An alternative route between Plymouth and Exeter, via Okehampton, should be built

[HSTEd]

How on earth would you connect an aerial cableway with an infrequent train in a way that might make people actually want to use it?

Well if you use an aerial tramway you can timetable it just as well as a train?

 

[Irascible]

Exeter St David's, Exeter Central and the whole Exeter area will be resignalled, it has to be because the 80's signalling is rapidly approaching the end of it's serviceable life.

One hopes it won't be like-for-like. Someone with more knowledge can tell us if the 80s rationalisation was too much rationalisation, but it's definitely holding things back these days.

Although it's a little of topic, Exeter Central needs a central reversing siding, like Bournemouth has. It would allow trains to arrive from both platforms from the Exeter St David's and run forward into the sidings and then reverse in there and then run back out into either platform to then work the return working. It's expensive, needs a bit of fiddly pointwork and also negates the need to run ECS to Exmouth Junction, which is busy enough as is without ECS movements.

There seems to be a lot of unused railway land to the east end of Central too. There's masses of room for options there ( the next bridge from Central can take at least 6 lines ) & given the arrangement you can't really do much else but put railway on it.

I have no idea of the sort of pricetag of area resignalling & remodelling work. A lot more than the Okehampton reopening, I suspect...

 

[BayPaul]

Well if you use an aerial tramway you can timetable it just as well as a train?

I think the point is that the train would realistically be no more frequent than every 30 mins, but to get a sensible capacity on an aerial system you are probably looking at a 10 person gondola every minute.
I like the idea, especially as it would also get tourist trade, but I don't think it's the right option (though I have wondered about one as an option for a metro system to Plymouth's hillier suburbs, but that's probably off topic)

There's been talk on this thread that Plymouth is losing out because its the largest city without a diversionary route. Whilst technically this may be true, practically there are lots of large places with no reasonable diversionary route - places like Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Luton, Chelmsford and Colchester would all be impractical to reach from London by rail if their mainlines were closed, due to the lack of orbital routes.

 

[Grumbler]

A reopened Okehampton route would provide an alternative for Plymouth and Cornwall, but not for south Devon which one of these days will be cut off when another massive storm eventually forces the abandonment of the Dawlish route. A inland route between Exeter and Newton Abbot will be needed, built to mainline standards.

 

[Falcon1200]

A reopened Okehampton route would provide an alternative for Plymouth and Cornwall, but not for south Devon which one of these days will be cut off when another massive storm eventually forces the abandonment of the Dawlish route. A inland route between Exeter and Newton Abbot will be needed, built to mainline standards.

A couple of key words are missing after 'cut off': 'by rail'. South Devon, Cornwall etc will still be reachable by road.

Bere Alston/Tavistock does seem an obvious candidate for re-opening, but I have to ask, where would the traffic to justify the cost come from ? Unless a potential passenger lives near Tavistock station, and their destination is near Plymouth station, their journey might well still be quicker by road, traffic congestion and all.

 

[yorksrob]

A couple of key words are missing after 'cut off': 'by rail'. South Devon, Cornwall etc will still be reachable by road.

Bere Alston/Tavistock does seem an obvious candidate for re-opening, but I have to ask, where would the traffic to justify the cost come from ? Unless a potential passenger lives near Tavistock station, and their destination is near Plymouth station, their journey might well still be quicker by road, traffic congestion and all.

That's a completely meaningless motorist-centric argument. Not everyone drives for starters. And in most rail served communities, not everyone lives next door to the station.

That said, In my view the railway should buy out Tavistock North and relocate the station there.

 

[The Planner]

Exeter St David's, Exeter Central and the whole Exeter area will be resignalled, it has to be because the 80's signalling is rapidly approaching the end of it's serviceable life.

Whilst 40 years tends to be design life, chances are it will go towards 50 or more. Id also suspect that it would be looked at as a wider piece. You would probably get the entire Barnstaple branch on a workstation.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the point is that the train would realistically be no more frequent than every 30 mins, but to get a sensible capacity on an aerial system you are probably looking at a 10 person gondola every minute.

Well if you went for an aerial tramway instead of a 3S/Gondola system, you could have a two vehicles doing shuttles with capacities up to 230 if you wanted.
If it takes ~8m at 12m/s then you can run a ten minute shuttle and line it up with the train to a much greater extent.

But I just feel this is a somewhat reasonable suggestion and often people just scorn the whole idea.

 

[30907]

Let us suppose the LSW route is reopened with an hourly service, that decent speeds can be maintained, and that crews maintain route knowledge, and that there is a contingency timetable with good paths which would add approximately 30min to the direct journey time.

Realistically, this would allow for 1tph to be diverted, because there wouldn't be enough rolling stock or crews for much more (assuming some service is required over the open part of the GW route, eg Plymouth-Teignmouth).

I labour this point because this current thread was triggered by the dastardly deeds in Mutley. The line there was completely blocked for less than 24hr; after that 1tph was maintained over the GW route for the rest of the week with delays generally well under 30min.

So, had the Okehampton route been available, it would have been needed for diversions for just 24hr, after which a better option would have been to run via the GW.
I am ex-SR and would love to see Okehampton-Bere Alston reopen, but its use as a diversionary route will never make the business or strategic case.

 

[yorksrob]

Back to the umpteenth repetition of the second route argument.
Let us suppose the LSW route is reopened with an hourly service, that decent speeds can be maintained, and that crews maintain route knowledge, and that there is a contingency timetable with good paths which would add approximately 30min to the direct journey time.
Realistically, this would allow for 1tph to be diverted, because there wouldn't be enough rolling stock or crews for much more (assuming some service is required over the open part of the GW route, eg Plymouth-Teignmouth).

I labour this point because this current thread was triggered by the dastardly deeds in Mutley. The line there was completely blocked for less than 24hr; after that 1tph was maintained over the GW route for the rest of the week with delays generally well under 30min.
So, had the Okehampton route been available, it would have been needed for diversions for just 24hr, after which a better option would have been to run via the GW.
I am ex-SR and would love to see Okehampton-Bere Alston reopen, but its use as a diversionary route will never make the business or strategic case.

Why one train per hour ?

It's not beyond the ability of the industry for cross country and great Western drivers to retain route knowledge, in which case you would get two IC capacity services diverted an hour, which wouldn't be bad going in disruption.

 

[Glenn1969]

Why one train per hour ?

It's not beyond the ability of the industry for cross country and great Western drivers to retain route knowledge, in which case you would get two IC capacity services diverted an hour, which wouldn't be bad going in disruption.

But can you justify the expense for a 2 per hour service that may only be needed on a handful of days a year? I think if the route was considered important it would have been done ages ago

 

[yorksrob]

But can you justify the expense for a 2 per hour service that may only be needed on a handful of days a year? I think if the route was considered important it would have been done ages ago

Of course you couldn't. Not on its own anyway.

But you wouldn't have to because you'd also be bringing much enhanced connectivity to Okehampton, Tavistock and a swathe of Central and North Devon at the same time.

 

[D6130]

the dastardly deeds in Mutley.

Give that man a medal!

I am ex-SR and would love to see Okehampton-Bere Alston reopen, but its use as a diversionary route will never make the business or strategic case.

Sadly, I am forced to agree with you.

 

[yorksrob]

Give that man a medal!

Oh yes, I've just got that

 

[30907]

Why one train per hour?

Because 2tph via GW requires 4 units and crews (ignoring layovers), 2tph via LSW requires 6.
OK, that's only 2 more, but they've still got to be found - and in times of disruption it's preferable to have more slack not less.
I assumed a local service as well, of course.

It's not beyond the ability of the industry for cross country and great Western drivers to retain route knowledge,

As I specifically assumed.

 

[yorksrob]

Because 2tph via GW requires 4 units and crews (ignoring layovers), 2tph via LSW requires 6.
OK, that's only 2 more, but they've still got to be found - and in times of disruption it's preferable to have more slack not less.
I assumed a local service as well, of course.

As I specifically assumed.

Any train is better than no train. And of course, there would still be scheduled services.

 

[Irascible]

A reopened Okehampton route would provide an alternative for Plymouth and Cornwall, but not for south Devon which one of these days will be cut off when another massive storm eventually forces the abandonment of the Dawlish route. A inland route between Exeter and Newton Abbot will be needed, built to mainline standards.

Abandoning the Dawlish route would mean abandoning Dawlish itself, which would not go down well. What's actually needed is a 21st century route to Plymouth via the main population centres ( er, Newton Abbott and... ) rather than just a bypass, maybe one day.

--

Who is going to pay to run the fresh air freights between Oke & Tavy btw? it's not going to be DCC. Plodding around a twisty Dartmoor branch even slower than the main line so the crew retains knowledge is not going to please IC passengers either - like being diverted via Yeovil when Cowley Bridge floods, it's novel a couple of times & then a major annoyance.

 

[yorksrob]

Abandoning the Dawlish route would mean abandoning Dawlish itself, which would not go down well. What's actually needed is a 21st century route to Plymouth via the main population centres ( er, Newton Abbott and... ) rather than just a bypass, maybe one day.

--

Who is going to pay to run the fresh air freights between Oke & Tavy btw? it's not going to be DCC. Plodding around a twisty Dartmoor branch even slower than the main line so the crew retains knowledge is not going to please IC passengers either - like being diverted via Yeovil when Cowley Bridge floods, it's novel a couple of times & then a major annoyance.

It's still better than a bus.

And people are still referencing timings from the run down of the line.

In its heyday, the Okehampton route was 5-10 minutes slower than the Western one. A reconstructed one would likely have a higher line speed in line with general speed improvements.

 

[The Planner]

It's still better than a bus.

And people are still referencing timings from the run down of the line.

In its heyday, the Okehampton route was 5-10 minutes slower than the Western one. A reconstructed one would likely have a higher line speed in line with general speed improvements.

I doubt it would as it wouldn't be considered a mainline, doubt it would get over 75mph.

 

[paul1609]

Given that the decision has been made to strengthen the sea wall at Dawlish, and the costs of improving or replacing Meldon viaduct seem excessive, I wonder why the proposed extension from Bere Alston to just Tavistock seems to have stalled? There is a very frequent bus service between Plymouth and Tavistock, and I have heard that traffic congestion in Plymouth can be quite bad in the peak hours. Is it now impossible/expensive to reach near the centre of Tavistock as the trackbed has been built on? I visited the area in May as a tourist and am genuinely interested.

As I've posted before it's because all the development in Plymouth has been alongside the A386 and A38 roads in the Roborough to Manadon corridor , think hospitals, retail parks, employment. The vast majority of people travelling from Tavistock want those areas. If they travelled by rail to Plymouth Station they'd then need a bus back towards Tavistock. If you want to go from Tavistock to Exeter you go directly via Road not 12 miles in the wrong direction.

 

[yorksrob]

If you want to go from Tavistock to Exeter you go directly via Road not 12 miles in the wrong direction.

Our train via Okehampton if they built it.

 

[6Gman]

There's been talk on this thread that Plymouth is losing out because its the largest city without a diversionary route. Whilst technically this may be true, practically there are lots of large places with no reasonable diversionary route - places like Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Luton, Chelmsford and Colchester would all be impractical to reach from London by rail if their mainlines were closed, due to the lack of orbital routes.

And can I add Newcastle (plus Darlington, Durham, Sunderland, Middlesbrough) if there's a blockage between York and Northallerton?

Yes, you can physically travel to them if you fancy the trek via Carlisle but for all practical purposes . . .

 

[30907]

It's still better than a bus.

And people are still referencing timings from the run down of the line.

I'm not - unless you consider the rundown as starting pre ww2, timings didn't change.

In its heyday, the Okehampton route was 5-10 minutes slower than the Western one.

Yes, the GWR wasn't known for speed generally.

A reconstructed one would likely have a higher line speed in line with general speed improvements.

Maybe Tavistock-Meldon which the SR reduced to 40 or so because they weren't competing for London-Plymouth, but that's all.

But there'd be no business case for easing curves, or going above 75 generally, based on a regional semi fast plus occasional diversions.

Glad to oblige. Look as the last word in the first sentence in posting # 59 on this thread.....Gadgetbahn

Thought that was it. Apparently an English invention/borrowing and first evidenced in 2017. Pretty obscure but barely German.

Explained as a gondola - oops, Italian for small cable car cabin

 

[Ashley Hill]

It would allow trains to arrive from both platforms from the Exeter St David's and run forward into the sidings and then reverse in there and then run back out into either platform to then work the return working.

There's a crossover at the London end of the station which allows this move. Since trains were prohibited from propelling with the guard up front you now have to wait for the driver to change ends. So now it all goes up to Exmouth Jct.

 

[daodao]

An alternative route between Plymouth and Exeter, via Okehampton, should be built​

NO is my response to the thread title. This old chestnut crops up again and again. Re-opening lines through the middle of nowhere is futile. I don't understand why this forum is so obsessed with such rural schemes, another example being Carlisle to Hawick.

 

[swt_passenger]

A reopened Okehampton route would provide an alternative for Plymouth and Cornwall, but not for south Devon which one of these days will be cut off when another massive storm eventually forces the abandonment of the Dawlish route. A inland route between Exeter and Newton Abbot will be needed, built to mainline standards.

The sea wall improvements are designed for 100 years life, including predicted sea level rises. Unless they’ve seriously miscalculated it isn’t going to collapse ”one of these days”…

The sea wall alterations are the accepted DfT/NR solution, there’s very low possibility of another route, no matter how often new threads get started here.

 

[Grumbler]

Abandoning the Dawlish route would mean abandoning Dawlish itself, which would not go down well. What's actually needed is a 21st century route to Plymouth via the main population centres ( er, Newton Abbott and... ) rather than just a bypass, maybe one day.

When storm-proof Exeter to Newton Abbot line is built, any surviving parts of the Dawlish route could be taken over by preservationists.

 

[tbtc]

A reopened Okehampton route would provide an alternative for Plymouth and Cornwall, but not for south Devon which one of these days will be cut off when another massive storm eventually forces the abandonment of the Dawlish route. A inland route between Exeter and Newton Abbot will be needed, built to mainline standards.

Agreed - and the population of Newton Abbott/ Totes/ Torquay/ Paignton isn't insignificant - there's around eighty thousand people in South Hams, compared to a significantly lower population "inland" (ten thousand in Tavistock, five thousand in Okehampton, anywhere else nearby is in the "couple of hundred" population bracket)

But people seem happy to ignore the people living along the coast, they are so focussed on trying to justify re-opening an abandoned route that they aren't interested in the "Torbay" kind of passengers (the money spent on fixing the problems at Dawlish spoils the case for the magical mystery tour of Dartmoor that they are so keen on)

Bere Alston/Tavistock does seem an obvious candidate for re-opening, but I have to ask, where would the traffic to justify the cost come from ?

Are you saying that it's an "obvious candidate for re-opening" even though you can't see where the passenger volumes would come from?

I labour this point because this current thread was triggered by the dastardly deeds in Mutley. The line there was completely blocked for less than 24hr; after that 1tph was maintained over the GW route for the rest of the week with delays generally well under 30min.
So, had the Okehampton route been available, it would have been needed for diversions for just 24hr, after which a better option would have been to run via the GW.
I am ex-SR and would love to see Okehampton-Bere Alston reopen, but its use as a diversionary route will never make the business or strategic case.

Nice pun

And I agree - even the latest closure would only have been for a short period, so even if the long distance services could be crewed by staff who had route knowledge still on their cards and trains could be diverted without disrupting their paths at the Thames Valley/ West Midlands end of the journeys

Why one train per hour ?

It's not beyond the ability of the industry for cross country and great Western drivers to retain route knowledge, in which case you would get two IC capacity services diverted an hour, which wouldn't be bad going in disruption.

Okay, so you're wanting a fully double track line with 100mph track through Okehampton/ Tavistock?

But can you justify the expense for a 2 per hour service that may only be needed on a handful of days a year? I think if the route was considered important it would have been done ages ago

Agreed - it'd be a complete luxury - especially now that we are seeing cutbacks in a number of areas - if even finding a spare 142/150 to provide some weekday shuttles from Okehampton to Exeter was too low down the list of priorities for FGW/GWR then why are we even discussing a double track 100mph line through the middle of nowhere?

 

[Falcon1200]

That's a completely meaningless motorist-centric argument. Not everyone drives for starters. And in most rail served communities, not everyone lives next door to the station.

I beg to disagree, a railway is simply one form of transport. Other modes, including public transport (therefore no need to drive) are available.

Are you saying that it's an "obvious candidate for re-opening" even though you can't see where the passenger volumes would come from?

Which is why I used the word 'seem', which you have omitted !

 

[6Gman]

It's still better than a bus.

And people are still referencing timings from the run down of the line.

In its heyday, the Okehampton route was 5-10 minutes slower than the Western one. A reconstructed one would likely have a higher line speed in line with general speed improvements.

Not sure what you mean by its heyday, but my 1955 timetable shows a rather larger difference. Four through trains drawn at random (I've excluded stoppers and the Cornish Riviera) averaged 23 minutes faster via Totnes (and that's after removing a generous 15 minutes from the ACE to allow for the shunting at Okehampton).

Of course, the key is what any new route would look like - is there a suggestion of extensive redoubling, which would surely be necessary for a robust service?