• 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!

A bit more about Dawlish

Status
Not open for further replies.

LYRobert

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2022
Messages
81
Location
Banbury
Whether sea-churning storms are becoming more severe, or more frequent, or both is almost beside the point. On occasion conditions are bad enough already, with x miles of railway built on top of a sea wall and exposed to the sea. It is almost certain that sooner or later the sea will again damage the line, however well built it is. And it will do it over and over again - it is what nature does. And of course we are told by those who know that these events ARE going to get more severe, and more frequent.

In this position on the edge of a turbulent sea (it's the Atlantic) this piece of railway will be forever at risk. It will need endless monitoring and unusual levels of maintenance for the forseeable future. An yet there is an alternative inland route possible, calm and well protected, well away from the destructive power of a raging sea. Why on earth has this not been developed? If the country wants a reliable railway to the far west - one that won't be in perpetual risk of being damaged by the sea - then an inland route alternative is the ultimate answer.

At this time the UK is not un-used to big railway developments. HS2 is plodding along (even though there are THREE other London-Birmingham routes in daily use), so is Cross-Rail, and the Elisabeth line is finished and in use. One could have argued that we could have managed a little longer without any one of these and instead built an aletrnative route to that short piece of line at Dawlish, which is extraordinarily vulnerable. Instead, we will just keep patching it up as the needs arise, even though those who know (experts !) tell us that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme. Where's the sense in that?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
and the Elisabeth line is finished and in use. One could have argued that we could have managed a little longer without any one of these and instead built an aletrnative route to that short piece of line at Dawlish,

Ignoring any other points i'm unsure you could argue an alternative Dawlish route over what has been much needed capacity in London. I'd like to see the argument.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,307
Location
Fenny Stratford
Ignoring any other points i'm unsure you could argue an alternative Dawlish route over what has been much needed capacity in London. I'd like to see the argument.
Remember: London is bad

I just cant see a business case, especially in what are going to be increasingly tight times, for investing billons in what is essentially a rural branch line because once in a while you cant get a train to Plymouth or Truro!
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,014
The study of options after the 2014 breach did look at a new mainline in land, following the approximate route of the route authorised by parliament in the late 1930s. However, it didn't include closing the current line, which would have likely improved the business case. Closure of the existing line would have drastically cut maintenance costs and passed on responsibility of maintaining the remaining areas to other government bodies. Star Cross would have lost its service, but a new alignment could serve Dawlish and Teignmouth from the north. A purpose built 125mph line could have kick started electrification in South West too.

Crossrail and HS2 both serve places with massive populations and that matters to both business cases and politics.
 

John S2

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2011
Messages
75
Back in 2014 the decision should have been taken to build an avoiding line inland and leave the fate of the existing line to nature or other govt departments. I said something similar on this forum at the time.
Due to the stupidity of our species in refusing to adequately address the cause of sea level rise, it is inevitable that this stretch of line will ultimately end up in the sea. Sea level is not only rising, but the rate at which it is rising is accelerating.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,757
Location
London
Back in 2014 the decision should have been taken to build an avoiding line inland and leave the fate of the existing line to nature or other govt departments. I said something similar on this forum at the time.
Due to the stupidity of our species in refusing to adequately address the cause of sea level rise, it is inevitable that this stretch of line will ultimately end up in the sea. Sea level is not only rising, but the rate at which it is rising is accelerating.

What's specific about 2014?
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
2,757
Location
London
The big breach at Dawlish happened in February 2014, shutting the line for 2 months and leading to heightened debate, both nationally and on this forum/in the rail press about avoiding line options.

Ah right. So was that the only time over the years that the line has been closed by sea damage?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,447
Ah right. So was that the only time over the years that the line has been closed by sea damage?
It was the longest closure, but not the only ever closure. A few years ago I found an academic report somewhere that listed all the previous damage, some within the first few years of opening. (I’ve looked for it again but my Googling skills are failing today.). The 2014 washout was apparently the longest and most recently publicised, but definitely not unique.

In last week’s Dawlish thread I remarked that the section that failed in 2014, although rebuilt to better strength was not raised by the full height that has been done in the more recent “planned” rebuild, ie doesn’t include the “recurve” parapet. Even then a number of media sources wrongly reported after the DfT’s July 2023 “reopening” ceremony that the most recent works had rebuilt the 2014 section.
 

uglymonkey

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2018
Messages
480
I remember at the time of the breech the local MP was absolutely incandescent and having kittens about the mention of a Dawlish avoiding line (be it LSWR mainline or elsewhere) and letting Dawlish take its chances. I took a particular interest in this as was buffeted on one of the last trains prior to the breech the day before and spent 3 months on the coach from Exeter to get to work!
 

D Williams

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2022
Messages
142
Location
Worcestershire
I remember at the time of the breech the local MP was absolutely incandescent and having kittens about the mention of a Dawlish avoiding line (be it LSWR mainline or elsewhere) and letting Dawlish take its chances. I took a particular interest in this as was buffeted on one of the last trains prior to the breech the day before and spent 3 months on the coach from Exeter to get to work!
"Incandescent " is the usual demeanour of the local MP on every subject. I assume she graduated with honours from a drama school, if not then it's a gift.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
895
Location
ECML
Whether sea-churning storms are becoming more severe, or more frequent, or both is almost beside the point. On occasion conditions are bad enough already, with x miles of railway built on top of a sea wall and exposed to the sea. It is almost certain that sooner or later the sea will again damage the line, however well built it is.

In this position on the edge of a turbulent sea (it's the Atlantic) this piece of railway will be forever at risk. It will need endless monitoring and unusual levels of maintenance for the forseeable future. An yet there is an alternative inland route possible, calm and well protected, well away from the destructive power of a raging sea. Why on earth has this not been developed? If the country wants a reliable railway to the far west - one that won't be in perpetual risk of being damaged by the sea - then an inland route alternative is the ultimate answer.
<Pendant Alert>

You raise quite a few good points. However, when I went to school the "Atlantic" was known as an ocean,
not a sea. As you used the word "sea" so many times, perhaps it might of been a better idea to have used the term ' the English Channel'? Which is also known as the British Sea, which is indeed a sea, as it is in it's title, lol.
 

vic-rijrode

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2016
Messages
288
<Pendant Alert>

You raise quite a few good points. However, when I went to school the "Atlantic" was known as an ocean,
not a sea. As you used the word "sea" so many times, perhaps it might of been a better idea to have used the term ' the English Channel'? Which is also known as the British Sea, which is indeed a sea, as it is in it's title, lol.
Pedant Alert
might have
.
its

sorry.
 
Last edited:

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
895
Location
ECML
Pedant Alert
might have
.
its

sorry.
I'll give you the first one, the other I'm blaming on autocorrect (technology can be a great help, but also a hindrance).

I noticed you edited out your suggestion of "which" as you realised after posting you was wrong, as a "?" is treated as a full stop. So, I think we are even and we can get now get back on topic...

I feel that a route inland won't happen until the sea wall has been repaired/rebuilt at least a few times and then someone realises it would of been cheaper to have rebuilt/reinstated the route via Okehampton in the first place, but doesn't want to end up with egg on their face, until rebuilding the sea wall is a lost cause and they are forced to go inland.

Note: Edited to correct autocorrect !! grrr
 

Eskimo

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2020
Messages
60
Location
Leicester
What are the parameters for a partial and a total line closure through Dawlish? Surely something proactive, like a forecast, and not something reactive?
 

sharpener

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2018
Messages
33
AS the other thread is now locked can I use this space to point out that continuing to send a fleet of trains into conditions which it is already known they cannot cope with is complete folly.

Have we learned nothing at all from the "wrong kind of snow" debacle on the Southern Region in 1991? Which similarly burnt out a large number of traction motors entirely predictably, and so cost a lot more both in terms of repair cost and time to restore full service than suspending it for a relatively short time would have done.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,065
Location
Macclesfield
Ah right. So was that the only time over the years that the line has been closed by sea damage?
It was the longest closure, but not the only ever closure. A few years ago I found an academic report somewhere that listed all the previous damage, some within the first few years of opening. (I’ve looked for it again but my Googling skills are failing today.). The 2014 washout was apparently the longest and most recently publicised, but definitely not unique.
Wikipedia appears to have a fairly detailed list:
The sea wall has always been prone to damage during stormy weather as it runs alongside the open sea at the base of cliffs for four miles. The first time this occurred was just a few months after the line opened. In September 1846 repairs were necessary to the wall north of Parson's Tunnel which had been built with loose rock instead of the masonry wall seen elsewhere, and then on October 4 storms broke through the wall in several places and services had to terminate at Dawlish. That night the high tide flooded the line where it ran alongside the River Exe and more breaches occurred as the storm continued into Monday. South of Parson's Tunnel the sand was scoured from the beach and this caused another cavity under the wall. Repairs started on October 7 when the storm had died down. Trains could run through to Teignmouth again after just 50 hours and the loose rock was replaced by a permanent wall the following winter.

On the morning of 24 December 1852 there was a rock fall from the cliff at Breeches Rock, the same place that the wall had been damaged in 1846. A train was stopped before it hit the rocks and the passengers had to walk past the blockage to join trains on the other side, but the line was reopened after a few hours. Later that week a larger fall happened which blocked the line early on December 29, this time knocking some of the wall into the sea. Passengers were transferred between Dawlish and Teignmouth by road for two days, after which trains could approach the blockage so passengers could again walk past to join trains on the other side. The line reopened for through trains after a total of four days.

On Monday 12 February 1855 large portions of the sea wall were washed away. Despite repair work starting promptly four days later more of the sea wall and a long 70 yards (64 m) section of line were also washed away. Passengers were obliged to leave their trains and carry their luggage some distance to join another. A temporary viaduct was constructed by the resident engineer, Mr. Margery, and was in operation within a couple of weeks which allowed the through operation of coaches, pulled by hand and rope, although some nervous passengers still alighted and walked.

The night of 25 October 1859 saw the largest storm to hit Devon in 35 years. The Exe river wall was damaged at Turf and Powderham. On the coastal section the dividing wall between the footway and railway was knocked down near Langstone, while the line was flooded where it was at beach level between Dawlish and Kennaway tunnel. At Teignmouth the top of the wall was damaged and the sea flooded through Eastcliff tunnel into the station. One train was stuck at Dawlish but the line reopened at 11 a.m. on 27 October when a line was reinstated at Turf.

The sea undermined the wall north of Dawlish on 31 January 1869 leading to the collapse of 80 yards (73 m) of wall. A train was stopped at Dawlish where passengers were taken by road to Dawlish Warren to join a special train, even though there was no station at the Warren at this time! After this passengers were taken to Starcross until a temporary line across the breach was opened for traffic on 4 February. This was the section south of Rockstone where no footway was provided to keep good views from the houses behind the railway. After the breach it was rebuilt at the higher level that had been used from Rockstone to Langstone from the opening of the line.

The winter of 1872-1873 saw a series of breaches. On Christmas Day 1872 around 60 yards (55 m) of wall was washed away by heavy waves near Rockstone. Engineers were laying a second track here so this was brought into use later the same day although passengers had to change trains between the two lines until the original line could be restored. Only a few days later, on December 30, a larger breach undermined the tracks at the same place causing trains to stop either side of the gap until 1 January 1873. Then early on the morning of 1 January another 40 yards (37 m) of sea wall was breached between 30 yards (27 m) and 40 yards (37 m) above the breach of Christmas Day. This breach washed out 0.25 miles (0.40 km) of the sandstone rock on which the wall was originally built, the wall being completely undermined in places with cavities up to 2 feet (0.61 m). Despite this, trains continued to run on the new single track. Most of the repairs were destroyed in a gale during the night of 1 and 2 February and also a section 30 yards (27 m) to the north. The three breaches stretched over 200 yards (180 m) and it was feared that Rockstone footbridge might collapse. Road transport was instigated between Dawlish and Starcross including extra horses and wagonettes brought up from Plymouth by special train. The carriages of the overnight mail train to London was pushed across on February 3 and services then started to return to normal.

After the storms of 1873 there was no significant damage for fifty years. Some preventative work was started in 1918 to reduce the likelihood of cliff falls near Langstone and Sprey Point. While this was taking place a cliff fall blocked the line near Sprey Point on 12 March 1923. One track was reopened on the 14th and the second on the 22nd.

Single line working was needed on 24 December 1930 when the wall was undermined at Riviera terrace north of the Coastguard footbridge. Late on 4 January 1931 another storm caused a 50 feet (15 m) section here to be undermined and the material supporting the track was sucked out. The hole was filled by granite blocks and quick-setting cement. Single-line working was possible from midday on January 8. Later that year 638 yards (583 m) of wall foundations were strengthened and some of the groynes that prevent the beach being eroded were lengthened. There was a breach of the river wall at Powderham on 10 February 1936 which closed the line until 12 February.

On Christmas Eve 1929 a large portion of the wall near the Coastguard Station cracked and gave way, causing partial subsidence of the down line. Traffic was able to continue on the up line. Whilst repairs proceeded quickly, on 4 January 1930 another breach occurred when the foundations of the track were washed away leaving a chasm 25 feet (7.6 m) deep and extending for 50 feet (15 m) which resulted in the complete closure of the line. Repairs were undertaken under the supervision of Mr. H.E. Damen, a divisional engineer, and the line re-opened within three days.

On 17 November 1965 stormy seas created a 60 feet (18 m) gap in the sea wall between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren. British Rail managed to keep services running with trains restricted to 10 miles per hour (16 km/h) but repairs took three weeks.

The first significant closure in fifty years occurred in 1986 between Smuggler's Lane bridge and Sprey point. The sea wall was undermined early on 26 February and material was washed out from beneath the down line, although the wall did not collapse. The sea kept removing stones until the hole was 30 yards (27 m) long. Two more holes opened over the next few days, one either side of the original. Both tracks were closed to regular traffic but engineering trains were able to use the line closest to the cliffs to bring in material to fill the hole. On 1 March freight trains were allowed to use the single track between engineering operations. Providing buses for passengers was difficult over the weekend of March 1 and 2 as resignalling work was taking place north of Exeter so most spare buses were already committed to cover services to Taunton. Freight and long-distance passenger traffic along the sea wall resumed on the single line on 3 March but local services continued to be replaced by buses until the second line was reopened on 11 March.

The first blockage of the 21st century occurred in September 2006. A storm hit during the afternoon of the 21st and trains were operated in both directions on the up line which kept them further away from the waves that were breaking over the wall. The following day there was a wash out north of Dawlish station which caused the down line to be closed, but normal working resumed on September 23.

On the night of 4 February 2014, amid high winds and extremely rough seas, part of the sea wall at Dawlish was breached, washing away around 40 metres (130 ft) of the wall and the ballast under the railway immediately behind. It was initially hoped that the line would only be closed for a short time but further storms prevented work to repair the railway.
 

vic-rijrode

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2016
Messages
288
I'll give you the first one, the other I'm blaming on autocorrect (technology can be a great help, but also a hindrance).

I noticed you edited out your suggestion of "which" as you realised after posting you was wrong, as a "?" is treated as a full stop. So, I think we are even and we can get now get back on topic...

I feel that a route inland won't happen until the sea wall has been repaired/rebuilt at least a few times and then someone realises it would of been cheaper to have rebuilt/reinstated the route via Okehampton in the first place, but doesn't want to end up with egg on their face, until rebuilding the sea wall is a lost cause and they are forced to go inland.

Note: Edited to correct autocorrect !! grrr
Those bolded are not autocorrect errors.

I suggest that it will be a few decades before the sea wall is a lost cause.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,447
Those bolded are not autocorrect errors.

I suggest that it will be a few decades before the sea wall is a lost cause.
100 years of expected sea level rise, according to the consulting engineers who designed it, which was explained in the planning applications I read.

Of course that’s probably fake news, after all what could Arup possibly know that we don’t… o_O
 

LYRobert

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2022
Messages
81
Location
Banbury
Steve Harris (post 14) has an accurate summary:

I feel that a route inland won't happen until the sea wall has been repaired/rebuilt at least a few times and then someone realises it would of been cheaper to have rebuilt/reinstated the route via Okehampton in the first place, but doesn't want to end up with egg on their face, until rebuilding the sea wall is a lost cause and they are forced to go inland.

Only then will the issue rise through the political miasma to the level where an alternative - and safe - route could be a serious contender.

Another way it might happen I suppose is the possiblity that a train might be knocked off the rails one day, and even, parhaps, washed into the sea. Oh, better do something about that, then.

It's the way road improvements are assessed. I myself have sat in on meetings where particular road improvements were being "Programmed", and the question has been asked "But have there been any fatalities at this location?"

So we come away from that with the uneasy thought that no action is needed unless a life has been lost.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,745
Steve Harris (post 14) has an accurate summary:

I feel that a route inland won't happen until the sea wall has been repaired/rebuilt at least a few times and then someone realises it would of been cheaper to have rebuilt/reinstated the route via Okehampton in the first place, but doesn't want to end up with egg on their face, until rebuilding the sea wall is a lost cause and they are forced to go inland.

Only then will the issue rise through the political miasma to the level where an alternative - and safe - route could be a serious contender.

Another way it might happen I suppose is the possiblity that a train might be knocked off the rails one day, and even, parhaps, washed into the sea. Oh, better do something about that, then.

It's the way road improvements are assessed. I myself have sat in on meetings where particular road improvements were being "Programmed", and the question has been asked "But have there been any fatalities at this location?"

So we come away from that with the uneasy thought that no action is needed unless a life has been lost.
Even if we were going inland we wouldn't go by Okehampton in a million years, but let's not dredge up that debate again!
 

Grecian 1998

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2019
Messages
420
Location
Bristol
The current line serves a vastly larger population than the route round the north side of Dartmoor. As well as the Torbay conurbation, Ivybridge, Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Dawlish all have populations exceeding 10,000. The only town with a population exceeding 10,000 on the northern route is Tavistock.

If a line avoiding the sea wall is built, it would be a short avoiding line tunnelling through Teignbridge, not a completely different route serving little local population. It's curious how many people feel it vital that Plymouth and Cornwall have an alternative route - the latter with a hefty time penalty for a reversal of several miles at Plymouth - but don't feel anywhere in South Devon merits one.

It should be noted about Dawlish that that part of the coast is predominantly west rather than east-facing. As the prevailing direction of most storms is from the south-west, it does provide some shelter from the full force of the sea in 'normal' storms. If the Victorians has built a railway along any part of Lyme Bay east of the Exe it would likely have failed completely by now. The reason the 2014 breach was so severe is that the prevailing winds at the time were southerly, and the part of the wall that collapsed was the most exposed to southerly winds.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,433
It's the way road improvements are assessed. I myself have sat in on meetings where particular road improvements were being "Programmed", and the question has been asked "But have there been any fatalities at this location?"

So we come away from that with the uneasy thought that no action is needed unless a life has been lost.
I have sat in many such meetings and when prioritising road schemes an account is taken of the accident record of the location. Not just fatalities but also minor and major injury accidents.

Account is also taken of causes where these can be identified (there is no point redesigning a junction following a fatality if the person had died of a heart attack at the wheel).

It sounds callous but how else can you draw up a priority list?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,221
Steve Harris (post 14) has an accurate summary:

I feel that a route inland won't happen until the sea wall has been repaired/rebuilt at least a few times and then someone realises it would of been cheaper to have rebuilt/reinstated the route via Okehampton in the first place, but doesn't want to end up with egg on their face, until rebuilding the sea wall is a lost cause and they are forced to go inland.

Only then will the issue rise through the political miasma to the level where an alternative - and safe - route could be a serious contender.

Another way it might happen I suppose is the possiblity that a train might be knocked off the rails one day, and even, parhaps, washed into the sea. Oh, better do something about that, then.

It's the way road improvements are assessed. I myself have sat in on meetings where particular road improvements were being "Programmed", and the question has been asked "But have there been any fatalities at this location?"

So we come away from that with the uneasy thought that no action is needed unless a life has been lost.

As I have said on previous threads on this subject over the past 8-9 years….

When the town of Dawlish has been washed away into the sea, there will still be a massive lump of concrete with 2 pairs of steel rails on it in the English Channel. That railway is going absolutely nowhere.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,795
Location
Devon
We have covered this subject countless (well you probably could count them if you really wanted to) times. I think all of us that have any kind of link - be it personal, engineering related, or who actually work one way or another on the route probably breathe a collective sigh whenever the subject comes up.

We don’t need to close the subject down for debate on here, but it’s probably worth looking through some of the threads (and that’s literally only a handful) that I’ve linked below to get an idea of what’s been discussed before and to see the huge amount of debate that’s taken place even just over the last few years…





 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,006
Location
Dyfneint
If the Victorians has built a railway along any part of Lyme Bay east of the Exe it would likely have failed completely by now

That would be a sight! it's cliffs all the way to the causeway to Portland, other than the river mouths. Some rather crumbling, some more than others. I think the LSWR got as close as they could from Axminster westwards, any line to Weymouth would probably have come from Axminster & not gone that near the coast either. Considering the *other* tough terrain the South Devon Railway went through it's a little surprising it went along the coast like it does.

And yes - building a new railway away from all the people is a very strange concept, this isn't a "you can serve South Devon or you can serve Plymouth & west" thing, it's Plymouth and west whichever way you go, the choice is to serrve NA & Torbay nor not to. Why would you not? also it's a lot less railway to build.

Or you could try building breakwaters, if that didn't result in the beach being dragged off somewhere else down the coast.
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
985
Location
London
Didn't Network Rail declare that an increase in capacity would be needed between Exeter and Newton Abbot in the next couple of decades, regardless of the Dawlish sea situation?
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,006
Location
Dyfneint
Well, Dawlish is forecast 25-30kt winds with gusts up to 54kts, from the SE/SSE, tomorrow shortly after evening high tide ( about 20:45 ) - so that'll give the wall another good test. Also fairly similarily stormy tonight, but at low tide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top