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

[ChiefPlanner]

Starmill said:
The modern success of the Marshlink line was also down to HS1 primarily, with the extra 'commuter' services to Ashford International for connecting services to London St Pancras making it ideal for journeys like Rye to London, where in the old days that would have been almost impossible.




Oh come off it - the Channel Tunnel link is far more a factor than a bunch of new DMUs and running beyond Hastings to Eastbourne, the fact it capacity was still handled with 2 car units is evidence of that. The reason those services were curtailed to Eastbourne rather than Brighton is 2 car units were *too small* for that part of the route, yet are more than adequate east of Ore.

A very good point , and it took a long time politically to agree the termination of the Marshlink at Eastbourne , quoting the rather poor idea of a 2 car twixt there and Brighton , with overcrowding. I have never come across "crowding Rye to Ashford , but one gathers the 1st was declassified on this section)

Lewes and Uckfield will never die in the minds of true believers* , and suggesting that East Croydon - Windmill Bridge etc enhancement is a key to getting it re-opened !

(Neither will Skipton - Colne and I note that Carmarthen to Aberystwyth seems to have reverted to slumber , much like the Abbots in Strata Florida Abbey)

 

[yorksrob]

That's not really true. The seperation there is largely to segregate the slow line Victoria & West Croydon line traffic from crossing the London Bridge and Victoria Fasts on the flat. I bet that Windmill Junction and the associated Junctions have many times the number of conflicting flat train movements of Woking.

But those flows are already separated by the current layout.

 

[paul1609]

Returning to the thread topic, I agree that re-opening Tavistock-Bere Alston seems worth considering. However, it wouldn't be straightforward because of the existence of the approximately 2 hourly socially necessary service to Gunnislake, which will need to be retained. Anything more than a 2 hourly service to Tavistock, with trains dividing at Bere Alston, would require significant rail infrastructure works to cope with additional trains, either:

• major track works at Bere Alston and re-opening a 2nd platform there; or
• a dynamic loop between Bere Ferrers and Bere Alston.

Neither would be cheap, and even then only an hourly service could be operated and trains would still need to divide at Bere Alston. The need for extra drivers and guards for the separate trains after splitting at Bere Alston would also increase costs.

You also have to remember that any more trains in to Plymouth from Bere Ferrers are running over what was originally an emergency ww2 freight connection on to the GWR, the LSWR line through the Plymouth suburbs has been obliterated by housing and demolition of the viaducts.
Capacity on this stretch of line is already severly constrained by the very slow single track section over the Tamar bridge and to a lesser extent by the Gunnislake services making stops at the suburban halts.

 

[yorksrob]

Lewes and Uckfield will never die in the minds of true believers* , and suggesting that East Croydon - Windmill Bridge etc enhancement is a key to getting it re-opened !

I wouldn't say its key, but its often cited on these pages as a reason not to get it built.

 

[paul1609]

A very good point , and it took a long time politically to agree the termination of the Marshlink at Eastbourne , quoting the rather poor idea of a 2 car twixt there and Brighton , with overcrowding. I have never come across "crowding Rye to Ashford , but one gathers the 1st was declassified on this section)

As a local I can tell you that there hasn't really been a significant growth in commuters from Rye to London.
The massive growth since HS1 opened has been in incoming leisure traffic.
Camber Sands and Romney Sands have suddenly become about an hour away from East London at Stratford.
Fortunately we have had the 4 car 171s since Covid because with the stay cation boost this year there have been several occasions when the conductor has closed the doors at Ashford 5 mins before departure because the train has been dangerously overcrowded. This meant the people connecting from HS1 have been left behind.
The Ashford to Rye section has for many years now been the busy part of the line.
The 102 bus from Rye Station is the only bus in this area that is always a double decker. This summer the main 102 service has been running non stop to Lydd via the a259 with shuttle services via Camber Sands because of people trying to get to the beaches.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

As a local I can tell you that there hasn't really been a significant growth in commuters from Rye to London.
The massive growth since HS1 opened has been in incoming leisure traffic.
Camber Sands and Romney Sands have suddenly become about an hour away from East London at Stratford.
Fortunately we have had the 4 car 171s since Covid because with the stay cation boost this year there have been several occasions when the conductor has closed the doors at Ashford 5 mins before departure because the train has been dangerously overcrowded. This meant the people connecting from HS1 have been left behind.
The Ashford to Rye section has for many years now been the busy part of the line.
The 102 bus from Rye Station is the only bus in this area that is always a double decker. This summer the main 102 service has been running non stop to Lydd via the a259 with shuttle services via Camber Sands because of people trying to get to the beaches.

Very interesting - Rye is an absolute treasure of a place and HS1 has made access a much easier journey , and leisure business always good I thought , and even more so in "staycation" times. Much like the "select" resorts in North Kent (slightly OT I guess)

4 cars seems to be the answer for now and onwards.

 

[The Ham]

At the risk of upsetting people - how about a tramway to Tavistock?

You could use the road in the settlements and run beside it on the verge outside them.

Trams aren't always better value overall, as an example look up the reopening to Borden where the overall cost of trams/light rail was quite high as it needed an extra depot:

Rail Feasibility Study - March 2011

Rail Feasibility study for Whitehill Bordon Eco-town

issuu.com

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe that was the reason for the huge leap in costs. The original costing of £20m ish was for 6 miles of railway, the £90m cost reflects what is actually needed to run a service

No - the cost increase was because it was somewhat better estimated. £90m is still a bit light, incidentally.

That's not really true. The seperation there is largely to segregate the slow line Victoria & West Croydon line traffic from crossing the London Bridge and Victoria Fasts on the flat. I bet that Windmill Junction and the associated Junctions have many times the number of conflicting flat train movements of Woking.

And you’d win that bet comfortably.

and I note that Carmarthen to Aberystwyth seems to have reverted to slumber

And was reawakened on Friday, when the Welsh Government published some pictures of their long term strategy for the ‘North Wales Metro’.

 

[HSTEd]

Originally that line was going to terminate at Holsworthy, because Bude wasn't important enough even benig a harbour. Bude/Stratton & Holsworthy have a pop of about 15k put together & it's about 30 miles to Okehampton so that might be a hard sell would be a nice trip though.

Well its still not got a great case, no, but it at least provides journeys that are definitely not available from the rest of the railway system.

Trams aren't always better value overall, as an example look up the reopening to Borden where the overall cost of trams/light rail was quite high as it needed an extra depot:

Rail Feasibility Study - March 2011

Rail Feasibility study for Whitehill Bordon Eco-town

issuu.com

Well with tram trains they can operate from the heavy rail depot!

 

[stuu]

How are we doing for tunneling granite & other hard stone these days?

There's loads of hard rock TBMs in use or been used, and the traditional method of dynamite and a shovel still works. The Norwegians dig loads of tunnels using drill and blast and it is much cheaper as it is so simple compared to running a TBM. Still quite expensive though, and there is no sign of any willingness to fork out for faster journeys for Plymouth and Cornwall

 

[stuu]

No - the cost increase was because it was somewhat better estimated. £90m is still a bit light, incidentally.

...

And was reawakened on Friday, when the Welsh Government published some pictures of their long term strategy for the ‘North Wales Metro’.

Oh right, so it makes less and less sense...

Pictures is all they should (and will) remain

 

[The Ham]

Well with tram trains they can operate from the heavy rail depot!

Maybe, however that still doesn't mean that it wouldn't be more costly.

For instance if you've got a fairly standard fleet of trains then adding in an extra fleet requires extra training, maybe extra kit.

 

[Irascible]

Well its still not got a great case, no, but it at least provides journeys that are definitely not available from the rest of the railway system.

Bude is pretty oddly connected major roads wise too - the A39 ( which can get pretty odd all by itself ) will take you to either Bideford, or in a big dog-leg to Launceston. To get the train at Oke you're looking at 30+ miles of Devon minor A-roads, which from first hand experience generally qualify as main roads because there aren't any others ( the sort of major road you have to reverse along if you meet a milk tanker & half of it is 30-40mph because there's a house somewhere near the road ). If it was a larger place I'd start to think seriously about the idea, but then I guess if it was bigger it might have kept the railway anyway...

 

[tbtc]

Returning to the thread topic, I agree that re-opening Tavistock-Bere Alston seems worth considering. However, it wouldn't be straightforward because of the existence of the approximately 2 hourly socially necessary service to Gunnislake, which will need to be retained. Anything more than a 2 hourly service to Tavistock, with trains dividing at Bere Alston, would require significant rail infrastructure works to cope with additional trains, either:

• major track works at Bere Alston and re-opening a 2nd platform there; or
• a dynamic loop between Bere Ferrers and Bere Alston.

Neither would be cheap, and even then only an hourly service could be operated and trains would still need to divide at Bere Alston. The need for extra drivers and guards for the separate trains after splitting at Bere Alston would also increase costs.

Good points - it wouldn't be easy/ cheap/ simple - but at least we are back to discussing the practicalities, rather than looking at a hundred year old atlas - I'm not sure how anyone would plan an Exeter - Okehampton - Tavistock - Plymouth service that was broadly competitive with the route through Dawlish (but I guess the advantage of life as a Crayonista is never having to worry about practicalities)

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe, however that still doesn't mean that it wouldn't be more costly.

For instance if you've got a fairly standard fleet of trains then adding in an extra fleet requires extra training, maybe extra kit.

Well the simple answer is replace all the local trains in Devon and Cornwall with electrodiesel tram trains!

We have a lot of diesel trains due for the scrapline in the near future

 

[Mag_seven]

A reminder that the subject of this thread is an alternative route between Plymouth and Exeter via Oakhampton.

Can I request that we stick to the geographical area as defined in the thread title please.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else they are of course welcome to start a new thread.

thanks

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Maybe, however that still doesn't mean that it wouldn't be more costly.

For instance if you've got a fairly standard fleet of trains then adding in an extra fleet requires extra training, maybe extra kit.

Not after the financial costs of the Sheffield extension to Rotherham.

 

[yorksrob]

Good points - it wouldn't be easy/ cheap/ simple - but at least we are back to discussing the practicalities, rather than looking at a hundred year old atlas - I'm not sure how anyone would plan an Exeter - Okehampton - Tavistock - Plymouth service that was broadly competitive with the route through Dawlish (but I guess the advantage of life as a Crayonista is never having to worry about practicalities)

Frankly that's nonsense. The route wouldn't have been built in the first place were it not competitive with the coastal one.

Bude is pretty oddly connected major roads wise too - the A39 ( which can get pretty odd all by itself ) will take you to either Bideford, or in a big dog-leg to Launceston. To get the train at Oke you're looking at 30+ miles of Devon minor A-roads, which from first hand experience generally qualify as main roads because there aren't any others ( the sort of major road you have to reverse along if you meet a milk tanker & half of it is 30-40mph because there's a house somewhere near the road ). If it was a larger place I'd start to think seriously about the idea, but then I guess if it was bigger it might have kept the railway anyway...

That's normally the sort of situation that would have led to it being retained in the 1960's.

I wonder why it got away.

 

[A0]

Frankly that's nonsense. The route wouldn't have been built in the first place were it not competitive with the coastal one.

The only "nonsense" is your presumption that it wouldn't have been built if it weren't competitive. Go away and read some railway history - many such lines were built because the "best" route had been taken and the company (the LSWR in this case) wanted to expand to reach somewhere (Plymouth) but knew they wouldn't get running rights over the existing line. So they ended up building a line through lightly populated areas in the hope the railway would attract the use. Such lines were often slower and took on difficult terrain to secure a route.

There are plenty of other examples where this happened - the S&C being the obvious one. Another (though more successful one) was the Midland railway's extension from Bedford to London. The two significant places on the route at that time, Luton and St Albans, were already rail served by the GNR and LNWR.

 

[yorksrob]

The only "nonsense" is your presumption that it wouldn't have been built if it weren't competitive. Go away and read some railway history - many such lines were built because the "best" route had been taken and the company (the LSWR in this case) wanted to expand to reach somewhere (Plymouth) but knew they wouldn't get running rights over the existing line. So they ended up building a line through lightly populated areas in the hope the railway would attract the use. Such lines were often slower and took on difficult terrain to secure a route.

There are plenty of other examples where this happened - the S&C being the obvious one. Another (though more successful one) was the Midland railway's extension from Bedford to London. The two significant places on the route at that time, Luton and St Albans, were already rail served by the GNR and LNWR.

But your argument is nonsense in this case, as illustrated by the fact that the Okehampton route was only around ten minutes slower when in operation.

 

[stuu]

But your argument is nonsense in this case, as illustrated by the fact that the Okehampton route was only around ten minutes slower when in operation.

So it was slower, less populated and therefore second choice? So the argument is entirely proved

 

[A0]

But your argument is nonsense in this case, as illustrated by the fact that the Okehampton route was only around ten minutes slower when in operation.

Not sure where you're getting your information from - but using Timetable World:

SR 1961 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the Southern route was ~ 2h 15m.
WR 1963 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the GWR route was 1h 26m.

 

[yorksrob]

So it was slower, less populated and therefore second choice? So the argument is entirely proved

It was designed to provide a route between London and Plymouth that was as fast as the GW route, somthing which drove most of the railway development on this axis.

Not sure where you're getting your information from - but using Timetable World:

SR 1961 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the Southern route was ~ 2h 15m.
WR 1963 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the GWR route was 1h 26m.

That's meaningless - you would need to compare the fastest possible journey times to get the capability of the route.

 

[tbtc]

Frankly that's nonsense. The route wouldn't have been built in the first place were it not competitive with the coastal one

Lots of Victorian "entrepreneurs" speculated large sums of money during the "bubble" years of railway expansion - the mess that BR inherited included lots of these attempts at competition (although a number of routes were obviously closed during the "big four" era, however much people want to suggest that it was only Beeching/Marples who closed lines)...

... it doesn't mean that we have to preserve/re-open all of them, as a monument to the money that some investors "spaffed" in the nineteenth century (to use a political term)

They tried, they failed, get over it.

If you had a large sum of money to spend and it had to be spent in the south west, and you'd already at least considered electrification of the existing main lines and sorting out the perennial Cowley flooding issue and improved line speeds and refurbished stations and opened new stations (or re-opened some old ones) and were looking at what else you could do with the money then a short simple slow siding from Bere Alston to Tavistock would be worth considering, but you'd seemingly can't accept anything short of "a double track Tavistock - Okehampton line that can provide competitive Plymouth - Exeter journey times and route all InterCity services that way on the rare occasions that Dawlish is shut"...

...even though, as has been pointed out, the "successes" that people always cite as good re-openings are fairly short simple slow sidings (Ebbw Vale, Alloa, Tweedbank) and some of the underperforming re-openings are wider projects (Airdrie - Bathgate, Nottingham - Worksop)...

...look at what works, look at what can be packaged up to get Government approval, forget about the grandiose schemes for a "BML2" or the weird SELRAP idea of a half hourly Leeds - Skipton - Colne - Manchester Airport service - if you must obsess about Dartmoor then focus attentions on just the Tavistock - Bere Alston section - that's the "low hanging fruit", that might be affordable, that's the section of line you could build to compete with a frequent commercial bus service, that's the kind of package that people in the South West could argue for as payback for national funds being used on HS2/ Crossrail and other projects that come nowhere near the South West...

...insisting on the full "billion pounds" mega-project just makes it easy for everyone else to ignore Tavistock though

That's meaningless - you would need to compare the fastest possible journey times to get the capability of the route.

A non-stop Plymouth - Exeter service wouldn't be much use via Okehampton though - I thought that you wanted to reconnect all of the intermediate villages? Because you can't have non-stop services and Local Trains For Local People, unless the plan is to open a four tracked line? Oh, wait, maybe that is what you want?

 

[30907]

Anything more than a 2 hourly service to Tavistock, with trains dividing at Bere Alston, would require significant rail infrastructure works to cope with additional trains, either:

• major track works at Bere Alston and re-opening a 2nd platform there; or
• a dynamic loop between Bere Ferrers and Bere Alston.

Neither would be cheap, and even then only an hourly service could be operated and trains would still need to divide at Bere Alston. The need for extra drivers and guards for the separate trains after splitting at Bere Alston would also increase costs.

An hourly service to Tavistock, with a 2-hourly connection to Gunnislake, would be perfectly feasible with minimal work at Bere Alston. It would require 3 units and have long layovers at Plymouth (and for the Gunnislake unit).
To my slight surprise, you could even fit in a 2-hourly Plymouth-Gunnislake between the Tavistocks, but that would require resignalling with tokenless working Bere Alston-St Budeaux, and might be difficult to justify.
Edit: both assuming you can path them at the Plymouth end.

SR 1961 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the Southern route was ~ 2h 15m. WR 1963 timetable - the average time between Exeter St David's and Plymouth via the GWR route was 1h 26m.

Apples and oranges here - you are comparing a predominantly all-stations steam-age service with a predominantly fast/semi-fast diesel-age service.
I think yorksrob is looking at eg 1958 which shows the GW "expresses" as significantly slower than 1963. The rare fast trains on the SR route took 1hr 35-40 (from St Davids to North Rd or vv).

 

[Irascible]

Iirc the LSWR had more or less given up on being the primary route out of P,ymouth by the 1920s, so I'm not sure even SR timetables are that representative of what you *could* do.

That's normally the sort of situation that would have led to it being retained in the 1960's.

I wonder why it got away.

There's a lot of oddness about the railways up there - the indecision about Ilfracombe, Bude being cut off ( to be fair it might have been even smaller in the 60s ), why no-one tried extending Barnstaple trains to Bideford occasionally even though the line was still there until at least 82. I guess a lot might just be that there's just not enough people to object sufficiently strongly.

 

[A0]

There's a lot of oddness about the railways up there - the indecision about Ilfracombe, Bude being cut off ( to be fair it might have been even smaller in the 60s ), why no-one tried extending Barnstaple trains to Bideford occasionally even though the line was still there until at least 82. I guess a lot might just be that there's just not enough people to object sufficiently strongly.

Bude's not *that* big now - popn sub 10,000.

Even Bideford's only 17,000 now.

Back in the early 80s there were no shortage of 'freight only' lines which had lost their passenger service in the 1960s that were suggested for passenger re-opening. Relatively few made the cut even back then - Consett was another for example, though that lost its passenger service in the 50s.

I notice that Devon CC haven't been supportive of Bideford, which suggests they don't believe it's needed and there are other improvements which would be more valued.

 

[Irascible]

Bude's not *that* big now - popn sub 10,000.

Yeah, as mentioned before if you add Stratton and Holsworthy you get the dizzy heights of 15k! it's more that it's very cut off.

I notice that Devon CC haven't been supportive of Bideford, which suggests they don't believe it's needed and there are other improvements which would be more valued.

I suspect after taking 30 years to get Okehampton trains back they know a lost cause. They did protect the trackbed & made sure there was a bridge under the new road at Barney, at least. Bideford has good road connections to Barnstaple ( better than the railway was ) unlike the other old route out the north.

 

[yorksrob]

Lots of Victorian "entrepreneurs" speculated large sums of money during the "bubble" years of railway expansion - the mess that BR inherited included lots of these attempts at competition (although a number of routes were obviously closed during the "big four" era, however much people want to suggest that it was only Beeching/Marples who closed lines)...

... it doesn't mean that we have to preserve/re-open all of them, as a monument to the money that some investors "spaffed" in the nineteenth century (to use a political term)

They tried, they failed, get over it.

If you had a large sum of money to spend and it had to be spent in the south west, and you'd already at least considered electrification of the existing main lines and sorting out the perennial Cowley flooding issue and improved line speeds and refurbished stations and opened new stations (or re-opened some old ones) and were looking at what else you could do with the money then a short simple slow siding from Bere Alston to Tavistock would be worth considering, but you'd seemingly can't accept anything short of "a double track Tavistock - Okehampton line that can provide competitive Plymouth - Exeter journey times and route all InterCity services that way on the rare occasions that Dawlish is shut"...

...even though, as has been pointed out, the "successes" that people always cite as good re-openings are fairly short simple slow sidings (Ebbw Vale, Alloa, Tweedbank) and some of the underperforming re-openings are wider projects (Airdrie - Bathgate, Nottingham - Worksop)...

...look at what works, look at what can be packaged up to get Government approval, forget about the grandiose schemes for a "BML2" or the weird SELRAP idea of a half hourly Leeds - Skipton - Colne - Manchester Airport service - if you must obsess about Dartmoor then focus attentions on just the Tavistock - Bere Alston section - that's the "low hanging fruit", that might be affordable, that's the section of line you could build to compete with a frequent commercial bus service, that's the kind of package that people in the South West could argue for as payback for national funds being used on HS2/ Crossrail and other projects that come nowhere near the South West...

...insisting on the full "billion pounds" mega-project just makes it easy for everyone else to ignore Tavistock though



A non-stop Plymouth - Exeter service wouldn't be much use via Okehampton though - I thought that you wanted to reconnect all of the intermediate villages? Because you can't have non-stop services and Local Trains For Local People, unless the plan is to open a four tracked line? Oh, wait, maybe that is what you want?

What I'm contesting is the idea that the route laid out was somehow inferior in terms of speed and main line capability to the coastal route.

The fact of the matter is that the route was designed and built to be a main line competing with the GW route on speed. Obviously in the 21st century, one has to compromise between whether you have a faster route with city-city services, or slow it down to be focused on local destinations. The same can be said of Waterloo - Exeter, however it doesn't negate the fact that it was built to be a competitive route. The fact that it was built as a main line makes the local service that bit faster than it would otherwise have been.

 

[quantinghome]

What I'm contesting is the idea that the route laid out was somehow inferior in terms of speed and main line capability to the coastal route.

The fact of the matter is that the route was designed and built to be a main line competing with the GW route on speed. Obviously in the 21st century, one has to compromise between whether you have a faster route with city-city services, or slow it down to be focused on local destinations. The same can be said of Waterloo - Exeter, however it doesn't negate the fact that it was built to be a competitive route. The fact that it was built as a main line makes the local service that bit faster than it would otherwise have been.

Whatever the intentions of its designers and builders it never did become a main line competing with the coastal route. And I can't see how that's relevant to this discussion in any case.