Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
Perhaps a high proportion of the electorate would rather see any 'spare' funds go to the police, schools, social care etc etc ?
-
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
Perhaps a high proportion of the electorate would rather see any 'spare' funds go to the police, schools, social care etc etc ?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Probably more so than another road by-pass as well, by that reckoning.
But would they rather the money went to reconnecting a random town somewhere with a poor BCR, or a project to say, take freight of the motorways, or take diesels out of town centres. I think rail investment should go where there is a good BCR, if I’m honest I don’t know what good is, but one above 2 should probably be built without a question, and things with a good but not excellent BCR will probably need further consideration.
EDIT: TLDR There is no good reason for money to go to reopenings over any other rail project
I think there's a case for weighting in favour of communities that don't already have a rail link. There are far fewer transport opportunities from such locations.
I’m not a fan of that idea that worse performing schemes should be prioritised over better ones because of an ideological obsession with reopening old lines, leading to worse value for the taxpayer. It seems particularly relevant at Dawlish because of the frequent calls to reopen a very slow and meandering route over Dartmoor for the odd time when the mainline is closed, instead of spending an order of magnitude less on improving the current line , with the added benefit of not needing to abandon stations from Exeter-Newton Abbot during very bad weather.
Well, I'd say that Devon needs both routes to ensure that trains can always get through. Both routes serve their own intermediate areas as well as ensuring a through route to Plymouth.
It's worth remembering that the route via Okehampton didn't meander that much. It was only a few minutes slower than the Great Western route.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I can certainly see the logic from a social point of view of providing a rail link to communities that don't have one. But I'm not sure that really justifies the almost exclusive focus on Tavistock that seems to happen on railforums. Offhand, I can think of several rail-less places in Devon that are either at least as large or bigger than Tavistock population-wise, or for which you'd expect providing a link would be simpler/cheaper than building a line to Tavistock.
Building a station at Plympton must be the most obvious example. Or further east, stations at Cullompton or Willand (where I think the old Tiverton Junction station was) would surely come in cheaper than £70M and be just as useful. Or re-opening the branch to Tiverton town may well cost as much as to Tavistock, but would serve many more people (Tiverton's population is about 20 000). So why do we keep hearing about Tavistock, but not those places?
I don't think there's an exclusive focus on Tavistock on rail forums. Obviously as this thread is about routes in Devon, its bound to feature heavily, but there are similar aspirations for places such as Wisbech and Skelmersdale for example.
Settlements next to the railway could make very useful contributions to local public transport, and for that we have the excellent new stations fund. But if you put all reopenings on a simple cost/benefit basis in together, places off the network will always be at a disadvantage and will effectively have been given up on.
Not having a railway is a very specific disadvantage which needs to be dealt with in its own right.
This strange single minded obsession that the Okehampton route would only be used for diversions. That would be a waste of money and very short sighted. Alternate or perhaps all Waterloo-Exeter trains would be extended to Plymouth. There would be a Devon Circular local service on the Ex-Oke-Ply-Totnes-NA circuit, each way, giving multiple commuting and leisure choices for locals and a very scenic journey for tourists with various attractions on the way. Some freight could be rerouted to avoid the steeper banks on the GWR route. Steam/diesel railtours. Oh yes, I nearly forgot, a diversion route for next time nature attacks the coastal route, as it surely will. It may not wash away the new line but, it will still stop trains from running.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
And as I understand it Network Rail has added together all those benefits and divided by all the costs to produce a BCR ration that comes nowhere near government's thresholds for what is a worthwhile project.
There might be a bit of cost saving if Okehampton to Bere Alston was considered as a basic railway with single line, light axle loads and perhaps even novel forms of signalling. But then it might have neither the capacity nor the capability to take diverted main line trains. It's also worth remembering that even with this route in place there would "single points of failure" including Cowley Bridge Junction (a frequent flood site in the past, which remedial measures may or may not have addressed) and the line west of Plymouth including the Tamar Bridge.
I don't think it has though.
I'm sure it said somewhere that the socio-economic benefits to places along the route needed further investigation.
As 90% of journeys are not made by train I suspect you are in a very small minority there!
Cowley Bridge and the Tamar bridge affects both routes. I've never seen extending Waterloo trains to Plymouth officially mentioned, or the Circular service. They seem to only perceive a Ply to Exe end to end service, which would be useful in itself, but less so than a Circular service. With costs and income spread around the circle, this would help the case. BCR's seem weighted to prevent new services, as so few qualify. More of the same English dislike of spending anything on anything, compared with Scotland and Wales more enlightened attitude.
Western Lord
Member
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 783
What freight? There isn't any except the odd china clay train.
Not quiet right, we will spend endless amounts on consultants reports that never ever seem to result in an inch of new railway being built.
Ash Bridge
Established Member
Don’t forget the Colas worked cement trains to Moorswater also...
It depends on the length of journey. For longer ones, I think that minority might be greater.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
These may be Wider Economic Benefits, which aren't counted in a traditional BCR - one of the potential criticisms of the process. I'm not an expert but I believe these include things like facilitating more housebuilding - which people may not wish for...
In fairly sure that it hasn't.
The advantage of extending the WofE line services is that it provides a better service between Plymouth and a range of places like Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury, Brighton, etc. Not only does this increase the number of people likely to be using it but they will also be paying more than those only traveling locally at fairly low increased cost to the operator over the up country section of their journey (in that most will be taking up space from those who have got off the trains closer to London).
Socio-Economic benefits are included, wherever they arise, as they are in all business cases.
As I understand it, what isn’t included here is wider economic benefits. Again, this is consistent with other business cases. There are 2 stages, Level 2 and Level 3, and they reflect increased economic activity triggered by the project. They are specifically not additional socio-economic benefits directly related to the project, as these are all captured as Level 1 benefits in the Business case.
Level 2 assumes improved economic activity without any changes in land use, eg that businesses start to cluster together and become more efficient because of the improved transport, or that Business has a wider pool of labour for a prospective workforce, and can therefore employ more productive people. One example of this is to connect a large number of unemployed people to a large number of jobs, which effectively helps businesses keep their wage costs down. This is exactly what happened with Ebbw Vale.
Level 3 benefits assume change of land use is proposed and delivered after the scheme is built. This is predominantly building homes and business premises on green belt (or non green belt rural land), but can also be changing industrial land to housing. These benefits tend to be higher where you can increase the amount of development, and this naturally favours high density development such as tall apartment blocks.
The effects of these benefits can be significant - doubling the BCRs or more. However if L3 WEBs (as they are known) were to be used on Tavistock, then for a fair comparison you would have to use them on all other rail projects. Given the potential for change of land use and new development anywhere close to the line of the route, I’d suggest that the WEBs wouldn’t be that big.
How would you do that weighting?
Or put another way, by what factor would you multiply the value of the benefits generated by a project that provides a new link, compared to a project that improves existing links? (even it that is a very significant improvement?) How would you justify that factor?*
Would you use a similar factor for all transport improvement projects, or just rail?
And if just rail, why?
*all the factors and weightings used in existing transport business cases are the result of decades of detailed research, most of which can be found on the Government’s website.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The existing system will capture any extra benefits arising from it being a rail link to a place not served before, because the first rail link to a place is likely to attract more riders than the second or third link or improvements to the first one.
Perhaps I'm going bonkers, but when the comparison of the five options for Dawlish came out, I distinctly remember them saying that some sort of further evaluation was required, pertaining to the Okehampton route.
I don't know what the factor would be - I would let the acedemics come up with something that reflects the greater benefit that those of us who don't drive would gain from having a transport link.
In any calculation, I would substantially discount any transport method that uses the same space as motor transport. They already have a road, so there is little extra to be gained from building another one.
The further evaluation was of the wider economic benefits; indeed NR invited stakeholders (ie the local authorities) to help calculate them. They are notoriously difficult to assess, principally because they are based largely on economic forecasting, as opposed to hard econometric data. Needless to say, it has been 5 years since the study, and I would be surprised if there had been anyhtig of substance back from stakeholders. If there had, the study would have surely been republished.
Re the second point. The academics have already done this, and decided that there should be no differential factor. Nevertheless, a new transport link doesn’t have to be a new road. It could be a new bus link on an existing road, which in this case will be by far the best option on any socio-economic analysis (including wider economic benefits), as I think I suggested a few months ago upthread.
On the first point, you see my point then, that the proper assessment hasn't been done.
On the second point, if the acedemics are suggesting that there should be no differential between those towns that have access to a railway, and those that don't, I would be very interested in how they square this with the recent study I posted, that suggests that high railway costs have an unsue influence on students choice of university ?
If potential students with access to the railway have their future choices influenced by the cost of train travel, how much more for the person looking for work who lives a long way from the railway ?
The proper assessment has been done, as per the requirements for Business cases. The optional assessment of wider economic benefits hasn’t been done, because no party offered to provide an estimate of those benefits. Whether this was because they didn’t know how to calculate them, or they didn’t exist, is a matter of conjecture.
On the second point, I read this last night, didn’t understand the logic, assumed I was too tired and/or emotional, so slept on it hoping to understand this morning. I still don’t.
One is a piece of research that says the high price of rail travel affects students choice of university (which is hardly news).
The other is a policy that the value of a pound of cost saved or generated, or a minute of time saved, or a kg of carbon saved, or a decibel of noise reduced, is the same everywhere in the country, regardless of how it is generated. Or put another way, that a pound saved or generated is not worth more than a pound if it happens to be caused by a new transport link.
How are the two related?
Surely that is included in the BCR anyway, as part of the economic benefit?
Yes it is, as the journey time savings, cost savings etc will naturally be much higher for people on a new link. Assuming they use it of course.
The BCR ratio that Network Rail has done was solely on the use of Exeter-Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth for a local stopping service - I believe an hourly one in each direction.
However, many people see the line having a wider role, with more frequent services at each end, used for long distance through services and for diversions and capacity.
I dont believe that any study has been done on those.
Then we get onto the actual costs, which seem to be based on requiring a new Viaduct at Meldon.
However, many people see the line having a wider role, with more frequent services at each end, used for long distance through services and for diversions and capacity.
I dont believe that any study has been done on those.
Then we get onto the actual costs, which seem to be based on requiring a new Viaduct at Meldon.
- Status