for staff training. Such a service, if there was demand could possibly call at Okehampton and/Tavistock, giving direct connections to Bristol, Birmingham and beyond or Reading and London.
- a way of reducing costs
- combining it with another project (say electrification or some redoubling of the WofE line to provide for 2tph on the Western end) to see if the combination gives a better answer.
Just because the first answer isn't quite as good as it should be to normal get funding shouldn't stop people from making suggestions which could result in the answer being better and therefore more likely to be built.
As I understand it the main problem with running through services on the new line would be the risk of a problem on the new line causing delays elsewhere.
Although this is a real concern I do wonder how much of an impact it would really be and why this isn't cited as a good reason to split services (especially those like XC services which can get delays from all over the place).
For instance if someone suggested that the WofE line services split at Yeovil so that the mostly single track line doesn't cause problems into Waterloo, they would be shoot down in no uncertain terms.
Yet proposing that changing from the existing situation where people change at Exeter for Plymouth from the WofE line is (epically bearing in mind that the route via Okehampton would involve a lot of double track with a lot of measures to try and ensure it's reliability and would be about 80 minutes of a circa 5 hour journey) is treated by some as a crazy idea and why would we do this.
Even though such a through service would make rail travel from a large area of Southern England (either direct or with one change) to Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth a LOT more attractive than the existing options.
I wonder if a service between Portsmouth and Cardiff didn't exist how much support that would receive of it were suggested, yet now that service is in need of longer trains.
As suggested above, if through services to Waterloo are too risky (or even in addition to them), there could be scope for XC services from Manchester or Leeds to be routed on the via Okehampton route.
If this was paired with a unit (joining/splitting at Exeter) that also run to Paignton then XC wouldn't miss out on much income (or could even have more) but would have a longer train running through the XC core (i.e. 8-10 coaches to Exeter and then 4-5 coaches between Exeter and Plymouth/Paignton).
It would also mean that the via Okehampton route could directly benefit South Devon in that they would have more XC services.
Such a XC service, with a station stop at Okehampton or Tavistock, could be very beneficial to the local tourist industry as it would be very much more on people's radar (in that it would be seen on timetables, there would be station announcements and prior would go through it on the train).
It's likely that with a circa 65 minutes journey time between Exeter and Plymouth it wouldn't be that much longer than the other unit running the service to Paignton. This would mean there shouldn't be too much of a miss match of journey times between the two units (if needed the Paignton unit could run an extra shuttle service up to Totnes and back to get a closer connection time) for connecting the two units back together for a return journey from Exeter heading north.
I'm a bit surprised that there's been no response to the suggestion of using the via Okehampton route to improve connectivity to South Devon by splitting a XC service at Exeter. Given that one of the gripes about the via Okehampton option was that it wouldn't at all benefit South Devon, for those that missed it:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
lol, if you want a response... I'm afraid mine isn't very favourable. Trundling round small towns and villages is really not what Cross-Country is there for. It's there to run high-ish speed long-distance services between major centres. The trains Cross-Country uses on the Leeds/etc.-Devon/Cornwall route would simply not be suitable for the kind of local journeys that Okehampton would mostly see. It'd be great to see the line via Okehampton re-opened, but if it did, the services you'd want to be running on it would be local Plymouth-Exeter services. At a pinch, perhaps extended to Exmouth or Axminster.
In my view, a higher priority should be providing a faster Exeter-Plymouth line. That would solve the political issue of only one link to the West Country, and more importantly, benefit virtually the whole of Cornwall and Plymouth by providing a quicker link to the rest of the country, as well as attracting Plymouth-Exeter commuters who would currently by put off by the absurdly long travel times between two major cities barely 40 miles apart. And that's the line that Cross-Country services ought to be using (if it was ever built). The Okehampton route will only really benefit people travelling to/from intermediate stops along the line - which won't exactly be a huge number of passengers.
Fair enough.
There two things I would point out though. Firstly although Okehampton isn't very big, neither is Totnes and the main reason for the call on the latter is to connect with services to Paignton, by diverting the Plymouth passengers via Okehampton it then allows XC to serve Paignton directly.
Secondly, although seen as a longer route the NR proposal for the Via Okehampton route would give a broadly comparable journey time to the existing route we running fast/with one stop, as the route was significantly improved over a basic reconnection. As such the time penalty for one or two XC services a day going that way would be fairly small.
I think that most people would take the view that of the three options (the out to sea route, the via Okehampton route and the Dawlish Avoiding Line) that very few (any?) would favour the out to sea route.
I agree that running all XC services via Okehampton is perhaps over egging it (although perhaps sending a few that way a day might give better connections to places like Tavistock and North Devon in general), I do feel that the best option for the route would be to extend the Waterloo service that way, at least to some extent. This would enable the route to be better at connecting Devon to the South of England, and would provide those from that part of Devon an option for getting to London without changing trains (which is useful to some people in some circumstances).
Assuming multiple unit working won't be disappearing from the WoE mainline anytime soon, this could easily be portion working.
Its important to recognise it isn't an either/or game. The existing route must be safeguarded in the short to medium term, that's a political and economic necessity, even if in the longer picture a new inland route appears, and even then, the coast line will have to remain, to retain any kind of useful service to the towns of Dawlish and Teignmouth. Much of the sea wall defences will continue to be required to protect those settlements anyway. I can support the protection works looked at this way, but it doesn't improve the route to the far west in any significant way apart from resilience to the worst excesses of the weather and particularly the cliff fall problem which is probably a greater risk than undermining of the sea wall itself. I have seen the consequences of a major cliff failure in similar geology not far from me in Torquay and if that happened along the coast line the consequences would be catastrophic. An estimated 100,000 tonnes of the soft red sandstone and earth cliff, actually behind a sea wall defence so not being directly undermined, fell onto Oddicombe beach in 2013 taking a once very expensive (although already abandoned) house on top of the cliff with it. That end of the beach and parts of the road above still remain off limits today. It's the other end of the beach, away from the Babbacombe Cliff Railway luckily. That sits on much more stable ground!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ome-collapsed-sea-evacuated-safety-fears.html
An interesting blog post https://www.dawlishbeach.com/2018/05/the-dawlish-myth/ about the dawlish line.
also couldnt find the original thread about a diverted line but this blog post is a good read
also couldnt find the original thread about a diverted line but this blog post is a good read
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suggest that you wouldn't necessarily need to build the it to sea route.
As even with a significant land slip you may have the line closed for a period of time but there would still be a route around.
It's where the Dawlish Avoiding Line would work better as you could have an inland station to run shuttle buses between it and the coastal towns. However you would also knock up to 15 minutes of journey times for long distance passengers.
The slight irony is that this new out to sea route appears to have it's business case solely built on resilience which neither of the other options were allowed to do, even though they would be able to provide the same benefits for some of the services.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This sounds like one of those times when the business case collides with affordability. Sometimes the decision is made to build something with a worse BCR simply because it is cheaper and the government doesn't think it is reasonable to spend the extra money. It also ducks the question of closing the three coastal stations, which your post implies and would certainly raise a howl of protest whether objectively justifiable or not.
The running of shuttle buses from an inland station was in the context of a major landslip closing the existing line for a period, not a permanent solution. It wasn't overly clear though so I can see why you assumed what you did.
Plans confirmed to extend Dawlish line out to sea - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.de...ans-confirmed-extend-dawlish-line-1583106.amp
Already picked up on post #166
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...en-exeter-plymouth.143927/page-6#post-3466951
Network Rail has confirmed it's hoping to build a 400m (1,300ft) causeway near Teignmouth, 30m built about 30 yards out to sea.
The causeway option would see the line rebuild from the tunnel at Smugglers’ Lane, out on to the beach past Spray Point, and then would curve back in land towards Teignmouth. It now appears that they are going to press ahead with that option which could cost up to £500m. So don't expect to see the Okehampton route reopen as a through line any time soon if ever.
The causeway option would see the line rebuild from the tunnel at Smugglers’ Lane, out on to the beach past Spray Point, and then would curve back in land towards Teignmouth. It now appears that they are going to press ahead with that option which could cost up to £500m. So don't expect to see the Okehampton route reopen as a through line any time soon if ever.
Has Network Rail actually confirmed this?
The NR press release states:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...s-to-safeguard-vital-route-to-the-south-west/
It would certainly kill the Dawlish Avoiding Line, but given that NR haven't mentioned it (nor the DfT or Grayling). How reliable is the news story (re)quoted (given it has been linked to previously), especially given that the NR press release talks about them starting to do survey work (we think it will cost £500 million, but we've yet to survey the sea bed, so it may not be viable if the sea bed is found to be fairly unstable).
Also NR could say that it's deliverable yet the politicians could decide that they want (and fund the difference) for one of the other options.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Given the almost complete lack of any interest being shown in those other options by politicians I would suggest that your suggestion of another outcome is now extremely unlikely to happen. And Grayling isn't interested in covering the cost overruns on electrification so he's hardly going to look for anything other than the cheapest option here either, unless the business case, however it is measured, for one of those alternatives turns out to be hugely better than what Network Rail is now progressing. As for the sea bed I think it's more about gaining a better understanding of the tidal currents than anything else. We've built massive oil rigs to withstand far worse conditions than off-shore storm swells.
As you say “It would certainly kill the Dawlish Avoiding Line”, because politically in Devon that's what it's all about really. Just ask the very influential conservative Newton Abbot MP Anne Marie Morrison who effectively rules the railway roust in Devon.
She constantly pushed the view that any new line would inevitably lead to the coast line closing or being downgraded in some way. That is nonsense as two routes would work together and provide opportunity to vastly improve local services for her constituents in Dawlish and Teignmouth, while expresses could zip past them on the avoider, significantly reducing the travelling time to Exeter and beyond for another set of her constituents in Newton Abbot. Fewer fast trains would also be passing through Dawlish and Teignmouth without stopping which would reduce noise and vibration nuisance in the two towns which by neccesity are closely clustered around the railway.
I agree, especially given that there's going to be more trains which could mean more noise for the locals. Divert these into the Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) and there would be a reduction in fast trains.
Also bearing in mind that the closure of the line would still leave the sea wall in place which if NR were going to abandon would also require several properties to also be abandoned.
In fact it could be possible (with either alternative route, i.e. via Okehampton or DAL) to run more services which called at the likes of Dawlish. Which would benefit those residents of those towns further.
The line between Smuggler’s cove and Teignmouth is closely confined at the base of the 90-metre cliffs. Moving the track seaward allows for the provision of a cliff buttress that would protect the cliff, preventing slip failure as happened in 2014. Not surprisingly then primarily under pressure from Newton Abbott conservative MP Anne Marie Morrison and her Teignbridge constituents the governments preferred option is to move the track alignment seaward by 30m onto a reclaimed foundation, protected by a rock revetment coastal defence.
The BBC reports survey work is already underway in preparation to realign the route between Dawlish and Teignmouth and If full funding of up to £500 million is approved, then the scheme could be completed by 2021. So why is the government suddenly in such a hurry here? Well remember the government is only holding on to power thanks to just 10 DUP votes, so come the next general election they could easily be swept from office and rail priorities in Devon could change. Jeremy Corbyn on a recent visit to Plymouth has already indicated he favours a faster more direct inland alternative!
Is there a link for the BBC article?
It's hysterical in the extreme for anyone to suggest that a reopening via Okehampton would represent an existential threat to the mainline. They are both similar lengths and complement each other by way of serving different areas of Devon.
My local BBC southwest news reported it on the 18th May but I can't find the link. That's why on May 18th the Plymouth Evening Herald said that ‘The BBC reports survey work is already underway in preparation to realign the route between Dawlish and Teignmouth’.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/network-rail-wants-move-plymouth-1584101
Also the May 2018 Rail magazine RAIL 852 published this article as well. So clearly something big is brewing.
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...ension-plan-to-offer-extra-dawlish-resilience
Deafdoggie
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 3,092
The general consensus seems to be that we build a new line and improve the existing line (if we don't improve it, it will fall into the sea along with Dawlish and Teignmouth.) with existing stopping trains as they are now, and non-stop trains on the new route. The trouble is virtually all the trains call at Newton Abbot, so there doesn't seem any trains to go the other way. XC certainly don't have any spare trains, and every other suggestion on here for a change to anything, is met with "No spare trains" so I don't see where these will come from, other than being budgeted for in the cost of rebuilding the line. Thus making the line more expensive and therefore less likely. I guess Newton Abbot could reduce services, but they are already very busy and I can't see that being a popular move locally.
The cliff and sea defences are going to have to be done anyway, to protect Dawlish and Teignmouth, so a new line is just pure expense. Whereas the current line gains from the expense that has to happen anyway.
I am happy with any new openings, but we have to be realistic, Lets get Okehampton back on the rail map properly first, and see what demand that meets.
The cliff and sea defences are going to have to be done anyway, to protect Dawlish and Teignmouth, so a new line is just pure expense. Whereas the current line gains from the expense that has to happen anyway.
I am happy with any new openings, but we have to be realistic, Lets get Okehampton back on the rail map properly first, and see what demand that meets.
- Status