• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Any news on proposals to build an alternative route between Exeter & Plymouth?

Status
Not open for further replies.

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
I think to justify a "new" route, you would need it to serve new areas, rather than just relying on increased resilience/speed. That's why I think Okehampton is more likely.
Unless you were looking to make high speed (non-stop) running part of the business case. (e.g. HS2 doesn't serve new areas, though it does offer faster journey times and free up capacity on the southern WCML)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Aren't those more properly called groynes?
Breakwaters are large structures out in the sea that offer protection from the weather (paricularly useful at ports or harbours), and may be connected to the shore at one end:
Barry_Docks_Entrance_outer_harbour_wall_-_geograph.org.uk_-_781779.jpg

Barry Docks Breakwater

Groynes, on the other hand, are smaller structures built out perpendicularly from the shore that reduce the movement of sediment along the shore (longshore drift):
Grain%2C_groynes_-_geograph.org.uk_-_558796.jpg

Groynes in the Medway

Though the Yanks have an interesting way of spelling the latter:
North_Carolina_road_sign_warning_of_SUBMERGED_GROIN.jpg

American sign warning of a "submerged groin" nearby.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,687
Location
Devon
Breakwaters reduce the affects of (a)longshore drift - ie coastal erosion. Well placed breakwaters will also assist with building up the beach in critical places.
I get that Eastdyke and I understand their purpose, my father before he retired from the Environment Agency was involved in working on sea defence projects around the country and also lives in Teignmouth next to the river. We talk about this a lot...
What I was asking is are they to be extended or made more substantial - i.e higher/longer etc?
I was looking at a photo I took last year of the one at Langstone Rock and there’s a fair sized chunk missing out of it near the tip that needs repairing.
It’s also interesting to note that a natural tunnel through the rock behind it is partially closed off with concrete to stop it being scoured out more. Some other caves in the tunnel section between Dawlish and Teignmouth have had the same treatment.
 
Last edited:

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
I get that Eastdyke and I understand their purpose, my father before he retired from the Environment Agency was involved in working on sea defence projects around the country and also lives in Teignmouth next to the river. We talk about this a lot...
What I was asking is are they to be extended or made more substantial - i.e higher/longer etc?
I was looking at a photo I took last year of the one at Langstone Rock and there’s a fair sized chunk missing out of it near the tip that needs repairing.
It’s also interesting to note that a natural tunnel through the rock behind it is partially closed off with concrete to stop it being scoured out more. Some other caves in the tunnel section between Dawlish and Teignmouth have had the same treatment.
How interesting. Have now seen pictures on the web of the damage at Langstone Rock. Have never been but am awaiting to find a window to stay with my brother who has recently moved to Plymouth. Dawlish is No.1 visit!
AIUI NR are spending £2million over the 'winter' to repair the existing 'breakwaters' at Langstone Rock, Coastguards Point, Colonnade Underpass and Boat Cove. No 'new' structures are proposed.
The further £15million to be spent in the study over the next 12 months will no doubt include options for new defences and cliff protection alongside alternative route possibilites.
For those who want to look at the geology there is a 2014 piece by Ian West, Romsey, Hampshire and Visiting Scientist at: Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences,
Southampton University
.
It has quite a difficult layout to read but includes quite a bit about the affects of the railway on the coast.
The structures to be repaired by NR are variously referred to as 'breakwaters' and 'groynes' ;)
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Teignmouth-Dawlish.htm
A tiny extract (from 2014), there are a few typos:
...... Thus the sea-wall fails at irregular intervals, usually separated by about a decade or several decades. There is no major deposit of beach sand remaining in The Sea Lawn Gap Area (Sea Lawn Terrace and Riviera Terrace etc.). The matter is not helped by the fact that even the lower footpath, a narrow concrete platform at the base of the sea wall, is absent there. Suprisingly, too, there is housing closer to the sea here than almost anywhere else in the region. Indeed some house seem to have been built here, very close to the sea wall and railway even in the quite recent past.

This part of the coast seems to have been a subject of optimism or lack of serious concern since the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Of course, as long as there is a railway there and there an no alternative route around Okehampton or elsewhere, it will presumably be maintained as a sea-wall, even in spite of global warming and potential sea-level rise. The present damage should be repaired within a few weeks. It is not known whether there are any plans to place major rock armour in front. That has happened long ago at erosion risk areas, adjacent to the railway line at Dawlish Warren and at Smugglers' Lane, Holcombe. If rock armour is not added, then perhaps the sea wall and railway line will be broken again sooner or later.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
I believe that is the correct term.

The other work NR have been looking onto recently is to move the alignment a little further out to sea for a km or so near Teignmouth to tackle the major risk of cliff collapse in this area.
That will be a hell of a job but may help to increase the 60mph speed limit off the seawall into Teignmouth station for non stopping trains.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,673
Location
Leeds
Another press release

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...otect-vital-railway-artery-to-the-south-west/

Network Rail’s South West Rail Resilience Programme held its first community drop-in session last week (Tuesday 30 October) to update residents and the local community on ongoing work to improve the resilience of the railway between Dawlish and Teignmouth in Devon.

The event, held at Dawlish Methodist Church, saw hundreds of people attend over the course of three hours, in which representatives from Network Rail along with world-leading engineers in coastal, tunnel, cliff and railway engineering provided an update on the detailed studies that they have been conducted, and continue to undertake, along the railway line between Teignmouth and Dawlish.

These studies are helping to determine what is happening to the cliffs and coastline so long-term solutions can be considered. These options will help to protect this vital rail artery, which serves communities and businesses in South Devon and Cornwall, and connects the region to the rest of the UK.

During the session, plans to repair and enhance four breakwaters at Dawlish, announced on 29 October, were outlined in detail as well as potential work to strengthen the Dawlish sea wall.

Julie Gregory. senior commercial scheme sponsor on the project for Network Rail, said: “It was great to see and engage with so many residents from Dawlish and the local area. We hope many of their questions have been answered, giving a better understanding of the scale of process that we are undertaking.

“This iconic stretch of railway is an important part of the community and wider South West region, and so we are working closely with the Environment Agency, Marine Management Organisation, Teignbridge District Council and Department for Transport. As part of this process we are undertaking and analysing extensive geological, marine and environmental studies to identify the most effective engineering solutions to protect the line.

“We are also implementing more immediate works to secure the integrity of breakwaters at Dawlish, which will help to protect both the railway line and the town from coastal erosion.”

Such is the scale and importance of the challenge that Network Rail has established a dedicated South West Rail Resilience Programme to identify and implement the best options to help improve the resilience of this iconic stretch of railway. The aim of the programme is to protect against a repetition of the events of 2014 when the line was closed for eight weeks after extreme weather washed away the seawall and a massive landslide blocked the railway with 20,000 tonnes of material.

The damage caused by the extreme weather in 2014 cost £50m to repair and caused significant disruption to residents up and down the line, visitors and businesses that use and rely on the line.

Two further community drop-in events will be held in Holcombe and Teignmouth on the following dates:
  • Wednesday 7 November – Teignmouth Library – 19A Fore St, Teignmouth TQ14 8DY from 16.00-19.00
  • Thursday 15 November – Holcombe Village Hall, Holcombe from 16.00-19.00
Longer-term options for making the railway more resilient in this region will be presented to the public, local councils and government in spring/summer 2019 once analysis of the engineering studies has been completed. In response to feedback at the Dawlish drop-in last week additional information on some of the possible options will be shown at the Teignmouth and Holcombe events.

More information about the South West Rail Resilience Programme can be found at @SouthWestRRP on Twitter or Facebook.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
275
It is somewhat obvious this project needs to happen at some point. Therefore why do they (as always) insist on dragging feet over getting his project off the ground.

It would be cheaper to get this done and dusted now, than in 10 years time.
 
Last edited:

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
It is somewhat obvious this project needs to happen at some point. Therefore why do they (as always) insist on dragging feet over getting his project off the ground.

It would be cheaper to get this done and dusted now, than in 10 years time.
I think the preferred method is to have at least a dozen consultations, inquiries and studies, the cumulative cost of which would have paid to actually build it.

The last study is the one that decides it is too expensive and cancels it.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
275
I think the preferred method is to have at least a dozen consultations, inquiries and studies, the cumulative cost of which would have paid to actually build it.

The last study is the one that decides it is too expensive and cancels it.

Totally agree with that.

The problem with this country is that we continually talk about getting things (projects) done, however these are either never progressed, or are poorly executed and over budget. Can we never get anything right?

What does annoy me, is that we are only talking about a mere 20 miles of track re-instatement here to bring a second route into operation. With Tavistock eventually coming back onto the network, this figure will be even less.

It will also open up more of North Devon and Cornwall to rail access.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,265
It is somewhat obvious this project needs to happen at some point. Therefore why do they (as always) insist on dragging feet over getting his project off the ground...
An alternative route is not at all ‘obvious’ to anyone who is required to consider the costs. That is the issue.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Err, what?

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

How could a train (or trains) have done that better? Or even a bus? Surely an electric car would be the most effective and efficient mode of transport for this?
perhaps you have to decide that this is an unsustainable lifestyle long term
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
I think the preferred method is to have at least a dozen consultations, inquiries and studies, the cumulative cost of which would have paid to actually build it.

Not really. A study might cost a few hundred thousand pounds. Actually building a new line will typically cost a few hundred million pounds - maybe a thousand times as much as a study. With those kinds of figures, it arguably does make a lot of financial sense to do studies before you make a decision that could turn out to be a very expensive mistake.

I wonder if the problem is, rather, that studies get organised because of political pressure to build something, but without any firm commitment of funds to build it. So, even if the study comes out saying that X would be a great idea with a brilliant business case and money well spent, nothing happens because there wasn't actually any money available to build it in the first place. Hence nothing is done, and then several years later the first study is now out of date so some local authority etc. comes up with the money for a more up to date study, but it's still a bit pointless because there's no money there to build the thing no matter what the study is going to say. I'm not sure what the solution to that merry-go-round is. Perhaps it's inevitable because you need the studies in order to drum up potential support from the Government?

Totally agree with that.

The problem with this country is that we continually talk about getting things (projects) done, however these are either never progressed, or are poorly executed and over budget. Can we never get anything right?

That's not a problem with this country. It'a s fundamental problem that big infrastructure projects are complicated, and it's virtually impossible to know before you start building something what problems are going to be encountered when you build it. Same thing happens across the World. And exactly the same thing happens even with smaller commercial projects - things like updating a corporate IT system and so on. Sometimes people need to just accept that projects are complicated and too often we tend to get disappointed because we simply have unrealistic expectations about how definite it's possible to be about costs and delivery dates upfront.

What does annoy me, is that we are only talking about a mere 20 miles of track re-instatement here to bring a second route into operation. With Tavistock eventually coming back onto the network, this figure will be even less.

It will also open up more of North Devon and Cornwall to rail access.

'only 20 miles' of track is still hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
 

snakeeyes

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2011
Messages
213
Not really. A study might cost a few hundred thousand pounds. Actually building a new line will typically cost a few hundred million pounds - maybe a thousand times as much as a study. With those kinds of figures, it arguably does make a lot of financial sense to do studies before you make a decision that could turn out to be a very expensive mistake.

I wonder if the problem is, rather, that studies get organised because of political pressure to build something, but without any firm commitment of funds to build it. So, even if the study comes out saying that X would be a great idea with a brilliant business case and money well spent, nothing happens because there wasn't actually any money available to build it in the first place. Hence nothing is done, and then several years later the first study is now out of date so some local authority etc. comes up with the money for a more up to date study, but it's still a bit pointless because there's no money there to build the thing no matter what the study is going to say. I'm not sure what the solution to that merry-go-round is. Perhaps it's inevitable because you need the studies in order to drum up potential support from the Government?



That's not a problem with this country. It'a s fundamental problem that big infrastructure projects are complicated, and it's virtually impossible to know before you start building something what problems are going to be encountered when you build it. Same thing happens across the World. And exactly the same thing happens even with smaller commercial projects - things like updating a corporate IT system and so on. Sometimes people need to just accept that projects are complicated and too often we tend to get disappointed because we simply have unrealistic expectations about how definite it's possible to be about costs and delivery dates upfront.



'only 20 miles' of track is still hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
The Borders Railway was only £10 million per mile so £200 million isn't a massive sum compared to some infrastructure project's.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,069
That will be a hell of a job but may help to increase the 60mph speed limit off the seawall into Teignmouth station for non stopping trains.
Thinking long-term, I'm not sure this is a sensible investment, putting the railway line even further out towards deeper water.
Trains of any type don't mix well with sea-water, and either on the current sea front or 20 or 100 yards further out it's not going to get any better in the future. I doubt whether we could put a tube over the line that could withstand the weather. In fact with Global warming and the consequent sea-level rise these plans look more than a bit Canute-ish (even though he is misrepresented and was trying to show he couldn't control the tide.)
I would go for
1) reinforce the current sea wall at its foot and maybe also put big rock breakwaters (in the usual sense of the word) parallel with the shore however far out is appropriate. The sea bed shelves quite gently there according to my OS maps.
2) recognise that the line will be unusable at high tide in certain weather conditions, and have good road transport back-up organised and ready
3) reinstate another line that will allow through traffic to continue in these conditions. Exeter to Newton Abbott might be possible at high cost or sacrificing speed, but I would say this is where the old LSWR would tick several boxes.
I recognise that this doesn't address the landslide risk though.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
Thinking long-term, I'm not sure this is a sensible investment, putting the railway line even further out towards deeper water.
Trains of any type don't mix well with sea-water, and either on the current sea front or 20 or 100 yards further out it's not going to get any better in the future. I doubt whether we could put a tube over the line that could withstand the weather. In fact with Global warming and the consequent sea-level rise these plans look more than a bit Canute-ish (even though he is misrepresented and was trying to show he couldn't control the tide.)
I would go for
1) reinforce the current sea wall at its foot and maybe also put big rock breakwaters (in the usual sense of the word) parallel with the shore however far out is appropriate. The sea bed shelves quite gently there according to my OS maps.
2) recognise that the line will be unusable at high tide in certain weather conditions, and have good road transport back-up organised and ready
3) reinstate another line that will allow through traffic to continue in these conditions. Exeter to Newton Abbott might be possible at high cost or sacrificing speed, but I would say this is where the old LSWR would tick several boxes.
I recognise that this doesn't address the landslide risk though.
None of that would help a great deal with the rock-fall and landslide risk the move in alignment is designed to mitigate. As you note the sea bed shelves very gently there, so the railway isn't being moved into significantly deeper water. Sure there's a risk that the sea level will rise to badly affect the railway, but that's unlikely for 50 years or so, and if it happens then you'll want to spend the big bucks then. In the meantime a robust engineering solution to the actual problems the line and towns along it are experiencing year-to-year seems like a worthwhile activity.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Totally agree with that.

The problem with this country is that we continually talk about getting things (projects) done, however these are either never progressed, or are poorly executed and over budget. Can we never get anything right?

What does annoy me, is that we are only talking about a mere 20 miles of track re-instatement here to bring a second route into operation. With Tavistock eventually coming back onto the network, this figure will be even less.

It will also open up more of North Devon and Cornwall to rail access.
Someone posted that it was only 5.5 miles between both ends which made me think that it would only cost as much as the 2014 repair of £50M as it is only about £10m a mile to reinstate single track but that is wrong from what you say. It is 20 miles.
 
Last edited:

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
The Borders Railway was only £10 million per mile so £200 million isn't a massive sum compared to some infrastructure project's.
Borders railway was £286m for 31 miles but some substantial bridges and tunnels had to be built including diverting the Edinburgh Southern Bypass to build a tunnel and reinstating it afterwards at Sherrifhall, a longish tunnel under the A7 at Falahill where they run almost parallel, a substantial skew bridge over the A7 at Gore Glen and building a viaduct over the A7 at Hardengreen as well as 7 new stations. The false start cost an additional £40m.

Only Tavistock would need a new station and fewer bridges and viaducts and no tunnels.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Borders railway was £286m for 31 miles but some substantial bridges and tunnels had to be built including diverting the Edinburgh Southern Bypass to build a tunnel and reinstating it afterwards at Sherrifhall, a longish tunnel under the A7 at Falahill where they run almost parallel, a substantial skew bridge over the A7 at Gore Glen and building a viaduct over the A7 at Hardengreen as well as 7 new stations. The false start cost an additional £40m.

Only Tavistock would need a new station and fewer bridges and viaducts and no tunnels.

We’ve had this discussion before. It wasn’t £286m. I’ve seen the final account.

In current money, including all costs, it was around £450m.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It wasn’t. In current prices it was over £15m/mile.

If it was that price when it was built, that was what it cost.

The fact that prices keep increasing seems to be an argument for getting on and building something, rather than procrastinating.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Thinking long-term, I'm not sure this is a sensible investment, putting the railway line even further out towards deeper water.
Trains of any type don't mix well with sea-water, and either on the current sea front or 20 or 100 yards further out it's not going to get any better in the future. I doubt whether we could put a tube over the line that could withstand the weather. In fact with Global warming and the consequent sea-level rise these plans look more than a bit Canute-ish (even though he is misrepresented and was trying to show he couldn't control the tide.)
I would go for
1) reinforce the current sea wall at its foot and maybe also put big rock breakwaters (in the usual sense of the word) parallel with the shore however far out is appropriate. The sea bed shelves quite gently there according to my OS maps.
2) recognise that the line will be unusable at high tide in certain weather conditions, and have good road transport back-up organised and ready
3) reinstate another line that will allow through traffic to continue in these conditions. Exeter to Newton Abbott might be possible at high cost or sacrificing speed, but I would say this is where the old LSWR would tick several boxes.
I recognise that this doesn't address the landslide risk though.


I'd build a tunnel...............

Isn't that what the Swiss would do if it was a mountain in the way ?. I'd just gradually drop the lines down into a (lengthy) tunnel and come up the other end into some nice dry conditions.

Simples !
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
275
If it was that price when it was built, that was what it cost.

The fact that prices keep increasing seems to be an argument for getting on and building something, rather than procrastinating.

I agree.

It is obvious that a number of rail schemes will one day, eventually happen. It makes more sense to get on with them now, rather than in X years time when prices have increased further, making the "business case" even less viable.

Why on earth Government can't just commit £1bn a year for X number of years solely for re-openings is beyond me, especially when they CAN seem to commit XX Billions towards new road schemes on a whim.

£1bn a year would get at least two reopening projects a year, off the ground. This money would be spent once feasibility studies have been carried out, completed and shown to be a "positive case".
 
Last edited:

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
I agree.

It is obvious that a number of rail schemes will one day, eventually happen. It makes more sense to get on with them now, rather than in X years time when prices have increased further, making the "business case" even less viable.

Why on earth Government can't just commit £1bn a year for X number of years solely for re-openings is beyond me, especially when they CAN seem to commit XX Billions towards new road schemes on a whim.

£1bn a year would get at least two reopening projects a year, off the ground. This money would be spent once feasibility studies have been carried out, completed and shown to be a "positive case".
And there is the rub. Whilst I agree we need to ensure money is spent wisely, the UK does seem to have developed a system of studies, consultations, planning inquiries etc, guaranteed to try the patience of a saint.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Why on earth Government can't just commit £1bn a year for X number of years solely for re-openings is beyond me, especially when they CAN seem to commit XX Billions towards new road schemes on a whim.

£1bn a year would get at least two reopening projects a year, off the ground. This money would be spent once feasibility studies have been carried out, completed and shown to be a "positive case".
Every year for the last ten years, I have written to the Chancellor asking him to set aside £100m each year for rail reinstatement, as he now does for new stations, selfishly thinking of Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton. I have not once received a reply. That is how important it is to this Government. I thought this would allow about 10 miles per year. Maybe I should have suggested a higher figure?
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I agree.

It is obvious that a number of rail schemes will one day, eventually happen. It makes more sense to get on with them now, rather than in X years time when prices have increased further, making the "business case" even less viable.

Why on earth Government can't just commit £1bn a year for X number of years solely for re-openings is beyond me, especially when they CAN seem to commit XX Billions towards new road schemes on a whim.

£1bn a year would get at least two reopening projects a year, off the ground. This money would be spent once feasibility studies have been carried out, completed and shown to be a "positive case".

Indeed. I think that such a policy would be brilliant. Each case could compete on its merits along the lines of the new stations fund.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
275
Indeed. I think that such a policy would be brilliant. Each case could compete on its merits along the lines of the new stations fund.

It certainly would be. Even if that policy ran for say ten years, that would be £10bn invested into new lines in areas where re-connection is much needed.

If such a policy was implemented I would concentrate on the shorter "missing links" first, such as Bourne End to High Wycombe, Colne to Skipton and Uckfield to Lewes. Once most of these "missing links" were finished, then move onto larger projects such as the one discussed in this forum thread.

I certainly don't advocate every single line that was closed should reopen. However there are some very strong cases where reinstatement would be very beneficial. It is those that need to be progressed ASAP, rather than the continual dragging of feet that occurs, especially when the cap is passed round for funding.

However another issue is the TOC's themselves, many aren't interested in running new services unless dictated by Government to do so. GWR for instance aren't interested in running a regular service between Plymouth and Okehampton, SWT had no interest in restoring services to a new Southampton Terminus station. The only operator I have seen, interested in running new services has been Chiltern.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If it was that price when it was built, that was what it cost.

The fact that prices keep increasing seems to be an argument for getting on and building something, rather than procrastinating.

Was £286 the original estimate then?

£286m wasn’t even the cost when it was built. Including all costs (land, consents, early design, Scottish Government costs), it was about £400m. That is what it cost. The Network Rail costs alone were around £300m, and they were asked to step in rather late in the process.

The original estimate was about £70m IIRC. And the business case (with a BCR of 1.01) was made on a cost of around £130m.

To say “something cost £x million per mile” (some years ago) and then use the same rate for a new line now is nonsense. You must allow for cost escalation. Otherwise we could all say that Brunel built the GWR for tuppence ha’penny a foot and base estimates for new railways now on that basis.
 
Joined
21 Oct 2012
Messages
929
Location
Wilmslow
https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1060178391356317697
Grayling seemed pretty sure in June but @networkrail tell me today it's still not been decided - even in principle - that building the line out into the sea between Teignmouth and Holcombe Beach is the best way forward. "It may have been the preferred option once..."

Oooh - an interesting comment from Martyn Oates BBC SW Political Correspondent who is usually on the ball...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top