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

[Ashley Hill]

Before the Metropolitan line opened there was green fields. Using today's criteria would it have been worth building?

 

[The Ham]

1. If there's that much demand from "the SWML area" to places west of Exeter then wouldn't it be a lot simpler (and a billion pounds cheaper) to find a single 158 to reinstate the through services from Waterloo to Torbay/ Plymouth that BR/ SWT used to provide?

2. Under your proposal, presumably lots of people from "the SWML area" would still have to "head North or even North East before heading west"; the only difference is that they'd be heading to somewhere like Basingstoke onto a 1tph service rather than heading to Reading onto a 1tph service?

3. If the Reading - Exeter service is so busy that you have to stand all the way then isn't the priority to improve that service in the first instance?



It's 23 miles by road between Okehampton and Tavistock - unless you are going to build this line to particularly fast alignments I'd doubt that one unit could provide an hourly service between the two (based on the fact that one DMU cannot manage to provide an hourly service on lines like Huddersfield to Bradford or Wakefield, given the need for turnaround times)

I think one DMU requires around £250,000pa staffing costs (given the fact that you're probably talking about twelve hours a day/ fifty two weeks a year, so need holiday cover etc - plus we need to cover NI contributions/ pensions), as well as the costs of the train itself (depreciation, fuel, maintenance etc), so you'd be needing a lot more than "zero" people on board

And there are suggestions of building the line for two trains per hour throughout? Which is a problem with these threads - people want this to be both a simple cheap route (in the "how hard can it be" league of projects) but also fast enough to allow two InterCity trains per hour from Plymouth to Exeter at comparable speeds to the Dawlish route)



£1bn is a lot in the greater scheme of things



See above re the cost of just one DMU in service - you'd need to cover the ongoing subsidies (e.g. nobody talks about the drain that routes like the Borders line are on public finances - meeting expected passenger numbers doesn't necessarily mean that a line breaks even in terms of operational costs)

The current Gunnislake services takes an hour end to end, meaning that the one unit runs every 2 hours.

Crediton to Exeter Central takes 17 minutes, therefore Okehampton to Exeter would likely require 1 unit to run an hourly service. (Giving a total of 2 units and staff already being paid for by the railways).

Now given the express is expected in the rebuilt Okehampton line to take an hour (53 minutes using a class 220) a stopping service would likely take 90 minutes (again the report cites 75 minutes for the journey time, so that allows for 15 minutes at each end to turn the trains around and a total journey time end to end and back again of 3 hours).

Therefore 2 units could potentially be able to run a 0.75tph frequency on the line without the need for any extra units and therefore any extra costs.

Whilst that would be be a poorer service from Okehampton it would be better at the southern end.

However even though many say that few would travel from Okehampton to Plymouth or Tavistock to Exeter there'll be some. Given that will be able to happen without increasing the costs of running the local services beyond their current costs there will likely be a small reduction in the cost of subsidising the railways.

It is indeed true that you would require a third unit to run the service hourly, however that's a different matter, and whilst that would be preferable it isn't essential if keeping running costs low was a priority.

If Tavistock (not running to Okehampton) was already justified at 1tph then that would provide your 3rd unit and allow 1tph throughout at no additional subsidy beyond what was already justified (again it would likely be that it ended up slightly smaller because of the few who go to the wrong city).

The other thing that's worth noting is that whilst few may travel to Exeter from Tavistock, by removing the need to travel to Plymouth it would increase the numbers wishing to travel between a wider area and Tavistock than would otherwise be the case. Again there may not be significant numbers from (say) London, but even a few extra each week would all be extra income.

Having said that to extend the SWR services to Plymouth (being a stopping service) would require 2 extra trains (as they already havea circa 1 hour turnaround time). Now given that these are likely to be 3 or 6 coaches long (compared with 2 coach trains for the local services) they would require some extra costs. However a fairly limited amount and given that they would be attracting longer distance passengers who would be mostly filling seats emptied by those traveling out of London.

Even allowing an extra cost of £3 million you'd need something like 20 medium/long distance passengers per service paying £20 each (a return between Exeter and Salisbury is about this amount at £40).

That might be a little high to actually achieve (yet not totally out their crazy), but does put into context the sort of level of extra income that would be needed to not increase the subsidy (even with a much better service).

 

[BayPaul]

Before the Metropolitan line opened there was green fields. Using today's criteria would it have been worth building?

Yes, that would certainly give a good business case - building a few large new towns between Tavistock and Okehampton. Something tells me it wouldn't be popular though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==

It's not nostalgia if there's a business case. Cast your mind back some years ago,there was a list of railway lines proposed for reopening. One of the was the Brixham branch. How does that fit with your argument?

Everybody had their price!
An objection for reopening by the B&W of the line from Boscarne to Wenford Bridge came from the owner of a caravan type take away claiming loss of business. I'm surprised he had any business given how quiet this supposedly busy cycle path was.
At the end of the day there are those of us locally who would like to see the SR route reopened as a line in its own right,and those who don't. It's not a nostalgia thing,it's bringing new business and opportunities. Some lines are worth reopening and I know it's not going to be cheap. The West needs some rail regeneration and this could provide it.

But there isn't a business case, especially not for the central section. The 'Brixham branch' proposed for reopening was, in reality, just an extension of services from Paignton to Churston along the P&DSR, so no new track built.

There are loads of other more sensible possible projects in the SW if you want to see rail investment - electrification, new stations on existing lines (Cullompton, Plympton, Exminster for example), improving the Newquay branch to give a good shuttle service direct to St Austell, line speed improvements, doubling frequency on Axminster to Exeter etc. If you really want to build new track, there are surely more sensible places to do it - perhaps new tram systems in Bristol, Plymouth or Exeter, or an extension from Barnstaple to Bideford.

 

[Bald Rick]

Before the Metropolitan line opened there was green fields. Using today's criteria would it have been worth building?

Yes, that would certainly give a good business case - building a few large new towns between Tavistock and Okehampton. Something tells me it wouldn't be popular though.

Indeed. One thing often missed about the Restoring Your Railway programme is that projects that enable significant housing development are much more likely to succeed.

 

[daodao]

projects that enable significant housing development are much more likely to succeed.

Projects that serve significant new housing development, built since a line previously closed, might also be more likely to succeed.

There is no significant new housing development built or planned between Okehampton and Tavistock, nor does this line serve any strategic purpose. Therefore, all proposals for re-opening the former railway line between Okehampton and Tavistock should be put in the waste bin.

 

[zwk500]

However even though many say that few would travel from Okehampton to Plymouth or Tavistock to Exeter there'll be some.

The other thing that's worth noting is that whilst few may travel to Exeter from Tavistock, by removing the need to travel to Plymouth it would increase the numbers wishing to travel between a wider area and Tavistock than would otherwise be the case. Again there may not be significant numbers from (say) London, but even a few extra each week would all be extra income.

Do you have any basis for these claims? An economic study you can point to. Because at the moment we've got 1 set of people saying 'there will be some' and one set of people saying 'not enough to make it work' and I feel like this conversation has run it's course unless we can get actual data with an actual study done in a reasonable timeframe.

Indeed. One thing often missed about the Restoring Your Railway programme is that projects that enable significant housing development are much more likely to succeed.

Absolutely.

 

[yorksrob]

Well the Brixham branch isn't open, is it? So I'm not really sure what point you are making here.

@Altnabreac has a set of criteria for reopened lines that generally serve as fairly reliable indicators of successful projects. If I'm remembering them correctly, Okehampton to Exeter meets about half of them, but Okehampton to Tavistock meets none of them.
They're along the lines of 10k Town, under an hour to nearest big town/city, extension of existing service with no additional stock requirement, etc.

I've not personally seen @ Altnabreac's criteria published as any government/departmental policy or party manifesto. People seem fond of quoting it on here as though it were gospel.

Yes, that would certainly give a good business case - building a few large new towns between Tavistock and Okehampton. Something tells me it wouldn't be popular though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==


But there isn't a business case, especially not for the central section. The 'Brixham branch' proposed for reopening was, in reality, just an extension of services from Paignton to Churston along the P&DSR, so no new track built.

There are loads of other more sensible possible projects in the SW if you want to see rail investment - electrification, new stations on existing lines (Cullompton, Plympton, Exminster for example), improving the Newquay branch to give a good shuttle service direct to St Austell, line speed improvements, doubling frequency on Axminster to Exeter etc. If you really want to build new track, there are surely more sensible places to do it - perhaps new tram systems in Bristol, Plymouth or Exeter, or an extension from Barnstaple to Bideford.

Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line, it is shear lunacy to suggest that existing, functioning towns aren't. If the criteria for creating a business case for a passenger railway can be made for unbuilt settlements but not existing ones, then it has been devised by an imbecile and needs to be changed.

 

[RT4038]

I've not personally seen @ Altnabreac's criteria published as any government/departmental policy or party manifesto. People seem fond of quoting it on here as though it were gospel.



Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line, it is shear lunacy to suggest that existing, functioning towns aren't. If the criteria for creating a business case for a passenger railway can be made for unbuilt settlements but not existing ones, then it has been devised by an imbecile and needs to be changed.

If Tavistock and Okehampton were about 10 times their size, they would be large towns. If Tavistock and Okehampton were this size, and throw in 4 Poundburys/Cranbrooks on the line of route, then the railway would likely be worth rebuilding. Like EWR really.

Development like this probably wouldn't be popular with the locals though.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

Tavistock has a population of about 13,000. Okehampton's population is about 6,000. These are not large towns.

 

[zwk500]

I've not personally seen @ Altnabreac's criteria published as any government/departmental policy or party manifesto. People seem fond of quoting it on here as though it were gospel.

For both points, because the criteria are sensible and realistic. They're not quoted as gospel on here, but experience shows they give a very good sense of the prospects.

Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

Okehampton has <6k population. Tavistock is just over 11k. Both would only be considered large in the 1550s.

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line, it is shear lunacy to suggest that existing, functioning towns aren't. If the criteria for creating a business case for a passenger railway can be made for unbuilt settlements but not existing ones, then it has been devised by an imbecile and needs to be changed.

Future towns of 10,000+ homes. Developments of 2,500 homes (e.g. 7-10,000 population) don't justify new rail links. If you're proposing doubling the size of Tavistock and Okehampton, and building another town in the middle, then we'd have a case.

 

[Bald Rick]

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line

they are a part justification, because they help to pay for it. That is how Tavistock was supposed to be funded, until West Devon Council got someone sensible to estimate the railway costs.

 

[30907]

The current Gunnislake services takes an hour end to end, meaning that the one unit runs every 2 hours.

Crediton to Exeter Central takes 17 minutes, therefore Okehampton to Exeter would likely require 1 unit to run an hourly service. (Giving a total of 2 units and staff already being paid for by the railways).

2 units, as Crediton-Okehampton is 18 miles.

Now given the express is expected in the rebuilt Okehampton line to take an hour (53 minutes using a class 220) a stopping service would likely take 90 minutes (again the report cites 75 minutes for the journey time, so that allows for 15 minutes at each end to turn the trains around and a total journey time end to end and back again of 3 hours).

Crediton-Bere Alston is 41 miles. For a quick comparison, Templecombe-Honiton is 43, on a virtually unrestricted 90mph route.
This takes 50min with 4 stops - so maybe CDI-BAS with only 2 stops would be 45. Except that south of Lydford is unlikely to be upgradable to 90, and as others have said 75 maximum is more realistic for a secondary route anyway. So that pushes the time nearer 55min. Bere Alston-Plymouth, if resignalled and non-stop, is about 20min.

I would suggest that 90-95min Exeter C-Plymouth semifast is achievable, somewhat better than at the line's 1950s heyday. 4 units for an hourly service.

 

[The Ham]

Do you have any basis for these claims? An economic study you can point to. Because at the moment we've got 1 set of people saying 'there will be some' and one set of people saying 'not enough to make it work' and I feel like this conversation has run it's course unless we can get actual data with an actual study done in a reasonable timeframe

Do have any evidence of the desire for some people to travel to Tavistock from anywhere other than Plymouth by rail, no.

However, even IF no one did then it's not going to change the economics of the railway from the the existing. The point that I'm making is that it's possible to not increase the subsidy of the railways, however there's a fair chance that there's likely to be some extra income (even if that amount is fairly small it's all extra income above the baseline).

 

[zwk500]

Do have any evidence of the desire for some people to travel to Tavistock from anywhere other than Plymouth by rail, no.

However, even IF no one did then it's not going to change the economics of the railway from the the existing. The point that I'm making is that it's possible to not increase the subsidy of the railways, however there's a fair chance that there's likely to be some extra income (even if that amount is fairly small it's all extra income above the baseline).

Even if you could run trains for 0 additional cost, you've got to maintain the additional length of track. Even if you don't need additional ranger rovers, RRVs, monitoring equipment etc you will definitely need more P-Way shifts, and therefore almost certainly more P-Way staff. I'm willing to be that no matter how you add it up, any extra income you generate won't cover these costs. So you will be extending the subsidy, at which point you will need to demonstrate to the provider of said subsidy that they will see a return on their investment. And most of these funders will also have road, bus, internet and mobile phone coverage providers asking for help with setting up their own networks, and the funders will be under pressure to make sure every pound spent gets the highest possible return.

 

[BayPaul]

Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line, it is shear lunacy to suggest that existing, functioning towns aren't. If the criteria for creating a business case for a passenger railway can be made for unbuilt settlements but not existing ones, then it has been devised by an imbecile and needs to be changed.

It really isn't shear lunacy at all. New houses require new transport
Future towns will need a transport upgrade of some kind, to avoid overwhelming existing provision. This means that developers are likely to need to pay towards developments, and 'unlocks the building of X thousand new homes' (which raises tax revenue etc) can go into the business case as well.
None of this money is available for existing towns which do not have large amounts of development planned. As you say, the existing towns are functioning, even without a railway their transport systems are not falling over, so the benefit is much more marginal.

 

[Annetts key]

Even if you could run trains for 0 additional cost, you've got to maintain the additional length of track. Even if you don't need additional ranger rovers, RRVs, monitoring equipment etc you will definitely need more P-Way shifts, and therefore almost certainly more P-Way staff.

With regards to extra Network Rail staff, see post 133.

 

[The Ham]

Even if you could run trains for 0 additional cost, you've got to maintain the additional length of track. Even if you don't need additional ranger rovers, RRVs, monitoring equipment etc you will definitely need more P-Way shifts, and therefore almost certainly more P-Way staff. I'm willing to be that no matter how you add it up, any extra income you generate won't cover these costs. So you will be extending the subsidy, at which point you will need to demonstrate to the provider of said subsidy that they will see a return on their investment. And most of these funders will also have road, bus, internet and mobile phone coverage providers asking for help with setting up their own networks, and the funders will be under pressure to make sure every pound spent gets the highest possible return.

Whilst there will be some additional costs, there would almost certainly be some extra passengers.

For example from Tavistock to Exeter works take about 2 hours via Plymouth, cut that to sub 1 hour by going via Okehampton and you're likely to attract people doing that.

Whilst the income from Tavistock to Exeter may be limited, the extra income from Tavistock to (say) London or Bristol could start to be quite significant even if fairly few people did it.

 

[zwk500]

Whilst the income from Tavistock to Exeter may be limited, the extra income from Tavistock to (say) London or Bristol could start to be quite significant even if fairly few people did it.

Oh come on. Its not going to start bringing the subsidy down to a level where other economic benefits may justify it.

 

[The Ham]

Oh come on. Its not going to start bringing the subsidy down to a level where other economic benefits may justify it.

I never said that it would, and the building of the DAL would likely be worse, I was saying that if we're going to justify building something it wouldn't mean an increase in overall subsidy.

 

[irish_rail]

Oh come on. Its not going to start bringing the subsidy down to a level where other economic benefits may justify it.

Did the Borders railway really line up economically? No. But maybe it is about taking a holistic, long term approach to public transport and the environment. We should be taking on schemes like this now whether or not they are likely to pay their way immediately (which, by the way is a very subjective science and often the forecasts are way out).

 

[stuu]

Did the Borders railway really line up economically? No. But maybe it is about taking a holistic, long term approach to public transport and the environment. We should be taking on schemes like this now whether or not they are likely to pay their way immediately (which, by the way is a very subjective science and often the forecasts are way out).

The Borders railway was all about politics, it would not have happened if it weren't for the need to form a coalition. It's good that it was built, but whether it should have been ahead of other schemes in the queue is a different matter

Why does a railway through the middle of nowhere come above routes where people actually live? Spending £800m on a really good tram network for Plymouth would improve vastly more people's journeys and do much more for the environment

 

[irish_rail]

The Borders railway was all about politics, it would not have happened if it weren't for the need to form a coalition. It's good that it was built, but whether it should have been ahead of other schemes in the queue is a different matter

Why does a railway through the middle of nowhere come above routes where people actually live? Spending £800m on a really good tram network for Plymouth would improve vastly more people's journeys and do much more for the environment

Completely and utterly agree that Plymouth is more deserving of a tram network than almost any other UK city. However it isn't even being talked about. Therefore we have to campaign for what is achievable. Unfortunately Trams in Plymouth just isn't going to happen, there isn't the political will. And I really really would love a Tram system in Plymouth. It would be a game changer.

 

[6Gman]

I've not personally seen @ Altnabreac's criteria published as any government/departmental policy or party manifesto. People seem fond of quoting it on here as though it were gospel.



Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

If non-existent future towns are a justification to build a railway line, it is shear lunacy to suggest that existing, functioning towns aren't. If the criteria for creating a business case for a passenger railway can be made for unbuilt settlements but not existing ones, then it has been devised by an imbecile and needs to be changed.

I think the point is that new settlements in addition to those already in existence strengthen a business case.

 

[Bald Rick]

which, by the way is a very subjective science and often the forecasts are way out

Indeed so, in both directions.

 

[stuu]

Completely and utterly agree that Plymouth is more deserving of a tram network than almost any other UK city. However it isn't even being talked about. Therefore we have to campaign for what is achievable. Unfortunately Trams in Plymouth just isn't going to happen, there isn't the political will. And I really really would love a Tram system in Plymouth. It would be a game changer.

What is achievable though? No one with access to the actual money is campaigning for this. NR have given it a minute BCR, and there really isn't any justification for it anyway. I do wonder how successful the Okehampton branch will be, given the small population, limited competitiveness vs car/bus and not great station location... if it's a failure it will set back anything else years

 

[Annetts key]

Reopening an existing, but recently disused line where the track is still present is far easier and cheaper than trying to reopen a line that was completely abandoned over fifty years ago and where the line of route is incomplete.

As the difficulty to reinstate a line increases, so does the cost. Obviously if the cost is higher, then there needs to be really good reasons to justify spending large amounts of money on such a project.

While I’m generally in favour of reopening and expanding the rail network, as the available funding is limited, we do need to be careful on what and where we spend this money.

There are plenty of potential sites on existing lines where stations should reopen or new stations be provided. There are single lines where the level of service has now reached, or nearly reached the level where they require doubling. Or where single lead junctions need upgrading to double lead junctions.

As such, reopening the route between Plymouth and Okehampton is very far from the top of the list.

Plus the modern railways don’t operate in isolation. To encourage people away from car use and ownership, we need to also look at environmentally friendly bus services. Plus other environmentally friendly transport solutions.

 

[Irascible]

Tavistock and Okehampton are both large towns without a rail connection.

And my usual reply is that Ilfracombe and Braunton put together are larger than both, and don't even have good road connections. One is the wrong side of a national park with a windy road up a big hill, and feeds into the other which feeds into some horrendous congestion before you can even get out of the area. Restoration would need similar work ( a new bridge, some slight realignment, an interesting trip through a town and a new station in a slightly different spot and a local bus shuttle ) but this time there would be people going to Exeter for sure, because they can't go anywhere else. Well nowhere else the line doesn't already go. So why does Okehampton-Bere Alston keep coming up & not this? the diversionary argument is a red herring, so compare the value for money of both on their own merits.

( I'm sure there's schemes elsewhere in the country that could use a similar sum, I'm just sticking with ones in Devon )

 

[A0]

The Borders railway was all about politics, it would not have happened if it weren't for the need to form a coalition. It's good that it was built, but whether it should have been ahead of other schemes in the queue is a different matter

Why does a railway through the middle of nowhere come above routes where people actually live? Spending £800m on a really good tram network for Plymouth would improve vastly more people's journeys and do much more for the environment

Borders did have a more compelling case - places like Galashiels were completely detached from the national rail network. Pre Borders, Galashiels was about 20 miles to the nearest railhead at Edinburgh, go a bit further out to Hawick and it became 40. Now Hawick's nearest railhead is Tweedbank / Galashiels which has halved that and has doubtless made travelling to Edinburgh easier. Though I suspect the biggest casualty of the rail reopening hasn't been reduced car journeys but instead a reduction in the use of the bus which was running between Hawick and Edinburgh.

Tavistock by comparison is only about 5 miles from its nearest railhead (Gunnislake) and only 15 miles to Plymouth as a major centre.

Much on this thread seems to be about connecting Okehampton to Plymouth, but the unanswered question is how many people actually want to travel between those two places. I suspect the demand is much stronger for Okehampton to Exeter which is only 20 miles and will soon have a rail link.

 

[MarkyT]

Tavistock by comparison is only about 5 miles from its nearest railhead (Gunnislake) and only 15 miles to Plymouth as a major centre.

Probably better driving to Bere Alston if you can park there. The first four and a half twisty miles from Gunnislake to there take just as long as the subsequent ten miles to Plymouth!

 

[The Ham]

Tavistock by comparison is only about 5 miles from its nearest railhead (Gunnislake) and only 15 miles to Plymouth as a major centre.

Much on this thread seems to be about connecting Okehampton to Plymouth, but the unanswered question is how many people actually want to travel between those two places. I suspect the demand is much stronger for Okehampton to Exeter which is only 20 miles and will soon have a rail link

It depends on who you ask, actually I'd argue that the the flow between Plymouth/Exeter along the line would probably be larger than Okehampton/Plymouth.

That's because for those starting at Exeter Central although it'll add 15 to 20 minutes (using Network Rail's assumed stopping journey time of 75 minutes) to the on train time, by the time you've allowed for a change of trains it'll probably be broadly the same and removes the of a missed connection.

Of course for those heading to (say) Devonport then it's likely to be quicker than the existing journey options.

Likewise there's likely to be a reasonable flow to Tavistock from the Exeter end (including to/from up country) not least as it has a larger population of the two.

Also, even if people don't regularly use it, the fact that it gives another route between Exeter and Plymouth means that people would be more likely to be able to get between the two by rail. As an example; at my last job I was able to use two routes to cover part of the route, this meant that I was able to pick the route that was going to ensure that I got to work/for home, even though one of the routes took about 20 minutes longer than the other. It's not something that you can put a value to, and often isn't going to increase income directly (although it could have some impact through retaining more passengers than would otherwise be the case) as such my view is that overall it's going to be very limited and certainly not something that's worth trying to assign a value to.