• 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.

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,180
There's not really any spare units and the return trip would take 1:25 hours.

What I'm suggesting is that train A which is currently enters service at 08:25 does so at 07:43 to run a service to Okehampton, so that it's back in time to run the 09:25 service whilst the 08:25 service is run by a train which left at 06:43 which otherwise would have entered service at 07:25.

The 8:43 service from Waterloo then no longer needs to run the 9:25 service and so is free to run to Okehampton and back in time to run the 10:25 and so on through the day until the end of service, where the

As such, although there will be extra miles traveled for the units, there's no need for an extra unit.

Yes there would be extra costs (mostly staff costs and extra maintenance charges) but the actual lease of the units would be split. As such rather than a 2 coach train costing £250,000 it may well be that a 6 coach train on a 34/66 could cost GWR the same amount.

Although Okehampton may not have a large population (6,000), when added to the 7,600 of Crediton it could do rather well.

Part of the reason that Crediton has a low (~50,000) usage figure is down to the 08:05 or 09:47 arrival to Exeter St Davids of the morning peak hour services. Which is hardly useful for 9-5:30 job (although the evening is marginally better at 16:57 and 17:58 but still far from ideal given it's just 10 minutes on the train). Whilst a 08:25 arrival to and a 17:43 departure from Exeter St Davids would be significantly better for commuting.

Sorry, I'm not quite understanding this. If no additional units are used (which are unavailable, as your opening sentence says), which unit works the 07h25 departure (Exeter-London) if you've sent it to Okehampton at 06h43?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
Grayling has already approved a regular GWR service from Exeter to Okehampton and told them to get on with it. We are, however, during the dithering period when matters such as funding, resources and line improvements have to be determined.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
Grayling has already approved a regular GWR service from Exeter to Okehampton and told them to get on with it. We are, however, during the dithering period when matters such as funding, resources and line improvements have to be determined.
...and won’t it be to somewhere like Exmouth rather than the constantly hyped Waterloo?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Sorry, I'm not quite understanding this. If no additional units are used (which are unavailable, as your opening sentence says), which unit works the 07h25 departure (Exeter-London) if you've sent it to Okehampton at 06h43?

I did wonder if I'd missed something that's probably it.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
...and won’t it be to somewhere like Exmouth rather than the constantly hyped Waterloo?

Independent GWR over GWR franchise routes so would probably shuttle to and from Platform 2 Bay at Exeter St Davids Exmouth services are bound up in a pattern running to an from Paignton but possibly.
 
Last edited:

Brush 4

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2018
Messages
502
£70 million for just over 5 miles? How much did 35 miles of partly double track Waverley route cost?
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly

JohnElliott

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2014
Messages
230
Perhaps the best thing would be to employ some volunteers currently in charge of preserved railway projects and pay them to reopen it, ostensibly as a preserved railway.

Then buy it up.

I have wondered in the past whether that would be a viable way of getting track laid - given the prices I've seen quoted for reopening heritage lines versus commercial lines, a heritage organisation using volunteer labour ought to be able to get track on the ground at a lower price than the 'official' quote and be left with a fat profit to spend on preservation objectives. Of course, a second look brings up all sorts of reasons why it's not that simple (preserved railways don't tend to be electrified or use the latest signalling systems, for one thing).

I also suspect that if the national network did take over a heritage line the first step would be to remove all the heritage line's infrastructure, on the grounds that you can't trust anything a load of amateurs have had a hand in, and (having reduced the situation to an earlier solved problem) build as if from scratch.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
I also suspect that if the national network did take over a heritage line the first step would be to remove all the heritage line's infrastructure, on the grounds that you can't trust anything a load of amateurs have had a hand in, and (having reduced the situation to an earlier solved problem) build as if from scratch.

SWR have a service running to Corfe Castle. Wasn't that track laid down by volunteers?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
(Talking about @The Ham 's idea for trying to use SWR trains to provide an Okehampton service):

I did wonder if I'd missed something that's probably it.

Looking at the Mon-Fri SWR timetable: Before 09:30 there are departures from Exeter St. Davids for Waterloo at 05:10, 06:41, 07:25, 08:23, 09:25. Arrivals at 06:35, 07:42, 08:21. I can't tell for sure which arrival becomes which departure, but I'm guessing the 05:10, 07:25 are the units that start at Exeter and have therefore been stabled somewhere around there overnight. Possibly with some rejigging of the timetable and starting units earlier, you might therefore manage to get two peak-time services started back at Okehampton. Obviously you couldn't keep that up throughout the day without an extra unit though. Also, unfortunately, I can't see any scope in the timetable to provide corresponding return journeys in the evening peak because the timetable doesn't start winding down late evening. And without evening peak journeys, any morning peak journeys you could rustle up would be useless!

There is a 16:46 service from Exeter to Axminster, for which the corresponding return journey seems to be the following morning. Not sure what's going on there in terms of unit usage or whether that gives a possible extra unit for some journeys to Okehampton. An obvious problem though is that unit is busy taking people from Exeter to Axminster at the exact time that you'd want to run a peak service to Okehampton.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
(Talking about @The Ham 's idea for trying to use SWR trains to provide an Okehampton service):



Looking at the Mon-Fri SWR timetable: Before 09:30 there are departures from Exeter St. Davids for Waterloo at 05:10, 06:41, 07:25, 08:23, 09:25. Arrivals at 06:35, 07:42, 08:21. I can't tell for sure which arrival becomes which departure, but I'm guessing the 05:10, 07:25 are the units that start at Exeter and have therefore been stabled somewhere around there overnight. Possibly with some rejigging of the timetable and starting units earlier, you might therefore manage to get two peak-time services started back at Okehampton. Obviously you couldn't keep that up throughout the day without an extra unit though. Also, unfortunately, I can't see any scope in the timetable to provide corresponding return journeys in the evening peak because the timetable doesn't start winding down late evening. And without evening peak journeys, any morning peak journeys you could rustle up would be useless!

There is a 16:46 service from Exeter to Axminster, for which the corresponding return journey seems to be the following morning. Not sure what's going on there in terms of unit usage or whether that gives a possible extra unit for some journeys to Okehampton. An obvious problem though is that unit is busy taking people from Exeter to Axminster at the exact time that you'd want to run a peak service to Okehampton.

Although by providing for the morning peaks could show you to have another GWR service run as a pair of units then and then only as single units for the rest of the day (with one running the Okehampton service) As the evening peak trends to be more spread out they could work (it's not uncommon for the to be a better service in the morning than the evening).

If it was possible to speed up the journey time from the current timetable to cut a total of 5 minutes then you could have the Okehampton service leave St. Davids at xx:50 arrive Okehampton xx:31 depart Okehampton xx:37 arrive at St. Davids XX:18

That would allow connections from the southbound XC services and SWR services and connections to the northbound XC services and SWR services. It would also (mostly as at 16:xx it shifts by about 30 minutes) the Okehampton service to be in the opposite side of the timetable as the Barnstaple service.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
I also suspect that if the national network did take over a heritage line the first step would be to remove all the heritage line's infrastructure, on the grounds that you can't trust anything a load of amateurs have had a hand in, and (having reduced the situation to an earlier solved problem) build as if from scratch.
And heritage railways are (mostly) only allowed to run at 25mph: Network Rail would have to overhaul the infrastructure if they intended to run any faster!
 

civ-eng-jim

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
396
Location
Derby
How do Heritage Railways demonstrate engineering assurance for the work they do? Presume the ORR have to approve any methods used for any railway?

£70m seems a lot, but there are a lot of culverts to repair/replace and extensive drainage requirements on the Bere Alston to Tavistock route. There are "missing" sections of embankment, steep embankments (requiring retaining structures at the toe) rock faces which will need netting, several underbridges to replace, a masonry viaduct that'll be costly to repair, a tunnel that'll need repair. 2 new platforms (one totally from scratch). I don't think this can be carried out by volunteers alone.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
How do Heritage Railways demonstrate engineering assurance for the work they do? Presume the ORR have to approve any methods used for any railway?
They have to follow the ROGS regulations but are exempted from some parts on the basis of having a 25mph maximum speed and other measures. Crucially they still have to have a safety management system and processes to manage safety-critical work. And would of course still be governed by the Health and Safety at Work Act even if their "employees" are volunteers.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
How do Heritage Railways demonstrate engineering assurance for the work they do? Presume the ORR have to approve any methods used for any railway?

£70m seems a lot, but there are a lot of culverts to repair/replace and extensive drainage requirements on the Bere Alston to Tavistock route. There are "missing" sections of embankment, steep embankments (requiring retaining structures at the toe) rock faces which will need netting, several underbridges to replace, a masonry viaduct that'll be costly to repair, a tunnel that'll need repair. 2 new platforms (one totally from scratch). I don't think this can be carried out by volunteers alone.

I assume htey are still subject to inspections by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate.

Inspections being the traditional mechanism of assuring engineering assurance in the railways.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
(Talking about @The Ham 's idea for trying to use SWR trains to provide an Okehampton service):



Looking at the Mon-Fri SWR timetable: Before 09:30 there are departures from Exeter St. Davids for Waterloo at 05:10, 06:41, 07:25, 08:23, 09:25. Arrivals at 06:35, 07:42, 08:21. I can't tell for sure which arrival becomes which departure, but I'm guessing the 05:10, 07:25 are the units that start at Exeter and have therefore been stabled somewhere around there overnight. Possibly with some rejigging of the timetable and starting units earlier, you might therefore manage to get two peak-time services started back at Okehampton. Obviously you couldn't keep that up throughout the day without an extra unit though. Also, unfortunately, I can't see any scope in the timetable to provide corresponding return journeys in the evening peak because the timetable doesn't start winding down late evening. And without evening peak journeys, any morning peak journeys you could rustle up would be useless!

There is a 16:46 service from Exeter to Axminster, for which the corresponding return journey seems to be the following morning. Not sure what's going on there in terms of unit usage or whether that gives a possible extra unit for some journeys to Okehampton. An obvious problem though is that unit is busy taking people from Exeter to Axminster at the exact time that you'd want to run a peak service to Okehampton.
From the carriage workings, adding to what you’ve worked out, the first four departures are:

The 0510 is formed from a unit stabled in New Yard overnight, as said.

There’s then an early arrival at Exeter from Axminster, 1L93 which is a 6 car formed from a 9 car ECS from Salisbury, this arrival at Exeter forms the second up train from Exeter at 0641, with the rear unit having been detached at Honiton to form a Waterloo train at 0619, 1L22.

The 0725 to Waterloo is a 6 car that has been stabled in New Yard overnight, as said.

There’s then a 5 car arrives at Exeter from Gillingham, ECS from Salisbury, that then forms the 0825 to Waterloo.

In the evening the single 158 that forms 1L94 1746 Exeter to Axminster 1829 then runs ECS to Salisbury. It arrives at Exeter earlier, at 1543, as part of the 5 car 1L33 from Waterloo, and has already done a return trip to and from Honiton by the time it runs to Axminster.

As you sort of point out, they are already using SWR units for extra peak short workings on their own franchised route. IIRC from route studies local stakeholders want these sort of extras to be increased, presumably that’s what SWR would do given stock availability?

Apologies for seeming to be continuing with too much detail in what is basically an off topic discussion, but I really don’t think SWR are in a position to ‘pilot’ anything concerning the potential Okehampton/Tavistock/Bere Alston dream...
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Tavistock to Bere Alston section looks doubtful. £70 million seems crazy. I dont think we will ever see Tavistock reconnected...

Seriously, unless the railway gets control of its costs, it will be finished.

There needs to be serious consideration as to why, when the Council has already bought up the track bed, it is apparently so much cheaper to lay a busway and a cycle track along it, than a railway.

For comparison, the 3.9 miles new of Norwich by-pass that has just been approved by Norfolk county council is estimated to cost £153M [*]. That seems to suggest it's not a railway problem. It's simply a case that big civil engineering works are expensive!

£70m seems a lot, but there are a lot of culverts to repair/replace and extensive drainage requirements on the Bere Alston to Tavistock route. There are "missing" sections of embankment, steep embankments (requiring retaining structures at the toe) rock faces which will need netting, several underbridges to replace, a masonry viaduct that'll be costly to repair, a tunnel that'll need repair. 2 new platforms (one totally from scratch). I don't think this can be carried out by volunteers alone.

Agreed. And that makes the £70M estimate seem even more reasonable by comparison (which of course doesn't however allow you to deduce anything about the business case).

[*] Geeks may be amused to notice that the URL of the BBC story ends in '153' too!
 

JohnR

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
492
For comparison, the 3.9 miles new of Norwich by-pass that has just been approved by Norfolk county council is estimated to cost £153M [*]. That seems to suggest it's not a railway problem. It's simply a case that big civil engineering works are expensive!

Yes, the difference is, no one will think to question whether that by-pass should go ahead now its costs have tripled (or whatever). Yet the slightest increase in cost in a railway project means it must be delayed/cancelled/rethought/whatever.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,826
Location
Yorks
For comparison, the 3.9 miles new of Norwich by-pass that has just been approved by Norfolk county council is estimated to cost £153M [*]. That seems to suggest it's not a railway problem. It's simply a case that big civil engineering works are expensive!



Agreed. And that makes the £70M estimate seem even more reasonable by comparison (which of course doesn't however allow you to deduce anything about the business case).

[*] Geeks may be amused to notice that the URL of the BBC story ends in '153' too!

If the costs are reasonable in engineering terms, central Government should be prepared to put some funding towards it.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
If the costs are reasonable in engineering terms, central Government should be prepared to put some funding towards it.
You have to take some account of how many people will use it, so benefits versus costs in some form. Otherwise you'd end up building lots of well-engineered schemes linking nowhere to nowhere else.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
Surely in this case it has a strategic purpose to safeguard links from Devon to the rest of the country when the vulnerable Dawlish route is adversely affected by bad weather?
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
Surely in this case it has a strategic purpose to safeguard links from Devon to the rest of the country when the vulnerable Dawlish route is adversely affected by bad weather?

Actually links from Devon AND Cornwall
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
At the risk of repetition, isn’t the current proposal for improvements to the line in the Teignmouth and Parsons Tunnel areas, and any further phases east of Dawlish, effectively saying that an inland route is dead?

There’s no way they are going to pay for future proofing the existing line, AND either build a diversion or reopen through Tavistock...
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
If the costs are reasonable in engineering terms, central Government should be prepared to put some funding towards it.

Only if it can be fully justified. The Government doesn't have the money, it's only what we pay in taxes etc - and I want value for money !
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,826
Location
Yorks
You have to take some account of how many people will use it, so benefits versus costs in some form. Otherwise you'd end up building lots of well-engineered schemes linking nowhere to nowhere else.

Exactly, it could compete for funding against other railway reconnection schemes.

Only if it can be fully justified. The Government doesn't have the money, it's only what we pay in taxes etc - and I want value for money !

I wish my taxes would go on opening a railway line I might actually use, rather than another road by-pass.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Very disappointed with this low priority given to Devon & Cornwall, even though most MP's are conservative!
With sea levels rising, spending money putting the main line further out to sea does not make sense imo, I assume they will also raise the height of this line!
With all the problems and planning for this scheme this could be on the 'back burner' for years to come. Ideal for a government that does not want to spend the money in these regions.
A tunnel (DAL) could be up and running in say 5 years - subject to funding!
Having a second route gives Devon and Cornwall a guarantee in case of a long closure. Also public transport in a large part of Devon and North Cornwall is crap at the moment, and in the short term Okehampton, Bere Alston route is well worthy of spending money on. Would bring a lot more tourism and money to those areas.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
Very disappointed with this low priority given to Devon & Cornwall, even though most MP's are conservative!
With sea levels rising, spending money putting the main line further out to sea does not make sense imo, I assume they will also raise the height of this line!
With all the problems and planning for this scheme this could be on the 'back burner' for years to come. Ideal for a government that does not want to spend the money in these regions.
A tunnel (DAL) could be up and running in say 5 years - subject to funding!
Having a second route gives Devon and Cornwall a guarantee in case of a long closure. Also public transport in a large part of Devon and North Cornwall is crap at the moment, and in the short term Okehampton, Bere Alston route is well worthy of spending money on. Would bring a lot more tourism and money to those areas.
They are working on Dawlish now.
They have just consulted (closed Jul 15th - details can be found via post #946) on rebuilding the line between Parsons Tunnel and Teignmouth, for an intended TWA order application to be made soon. I think it will happen far quicker than any inland work.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Location
Blackpool south Shore
They are working on Dawlish now.
They have just consulted (closed Jul 15th - details can be found via post #946) on rebuilding the line between Parsons Tunnel and Teignmouth, for an intended TWA order application to be made soon. I think it will happen far quicker than any inland work.
Many thanks for that, certainly make a difference to the foreshore there!! Looking for some 'gains' eg Will they be able to raise the speed restriction on that section?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,274
Many thanks for that, certainly make a difference to the foreshore there!! Looking for some 'gains' eg Will they be able to raise the speed restriction on that section?
Doesn't seem any better from a speed point of view, I'd have thought. I would hope it wouldn't make it worse...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top