sprinterguy
Established Member
Using old Pacers as breakwaters may in fact be beneficial in reducing the incidence of waves over the sea wall.
-
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!
Waves smash train windows at Dawlish
- Thread starter Antman
- 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
GWR actually own ( I think) four of the six cL 143 units incl earmarked for preservation and now damaged 143603, shedded at their Exeter depot and currently derogated to remain in service until 31/12/20.
With strong possibilities of the ban on Voyagers operating between Exeter and N.Abbot in 'severe weather' (which in practice seems to mean any SE/ Southerly wind above about 16mph for two hours either side of high tide at Dawlish) being extended to IETs and Pacer cl 143 units, that will cause major service problems.
When the contractors were in a couple of years ago they installed a line of old containers filled with rocks at the base of the wall, which seemed an effective guard against this. I really wonder why, at some point in the past, an effective sea wall/breakwater, harbour style, has not been installed 50 yards out to sea, to fix this once and for all. Incidentally, it is not new, or Global Warming, or any of that. I recall both tracks being completely smashed and twisted in 1962, there were pictures in the press and train magazines of it. Grierson, GWR Chief Civil Engineer, probably fed up with the cost of constant repairs, had actually prepared plans for an inland diversion to avoid this in about 1900, but the GW Board vetoed the cost.
Last edited:
Thanks for the information and that's good news compared to what it could have been.
greatvoyager
Established Member
I was referring to the suggestion of it being written off, which was said upthread. Was trying to establish if it would be preserved if written (which I know it probably isn't going to be written off sue to broken windows).
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,268
No commercial business will pay for something to be repaired that is going for preservation at low cost. More likely would be write it off and offer an alternative set for preservation.
Ashley Hill
Established Member
I gather GWR has a 143 waiting new wheelsets from abroad. The windows from this could be used to repair 603. The other could then be repaired at leisure. Would 144 windows fit?
northernbelle
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 680
They could. And yes 144 windows would fit, as would plain glass windows that anyone could manufacture in short order.
There's a bigger question about what damage has been done to interior electrical equipment - no doubt this will be known once 603 has dried out!
ASharpe
Member
I would quite like the idea of a dried out pacer. Normally the roof leaks or condensation on the windows keep them suitably moist. And even in the height of summer the smell of dirty mop water makes you think it's still damp.
I was even once splashed by a pacer stopping on platform 2 at Shipley, it came in nodding along at just the right frequency to squirt out diesel from its tank.
Probably because it would probably not fix it for once and for all - and would likely mess up the currents in the Dawlish area and up to the Exe estuary and just move the problem to some other bit of the coastline, or stop sand and stones and sand being deposited on the Town beach and reduce the protection they provide for the sea wall.
Not forgetting that the cliffs behind the railway are also a major problem for Network Rail.
Issues which were all looked at before the designs of the current work to raise the height of the sea wall were drawn up.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...eter-Newton-Abbot-Phase-1-Baseline-Report.pdf
More likely a different unit would go into preservation in it's place and that one would be scrapped
87electric
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,023
Post of the year. I spilt my coffee!
Interesting to see in the 1855 picture, even allowing for artist's licence, that passengers were just being walked round the breach. I also like, how in pre-journalistic hype days, such a significant collapse is merely described as "damage to …".
The proposal around 1900 for a diversion fell through, apparently, because it was a presented as a single substantial project that not only circumvented the seaward section but also the extreme gradients onward between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, with a diversion line which had far easier gradients, and a tunnel under Dainton, which is steeply up and then immediately steeply down. It was at a time when the GWR was investing a lot in new main routes. the Badminton line, Somerton cutoff, Bicester Direct line, and others, and Grierson, the CCE, was on a roll. However Churchward, CME, considered something written in the proposal that locomotives, HIS locomotives, could not handle the South Devon banks easily, as a personal slight, and lobbied and convinced the Directors that indeed he could design locomotives that would handle them readily, at far less cost, and which would also be useful for high speed elsewhere. Hence the first GWR 4-cylinder 4-6-0s. I don't know if this was the start of the long-running Churchward-Grierson feud, or a result of it. If only Grierson had chosen his words more carefully, and written about "a faster route that would be more competitive with the LSWR" instead of "locomotives can't handle it", what we are discussing here could have been very different. There was however some work done along the Dawlish sea wall, because in the account of City of Truro's run in 1904 it is described that they slowed there for the last remaining single line between Plymouth and London.
The proposal around 1900 for a diversion fell through, apparently, because it was a presented as a single substantial project that not only circumvented the seaward section but also the extreme gradients onward between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, with a diversion line which had far easier gradients, and a tunnel under Dainton, which is steeply up and then immediately steeply down. It was at a time when the GWR was investing a lot in new main routes. the Badminton line, Somerton cutoff, Bicester Direct line, and others, and Grierson, the CCE, was on a roll. However Churchward, CME, considered something written in the proposal that locomotives, HIS locomotives, could not handle the South Devon banks easily, as a personal slight, and lobbied and convinced the Directors that indeed he could design locomotives that would handle them readily, at far less cost, and which would also be useful for high speed elsewhere. Hence the first GWR 4-cylinder 4-6-0s. I don't know if this was the start of the long-running Churchward-Grierson feud, or a result of it. If only Grierson had chosen his words more carefully, and written about "a faster route that would be more competitive with the LSWR" instead of "locomotives can't handle it", what we are discussing here could have been very different. There was however some work done along the Dawlish sea wall, because in the account of City of Truro's run in 1904 it is described that they slowed there for the last remaining single line between Plymouth and London.
Last edited:
brad465
Established Member
If that is what they do, the sea has in effect got the scrapping process started already it seems.
Deepgreen
Established Member
No, this is not a new weather phenomenon (although it may be increasing in frequency), but its service impact is a reflection of the increasing fragility of trains' systems, when they shut down when hit by water. The further back one looks, the more basic and robust the trains - short of actually derailing it, you could throw the sea at a 'Castle' and it would flounder through!
Deepgreen
Established Member
SWT did this with one window when they replaced the useless toilets on the class 456s with seating - the small window was panelled instead, giving those seats a wall rather than a window.
tsr
Established Member
That was done well before they reached SWT!
fgwrich
Established Member
Which window was this? As the non toilet sides retain their large windows, and the former toilet side retains it's small window.
You are correct, rather than making the trains as resistant to their environment as before, it more easily trips off the tongue to blame it on Global Warming. Further up the line, in the 1950s-60s Langport station regularly flooded each winter, with ducks swimming between the platforms (plenty of pictures), but trains just ploughed through the water, to the extent of fires actually being extinguished. Never mind, there was enough steam left in the boiler to make it on to Taunton and get the loco on to shed, fire relaid, oiled all round, on we go.
Ashley Hill
Established Member
143603 was today parked up for all to see at Exeter SD. Externally it does not look the wreck some have described it as. 3 saloon windows and the toilet window were damaged. Once dried out and glazing replaced,barring any electrical problems I don't see why it shouldn't return to traffic without too much difficulty.
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
They have been discussing and dithering for years on this. Here is just one of the threads:-
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-exeter-plymouth.143927/page-36#post-4245637v
.......and the money spent on numerous consultants reports and rebuilds of the Dawlish section would probably go a long way towards an inland line. At some point this bullet is going to have to be bitten, not necessarily via Mendon but a Dawlish avoider is certainly going to be necessary unless Canute`s relatives work in the DFT !
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
When David Cameron visited Dawlish in Spring 2014 following the restoring of the route after the damage he promised immediate action to deal with the situation but, like politicians when making visits, went away and forgot about it.
Indeed - I've heard stories of 1st Gen DMUs being withdrawn simply for having flat batts.
TrafficEng
Member
The science is complicated and expert modelling is needed to predict the impact on currents and movement of materials by wave action. But there is an interesting case-study at Sea Palling in Norfolk where artificial islands have been created off the shoreline and the result has been a natural replenishment of the beach to the point that some of the islands are no longer islands. The key is to break up the wave energy before it gets to the point you want to protect.
So using redundant Pacers or containers isn't a totally crazy idea, but at Dawlish the Pacers probably wouldn't last very long so sinking a few redundant container ships might be more appropriate.
Meanwhile the obvious interim solution is to remove all the Pacer windows (to eliminate the danger of flying glass) and issue passengers with free waterproof ponchos. The combination of erratic movement, the feeling of the wind through your hair, and the potential for getting soaked would provide a thrill as good as anything available at any adventure park. Perhaps charging an increased fare could be justified for this unique experience?
Is nobody going to seize on this as evidence of a "climate emergency" or somesuch, then start blaming Brexit, Trump, the Royal Family, etc.? Muhahaa... :P
Burial at sea did ring a distant bell; indeed a moment's searching revealed that hundreds of retired NYC subway cars were deployed into the Atlantic as artificial reefs - and are reported to have been a great success.
Burial at sea did ring a distant bell; indeed a moment's searching revealed that hundreds of retired NYC subway cars were deployed into the Atlantic as artificial reefs - and are reported to have been a great success.
They may have been a great success in attracting fish and other marine life, which was the intention - they were not put there to stop the shoreline taking a battering.
- Status