Charlie Smythe
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 704
Its still frustrating as all that you here is "oh five minutes here", "3 minutes there". That's fine when the trains are running on time in the first place.
-
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
Its still frustrating as all that you here is "oh five minutes here", "3 minutes there". That's fine when the trains are running on time in the first place.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,946
Psychologically it makes more of difference than you think in certain circumstances. If you can get a 1 hour 2 minute journey down to 59 minutes people consider it more as it is under an hour, 31 minutes to 29 etc...
Charlie Smythe
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 704
To me its still a pointless action and money would be better spent elsewhere. Electrifying Daington bank is pointless in itself for 1 minute time saving as only the 802's could use it.
I'm all for shaving a few minutes off where possible and at reasonable cost. That's how railways have reduced journey times progressively since they began. I'm sceptical about the just under the hour or half hour targets however as its largely impossible to quantify the business benefit of such a psychological trick so its never worth spending very large amounts to achieve them specifically. Targets such as Plymouth in 3 hours or Norwich in 90 minutes can be counterproductive in transport and commercial terms if planners take out useful major stops in all trains for instance to achieve them. Often they do it stealthily however for just one or two headline off peak trains over the day so the operator can claim a fastest time in publicity while not actually delivering it for the vast majority of passenger journeys made, and while not annoying too many customers at the intermediate stations involved that lose just one or two of their regular interval calls, say sometime in the mid afternoon.
On the B&H I would have thought a "Hungerford diversion" as mentioned might involve a new pair of fast (sorry, MAIN) lines on a different alignment for a few miles in the vicinity to bypass a couple of local stations, avoid the restrictive Crofton curve and provide dynamic overtaking possibilities. A new passenger express only alignment could be quite steeply graded to limit costs and might incorporate an extension of partial electrification westward from Newbury to maximise performance.
On the B&H I would have thought a "Hungerford diversion" as mentioned might involve a new pair of fast (sorry, MAIN) lines on a different alignment for a few miles in the vicinity to bypass a couple of local stations, avoid the restrictive Crofton curve and provide dynamic overtaking possibilities. A new passenger express only alignment could be quite steeply graded to limit costs and might incorporate an extension of partial electrification westward from Newbury to maximise performance.
Last edited:
It could also reduce noise in the area and save a little fuel to increase range.
It’s called the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH), and is still in use today. It has, of course, been updated several times over the years and is now a rather complex computer model. It covers much more this journey times, eg it can be used to forecast the effects of frequency change, fares, and the effect of other competing routes.
https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/pdfc/about-the-pdfh.html
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think it was 1% or 0.9% for every 1% saving (known as journey time elasticity).
Charlie Smythe
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 704
The fuel save will be almost negligible compared to the cost of installing and maintaining the OHLE. Also, as it stands only 802's will be able to use it as the rest of the rolling stock on the line is diesel (150, 158, 2+4 Castle HST's and also 165/5's in the future). As for the noise the line is a fair distance from any substantial residential area.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Well I for one care about journey times. And I would say HS1 gives pretty strong evidence that lots of other people do: Premium fares charged for faster journeys on HS1 compared to the classic network and yet trains are still pretty full. I also get the impression that after journey times speeded up 11 or so years ago on the WCML, passenger numbers shot up (although more frequent services will have played a part in that too).
I do agree with you though to the extent that faster services shouldn't be pursued to the point of impacting on reliability or reducing service levels at intermediate stations.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I'm guessing there must be a twofold benefit to revenues of having faster journey times. The first benefit comes from the straight increase in passenger numbers when journeys are faster. And the second comes from cost savings because you don't need as many staff or trains to run the same service. (To see this, think about an end-to-end train journey that takes an hour. If that's speeded up to 50 minutes, that means that the train, driver, and guard are now only tied up for 50 minutes actually making the journey, which means the same staff and rolling stock can make slightly more journeys each day).
Are we not talking of electrifying Newbury-Bedwyn here and the Hungerford diversion would both save a bit of fuel on the 802s and increase their range?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,414
Latest NR announcement, my bolding:
HS1 shows what you can do if you deliberately slow the classic network at the same time.
I would argue that you wouldn't be able to attract many more people to rail services between London and Exeter (maybe Plymouth) on the current GWR services.
There's then not much scope for extra services after the provision of the semi fast services (although these could allow for the skipping of a few services to improve journey times).
It is why I think that the Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) isn't a good idea as it's not really going to generate much extra income.
Likewise opening up to Okehampton and Tavistock would attract more local passengers, but would still be limited by the capacity of the long distance services.
Conversely by building a through route via Okehampton would provide additional capacity between Exeter and Plymouth, with the potential for people to travel up country using the SWR services (depending on where they are traveling between).
Is there a need for additional capacity (as opposed to weatherproofing) between Exeter and Plymouth?
I'd say yes because today, even with time consuming overtaking at Dawlish Warren, capacity is severely limited by the difference in journey times between the local stoppers and the expresses.
Here are comparative journey times (O/T Local is one that is overtaken at Dawlish Warren):
These can be combined into various sample standard timetables as follows.
A 30 minute interval for express and local:
A 15 minute interval for both tiers is more difficult unless all locals get overtaken at Dawlish Warren, but that adds significantly to journey time for the local service:
Even if there's not much of a case for much extra capacity beyond the 2tph the fact that you could then eak out a bit more capacity on those services by people using the alternative route.
As an example if there were cross Exeter services to Plymouth via Okehampton, then there would be those from the likes of Central who wouldn't change at St David's if there was little time advantage. Those people not being on the existing route services would then enable others to use the existing route services.
Even if the route via Okehampton took longer there may be some who would accept that time penalty of it meant that they got a seat, it of were cheaper or enabled them to use their season ticket for lesure purposes.
I would expect that there's likely to be an uplift in usage as the services improve, this could grow to such a significant amount that there's then a need for more capacity.
Maybe not today, maybe not in 5 years time, but what about in 15 years time? 20 years?
Yes, there is a limit to the number of trains you can run - I make it 8-10 per hour including the proposed half-hourly stopping service - my question was whether there is a need for capacity over and above that, bearing in mind that there are 3tph or so from Exeter to Plymouth already - are these consistently both full length and overloaded? Do Starcross and the Warren warrant a 15-minute service, it's not an idea I've come across?
Obviously you are on the spot and I will defer to your local knowledge.
I agree with much of that which is why I'd prefer an Exeter - Okehampton - Plymouth route to be in the hands of a different operator than the GWR route so effective competition on price vs journey time can take place. The 'obvious' solution is to extend the SWR trains that way to Plymouth. That would also free up platform space at St Davids, with brief stops replacing longer turnback layovers in the busy Waterloo platforms also used by many local trains reversing.
Probably not worth going for more than a regular 30m interval generally on the coast locals, although maybe at certain peak times some extras might be justified if stock could be found. More of a worry is the tight margins between expresses and locals all the time which leave little time for recovery. Then you've got difficulties with capacity at Exeter and Newton Abbot, also Paignton for turnbacks which mean locals can't always wait for 10 minutes to let a fast run ahead if the late running local hasn't got time to make the next major station, so it has to run and delay gets transferred into the express diagram too. That's why I've been a strong supporter of an inland DAL with a substantial section of additional main line route through tunnels for expresses to overtake locals so there's maximum flexibility in planning and real time regulating as well as an attractive reduction in journey time.
I say in the short to medium term we need to strengthen the coastal route AND rebuild the LSWR as a largely single track limited stop regional route, while making a start on long term planning and safeguarding for a DAL as part of a future high speed upgrade for Exeter - Plymouth to get journey times competitive with road, which isn't really achievable for many local journeys today.
This is very much my view as well.
DAL is something that could be justified once there's more capacity out of Paddington when extra lines (HS something?) head Westwards from London.
This could well be 20 to 50 years in the future.
Sir Felix Pole
Member
Funding announced today for a new (higher) sea wall along the promenade at Dawlish.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...as-part-of-2-billion-investment-in-south-west
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...as-part-of-2-billion-investment-in-south-west
Grayling announces new Dawlish sea wall as part of £2 billion investment in south-west
Government has published a report outlining funding to transform connectivity throughout the south-west region.
Published 15 February 2019
From:
Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has today (15 February 2019) announced further funding of up to £80 million in the south-west to deliver a new sea wall at Dawlish, providing better protection for the railway and homes behind it.
- government publishes ‘Investing in the South West’ detailing £2 billion of funding targeted at supporting growth and prosperity
- Transport Secretary makes up to £80 million available to build a brand new, more resilient sea wall at Dawlish
Upgrades to the sea wall will increase its height by 2.5 metres and include wave returns to reduce the impact of waves and the likelihood of the line being closed during adverse weather. This will help ensure the serious damage and disruption seen during storms in 2014 is not repeated.
The improvements at Dawlish are part of an extensive programme of investment in the south-west to transform connectivity throughout the region, outlined in the Investing in the South West report. This includes schemes totalling more than £2 billion, improving the strategic road network, high-speed direct bus connectivity, safe and continuous cycle routes and easier transfer between transport modes.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said:
We cannot allow the disruption and damage endured by Dawlish and the south-west to happen again. This significant investment demonstrates our cast-iron commitment to delivering a resilient and safe railway, giving passengers, businesses and residents confidence in a reliable service.
With up to £80 million of funding available to create a rigorous set of defences, this new sea wall will help protect this vital route, building on our ambitious plans to grow this region’s economy and prosperity through stronger transport connections.
Today’s announcement was made as the Transport Secretary visited Dawlish, meeting with Network Rail and local businesses, to discuss how government investment is focused on giving people across the south-west the modern, reliable services they deserve.
Work on the new sea wall will begin in the spring and is expected to be complete by 2021. The government has already provided £15 million for Network Rail to design a long-lasting solution to this problem, in addition to the £40 million spent by Network Rail to repair the damage caused in the 2014 storm.
Building on detailed geological surveys, Network Rail is continuing to develop solutions for the cliffs along the coast immediately north-east of Teignmouth using the £15 million previously announced. This includes the development of an application for the necessary planning consent for work to maintain the cliffs and protect the railway.
krus_aragon
Established Member
He's not trying to one-up Donald Trump, is he? 
Charlie Smythe
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 704
I can't see where he is going to gain 2.5m from. The council will not have a 2.5 metres extension on top of the sea wall as it will completely spoil Dawlish.
Quite. It will look like the Berlin Wall to those houses.
Charlie Smythe
Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 704
My thoughts are that he may mean digging out sand and rock from the front of the wall effective make the wall taller without actually making it taller if you get what i mean.
That was my reaction. This picture
from the NR webpage https://www.networkrail.co.uk/dawlish-five-years-since-the-storm-that-collapsed-the-railway/ mde it look as though the view of the beach will go...
- Status