Except you could run a service from Exeter Central to Plymouth via Newton Abbott, with no need to build a billion pound new line, which would get there faster than via Okehampton even with the reversal. There is a reasonable amount of spare space on the main line to fit in a service like this with a few tweaks to the timetables, all it takes is a couple of extra Class 158/9s, which are now coming available from TfW for example.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
An alternative route between Plymouth and Exeter, via Okehampton, should be built
- Thread starter yorksrob
- 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
Given that St David's and Central are less than a mile apart, I think that's pretty tenuous reasoning. Google maps reckons a 10 min walk. But the point is everybody now knows and accepts St David's is the city's main station and if you want a train for Plymouth, Bristol or most other destinations it's where you head to.
People usually head to the station which has the regular, quick service. It's a bit different in a large city like Manchester where people are more inclined to head to the nearest station (aided by Metrolink).
Please read the context of my reply, as it was in reply to someone asking about the number of through passengers if it existed, I was suggesting that Okehampton/Plymouth wasn't the main flow.
If it existed then there would be people who used it to get between Exeter and Plymouth.
I'd also highlight that those using Exeter Central could well have a 10 minute walk to get there, therefore adding up to a further 10 minutes to that to get to St. Davids which would likely be a significant barrier to using rail travel (and not just due to journey times). (In effect the reverse of it'll add a X minute walk from Curzon Street to New Street and so HS2 would only save 20 minutes, in that the start point in Birmingham could actually be closer to Curzon Street and so could increase the journey time saving over the base figure).
Moderator note: Moved from
I don't think reopening Tavistock - Okehampton makes sense in any case.
If you were looking to provide resilience to Devon & Cornwall's railway, then you'd also look at how to speed up journeys etc - so back to the GWR's proposal to avoid Dawlish, which at least has the merit of continuing to serve alot of people along the south Devon coast.
I don't think reopening Tavistock - Okehampton makes sense in any case.
If you were looking to provide resilience to Devon & Cornwall's railway, then you'd also look at how to speed up journeys etc - so back to the GWR's proposal to avoid Dawlish, which at least has the merit of continuing to serve alot of people along the south Devon coast.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tavistock is having its population increased with new housing. That's on top of an existing settlement which already struggles with congestion getting to large centres. If that's not justification for a rail link, nothing will be.
Good point. I would also support bringing those two places back into the railway fold. It's shocking that they were removed from it in the first place.
How many houses are being built? Adding 100 homes on top would only be an increase of c.500 people, not all of whom will use the train. Rail links need a critical mass to be viable or substantial political intervention.
When the Restoring Your Railway project gets started we will soon see how many people (edit: in new build homes) are needed in an area to justify each million spent (with multipliers for flippable constituencies). We could use that figure to see what is rational, and what will remain speculative forever.
In this case there’s limited room for a new town, the AONB and national park contain nearly all of the route.
In this case there’s limited room for a new town, the AONB and national park contain nearly all of the route.
Last edited:
Killingworth
Established Member
I read this thread in fascination. I can't see any economic case for reopening a slow branch line along the suggested route. I can't see an economic case for a much faster line which would require new alignments. Merely looking at the OS map I can't see it being a practical diversionary route either.
Now if I wanted to spend billions on a diversionary route to avoid the coast around Dawlish I'd be thinking total new build, and as short as possible. As things currently stand the money is unlikely ever to be there for it, but a line roughly parallel to the A38 from about Ware Barton to north of Exminster. Only about 12 miles against the current 15. A big engineering project. No doubt it's been suggested before. Cue massive environmental protests, but to speed travel to Plymouth and Cornwall that might work.
If either SELRAP or MEMRAP get the go ahead they have different business cases and aren't good guides. I'd still say the nature of this line only makes restoration sense as a heritage preservation project. The finance for that surely isn't there. It's nostalgic wishful thinking.
Now if I wanted to spend billions on a diversionary route to avoid the coast around Dawlish I'd be thinking total new build, and as short as possible. As things currently stand the money is unlikely ever to be there for it, but a line roughly parallel to the A38 from about Ware Barton to north of Exminster. Only about 12 miles against the current 15. A big engineering project. No doubt it's been suggested before. Cue massive environmental protests, but to speed travel to Plymouth and Cornwall that might work.
If either SELRAP or MEMRAP get the go ahead they have different business cases and aren't good guides. I'd still say the nature of this line only makes restoration sense as a heritage preservation project. The finance for that surely isn't there. It's nostalgic wishful thinking.
If either SELRAP (Skipton - Colne) or MEMRAP (Matlock - Chinley) get the go-ahead then either the business cases have got highly fraudulent figures or the government has decided to spend unquestioningly on anything and everything. Those two have been done to death elsewhere, but both are solutions looking for a problem.
On your other point, I agree. If we want a 'resilient' route from Exeter to Plymouth and beyond, then new build at 125mph would be *far* more sensible.
There’s an awful lot of places having new housing that don’t have rail links.
IIRC it was 750, which attracted a developer contribution of £11m if the railway was built. However the railway will cost about 10 times that, and some of the houses have already been built.
That's an interesting point. If a private line were being built or extended to the same extent, would it cost as much ?
Is this more NR gold plating killing everything done dead ?
Lawyers still cost the same, and NR builds to the standards set by the rail regulator, which any other constructor would also have to design and build to.
That doesn't really answer the question though. Would a private railway be required to cost the same?
Killingworth
Established Member
I should have made the word IF a lot bigger, although the first could be more likely than the second because it's already further forward. This idea isn't even a viable solution to an identified problem that's already being dealt with.
However, in an ideal railway world a new HS4 route with lots of tunnels would be the longer term solution. It isn't going to happen and the money even to sketch one out would be better spent on hundreds of bottlenecks and pinch points across the network. Like improving the signage and defences of low bridges!
Ah, so we have to spend money which should go towards improving the railway on making it safe from lousy drivers !
If far rather that cost came from the roads budget.
No, a private railway could cut costs in management, find cheaper suppliers, recruit cheaper staff or come up with some innovative method of working that means they can compete the job in half the time. However, cheaper materials and staff are usually cheaper for a reason, and the last thing anybody would want is for the railway to wear out at twice the rate of any other line. Rebuilding an open line would cost far more than any difference in cost a private constructor could save.
Killingworth
Established Member
That's a fair point, but the road was there first.
Although in most cases, the bridge was there before the lorry was built.
You say that, but would a theoretical Tavistock branch really need to be built all that differently from an extension to the ELR for example, or are we letting excellent be the enemy of good.
Obviously that's a bit different from a through route to Exeter, but better to have that linked than nothing at all.
Incidentally, both Bicester Town and Bathgate were reopened as branch lines then extended later.
Killingworth
Established Member
Good job Capability Brown wasn't landscaping the area because his loads really were large, sorry about the amusing digression
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/librar...rown-and-his-magnificent-tree-moving-machine/
NR haven’t been involved in the costs.
The standards would have to be the same, and to a very great extent the standards set the cost.
You could ask ‘would a private railway have to meet the same standards’ - to which the answer is ‘it depends what sort of railway you want’
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
they were both existing railways too.
The standards don't say 'NR Only' in them. If you want to build a line capable of 75mph, you have to build it to the standards set out for 75mph operation. If you want to build it for 100mph, you have to build it to the 100mph standards, etc. Building it like an extension to the East Lancs Railway would be to limit it to 25mph, manually worked crossings, etc, etc.
If you believe the ORRs exit and entries figures Exeter Central is actually just the busier station. Both Central and St David's individually are bigger than Plymouth.
Not a reasonable comparison - in the case of Bicester Town the line never actually closed - it had remained open for freight.
This is true, but effectively Central is the station for metro-type local services, and St David's is the station for Intercity type services, so people know which to head to. The frequency between them means it is easy to change at St David's if needed anyway.
I'd agree with @The Ham that having a direct service to Plymouth from Central would be reasonably useful, but I don't see why it couldn't travel via Newton Abbot - there seems to be sufficient capacity on that line to extend the Waterloo services if it was desired - in my opinion it would make a lot of sense - giving a better connection from Plymouth to Salisbury and the South East, and there are ample 158s coming spare soon to operate it.
Which doesn't include people arriving at St Davids & changing to whatever's sitting waiting to go up the hill to Central ( or the reverse ). But I'm not surprised given most of the locals go to Central.
Not sure which figures you're looking at ?
On Wikipedia it has (for 18/19 and 19/20) the following:
St David's: 2.620m, 2.676m
Central: 2.532m, 2.536m
D6130
Established Member
So did Bathgate....from the Edinburgh direction.
I didn't know Bathgate so didn't like to comment on that one.
Annetts key
Established Member
How much infrastructure costs depends very much on the specification that is set.
If it was easy to lay and maintain track, don’t you think all the heritage railways would have extended their lines a lot more by now?
So the simple answer, is yes, a private company could do it cheaper. If there was no connection to the Network Rail network, they don’t even have to stick to standard gauge. Similarly, if there was only ever one ‘engine in steam’, you don’t need a very complex signalling system.
But of course, if compromises are made, through running of trains becomes harder.
So you really have to compare on a like for like cost. A conventional scheme (becomes it’s not always Network Rail that actually does the work, or runs the scheme) will have advantages and disadvantages. A private company will also have advantages and disadvantages. It’s not always possible to work out in advance which, in the end, will be the lower cost option.
- Status