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

[paul1609]

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.

I'd suggest looking at the route on the ordnance survey map. It did have long straights between Crediton and Okehampton but the rest of the route really has a lot of curvaturure following river valleys etc. Unless the Yorkrob reopening expresses have tilt fitted I can't see linespeed exceeding 60 mph in a lot of places.

 

[yorksrob]

You've said a few times that you wouldn't support (just) a Tavistock - Plymouth re-opening because it wouldn't deliver as many benefits as the entire-bells-and-whistles double tracked through route via Okehampton though

I don't know where you've magicked up this fantasy from.

I've always been clear that whilst I would like passive provision for reopening of the full route, I am fully supportive, some might say stridently of the reopenings to Okehampton and Tavistock in their own right.

I'd suggest looking at the route on the ordnance survey map. It did have long straights between Crediton and Okehampton but the rest of the route really has a lot of curvaturure following river valleys etc. Unless the Yorkrob reopening expresses have tilt fitted I can't see linespeed exceeding 60 mph in a lot of places.

Yes it does. As does the costal route, hence why they're fairly evenly matched in that respect.

 

[Dr Hoo]

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.

It really wasn't, yorksrob. I won't derail this thread with a detailed history lesson but what people regard as the 'Southern' route via Okehampton was created in several stages between around 1850 and 1890 by various engineers, with some bits converted from broad gauge and some elements actually belonging to technically different companies right up to the Grouping in 1923. Meldon Viaduct was first built as single track and then doubled.

No way was this a 'new main line' like the principal parts of Great Central London Extension.

 

[yorksrob]

It really wasn't, yorksrob. I won't derail this thread with a detailed history lesson but what people regard as the 'Southern' route via Okehampton was created in several stages between around 1850 and 1890 by various engineers, with some bits converted from broad gauge and some elements actually belonging to technically different companies right up to the Grouping in 1923. Meldon Viaduct was first built as single track and then doubled.

No way was this a 'new main line' like the principal parts of Great Central London Extension.

The West Coast and East Coast main lines weren't built in one go either.

The clear aim, as illustrated by the development of an independant route via Tavistock North and Bere Alston was to build a competing main line.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The West Coast and East Coast main lines weren't built in one go either.

The clear aim, as illustrated by the development of an independant route via Tavistock North and Bere Alston was to build a competing main line.

I really don't want to deflect a 're-opening' thread with historical detail but would still see the development as a 'substantially independent' route rather than a 'main line' per se. (Obviously there was still going to be some interworking with the GWR through Exeter St Davids and Plymouth North Road.)

If you want to deconstruct the complex development of the rail network around Plymouth, it was mainly driven by access to the waterfront for passenger, mail, goods and naval purposes. There were obvious benefits in having direct access to ones own terminals, depots, wharves and yards because under Railway Clearing House rules you could keep all of the revenue rather than having to share it. Frankly this is largely irrelevant to what we now consider as an 'inter city' or 'regional' axis that needs to be planned and developed on its current merits.

 

[Falcon1200]

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 26

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

One would have to ask why there was such a difference in average journey times, back when rail was arguably more important to more people than today, and the answer surely has to be that once nationalised there was simply no justification for competing services over two routes between Exeter and Plymouth, a fact which still applies today !

 

[yorksrob]

One would have to ask why there was such a difference in average journey times, back when rail was arguably more important to more people than today, and the answer surely has to be that once nationalised there was simply no justification for competing services over two routes between Exeter and Plymouth, a fact which still applies today !

Not necessarily true.

As an example, Waterloo - Exeter would have had faster journey times in the 1950's when it was still being run as a competing main line to the west, than immediately after transfer West of Salisbury to the Western Region, when it's purpose would have changed to serve the intermediate settlements.

Average speeds would have reflected the routes use at the time.

I really don't want to deflect a 're-opening' thread with historical detail but would still see the development as a 'substantially independent' route rather than a 'main line' per se. (Obviously there was still going to be some interworking with the GWR through Exeter St Davids and Plymouth North Road.)

If you want to deconstruct the complex development of the rail network around Plymouth, it was mainly driven by access to the waterfront for passenger, mail, goods and naval purposes. There were obvious benefits in having direct access to ones own terminals, depots, wharves and yards because under Railway Clearing House rules you could keep all of the revenue rather than having to share it. Frankly this is largely irrelevant to what we now consider as an 'inter city' or 'regional' axis that needs to be planned and developed on its current merits.

It is what it is.

At times it's been a main line, at times a secondary route and at other times closed.

 

[The Ham]

Probably not - but they're not really comparable given they are 11,000 and 5,000 respectively.

That said, 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.

It's been looked (and more than one option) at and it has a worse business case than reopening via Okehampton, in part as it's more expensive, however mostly because there's no ability to use it to run extra services from London and limited scope from elsewhere (meaning that you'll only get faster services attracting new passengers not extra services attracting new passengers and the latter is where woul you'll get the largest increase).

As such, at this time, actually the reopening via Okehampton is the more likely.

Also the via Okehampton business case could potentially be improved if the model looked at what would happen if it was an extension of the WofE services through Salisbury, as that would improve journey times from places like Southampton, Portsmouth and improve frequency from places like Basingstoke (as although the journey time via Reading would be faster only if you wish to travel at the right point in the hour). Although probably more important would be the fact that it provides direct services from stations between Exeter Central and Honiton and includes a station fairly close to Exeter Airport.

With future improvements which are already being discussed, then there could be further improvements. For instance redoubling of parts of not all of the WofE line could speed up journeys (even if it reduced the need to timetable waits at the passing stations). Likewise Crossrail 2 with the redoubling could allow for an increase in frequency.

Now whilst it would be possible to increase frequencies by extending the current Bedwyn services or the semi fast to Exeter services to serve Plymouth they would have an inbuilt time delay and so are likely to be slower (from London) than the WofE services.

 

[irish_rail]

It's been looked (and more than one option) at and it has a worse business case than reopening via Okehampton, in part as it's more expensive, however mostly because there's no ability to use it to run extra services from London and limited scope from elsewhere (meaning that you'll only get faster services attracting new passengers not extra services attracting new passengers and the latter is where woul you'll get the largest increase).

As such, at this time, actually the reopening via Okehampton is the more likely.

Also the via Okehampton business case could potentially be improved if the model looked at what would happen if it was an extension of the WofE services through Salisbury, as that would improve journey times from places like Southampton, Portsmouth and improve frequency from places like Basingstoke (as although the journey time via Reading would be faster only if you wish to travel at the right point in the hour). Although probably more important would be the fact that it provides direct services from stations between Exeter Central and Honiton and includes a station fairly close to Exeter Airport.

With future improvements which are already being discussed, then there could be further improvements. For instance redoubling of parts of not all of the WofE line could speed up journeys (even if it reduced the need to timetable waits at the passing stations). Likewise Crossrail 2 with the redoubling could allow for an increase in frequency.

Now whilst it would be possible to increase frequencies by extending the current Bedwyn services or the semi fast to Exeter services to serve Plymouth they would have an inbuilt time delay and so are likely to be slower (from London) than the WofE services.

Trouble is by making it an extension of the Sailsbury route all the advantages of having traincrew able to use it as a diversion are lost. It needs to be worked by GWR and maybe XC crews so that when the need arises it can be used to divert mainline trains between PZ and London. By using SWR crews to run the main service then you still have a problem of who drives the IETs and voyagers when they need to divert due to engineering etc etc.

 

[Ianno87]

Trouble is by making it an extension of the Sailsbury route all the advantages of having traincrew able to use it as a diversion are lost. It needs to be worked by GWR and maybe XC crews so that when the need arises it can be used to divert mainline trains between PZ and London. By using SWR crews to run the main service then you still have a problem of who drives the IETs and voyagers when they need to divert due to engineering etc etc.

Unfortunately, extension of Salisvury services is the best shout at giving the route a fighting chance of a business case, by making use of the current long turnround for these services at Exeter.

Besides, in the event of a block via Dawlish, there is nothing to stop passengers, heaven forbid, changing trains, onto a via Okehampton service. (Yes, I know "passengers prefer to stay on the same train")

They might have to change trains anyway in a diversionary scenario, even if GWR signed it.

 

[irish_rail]

Unfortunately, extension of Salisvury services is the best shout at giving the route a fighting chance of a business case, by making use of the current long turnround for these services at Exeter.

Besides, in the event of a block via Dawlish, there is nothing to stop passengers, heaven forbid, changing trains, onto a via Okehampton service. (Yes, I know "passengers prefer to stay on the same train")

They might have to change trains anyway in a diversionary scenario, even if GWR signed it.

If it can't be used as a proper diversionary route at weekends and evenings plus when the main route goes up the spout then I imagine that will seriously damage the cost benefit analysis (or whatever its called) of reopening the route.
It needs to be useful as a through route if thats what is going to be built, otherwise you will have passengers with lots of luggage, often elderly having to change trains at Exeter, and then again at Plymouth just to get to Cornwall. Two changes of trains on what is normally a through journey isn't really reasonable and is why I think the backers of this plan need to get their heads out of the past and stop trying to recreate a train service that may have existed until the 1960s.

 

[Irascible]

Are layovers at Exeter really that long that you could get to Plymouth & back??

If Okehampton-Tavistock depends on WoE upgrades then DAL plus other work looks far more attractive suddenly. WoE needs work regardless, but it's so pared back that I don't envisage any part of it being cheap...

Can we just do some flood work at Cowley & resignal/model Exeter before hacking bits of Dartmoor apart?

 

[Bald Rick]

If it can't be used as a proper diversionary route at weekends and evenings plus when the main route goes up the spout then I imagine that will seriously damage the cost benefit analysis (or whatever its called) of reopening the route.

Diversionary capability adds a near negligible amount of benefit to a business case, unless it is used regularly and frequently. Even then, it’s frankly small fry.

 

[The Ham]

Are layovers at Exeter really that long that you could get to Plymouth & back??

If Okehampton-Tavistock depends on WoE upgrades then DAL plus other work looks far more attractive suddenly. WoE needs work regardless, but it's so pared back that I don't envisage any part of it being cheap...

Can we just do some flood work at Cowley & resignal/model Exeter before hacking bits of Dartmoor apart?

Layovers wouldn't be long enough to even get to Plymouth from Exeter, add they are a little under an hour and the stopping services would take 75 minutes each way. However that's still 1/3 of the round trip "paid" for, add in the existing Okehampton trains and crew and any future Tavistock services and you'll get another bit already "paid" for by existing funding.

Add in the >0 passengers traveling from Okehampton to Plymouth and the >0 passengers traveling from Tavistock to Exeter/Up Country and any medium/long distance passengers from along the WofE line or connecting to it and the level of ongoing subsidy is likely to be limited.

The line through Okehampton doesn't depend on WofE line upgrades, unless passenger numbers grow significantly to the point where two WofE line services would be justified. However as you say it's something else which would likely be needed in the medium term.

The cost of the DAL was between £1.5bn and £3.1bn, that compares with £1.17bn for the Okehampton route (with the added flood protection element), as such even at the lower end (which is the scheme which saves 3 minutes on the journey time) that's still £300 million which could be put towards the WofL upgrades before having to get any other funding. (Yes I know that's not how it works, however the redoubling would likely have a much better business case than the DAL options which max out at <0.2 and so the funding of the redoubling would likely be of higher priority).

If it can't be used as a proper diversionary route at weekends and evenings plus when the main route goes up the spout then I imagine that will seriously damage the cost benefit analysis (or whatever its called) of reopening the route.
It needs to be useful as a through route if thats what is going to be built, otherwise you will have passengers with lots of luggage, often elderly having to change trains at Exeter, and then again at Plymouth just to get to Cornwall. Two changes of trains on what is normally a through journey isn't really reasonable and is why I think the backers of this plan need to get their heads out of the past and stop trying to recreate a train service that may have existed until the 1960s.

No one is suggesting the closing of the mainline, as such any closures would be fairly infrequent. As such is not a case of comparing a through train with changing trains twice, but rather what happens currently which is you change twice but onto a coach. As such many would argue that such a change would be an improvement over what currently happens.

 

[Irascible]

Actually... since the sea wall work has gone ahead the DAL is a dead idea as well so we shouldn't really be comparing with that. What I'd like to see is a study west of Newton Abbott to see and cost out how much speeding up ( and adding capacity if needed ) that section would be. No it doesn't necessarily add new journeys ( although moving Ivybridge & adding a Plympton station might ) but - to be frank - I don't believe Okehampton-Tavistock will add any notable amount of journeys either. What it would do which going around the north of the moors wouldn't is speed up journeys, and I guess might make the route more attractive for freight, but I don't think that's ever going to be more than a happy additional benefit. It's not the glamourous option, no - but it is also only one route to maintain too. I know the initial NR document on Dawlish solutions didn't give ongoing costs, but has anything since?

 

[yorksrob]

If it can't be used as a proper diversionary route at weekends and evenings plus when the main route goes up the spout then I imagine that will seriously damage the cost benefit analysis (or whatever its called) of reopening the route.
It needs to be useful as a through route if thats what is going to be built, otherwise you will have passengers with lots of luggage, often elderly having to change trains at Exeter, and then again at Plymouth just to get to Cornwall. Two changes of trains on what is normally a through journey isn't really reasonable and is why I think the backers of this plan need to get their heads out of the past and stop trying to recreate a train service that may have existed until the 1960s.

How is changing from a train, to a train, to a train any worse for passengers than changing from a train, to a coach, to a train which would likely happen now ?

Likely scenarios are that there would be some provision for a diverted mainline train to follow the local service if need be, or passengers would get on a through train at Waterloo anyway if they were that worried about changing trains.

As for mainline disruption making the business case worse (presumably than local utility of the route itself all year round), that assertion makes no sense.

 

[tbtc]

the via Okehampton business case could potentially be improved if the model looked at what would happen if it was an extension of the WofE services through Salisbury, as that would improve journey times from places like Southampton, Portsmouth and improve frequency from places like Basingstoke

IIRC BR/ Wales & West used to run services from the Southampton area to Exeter - if there's as big a market as you suggest then there's nothing stopping such trains from happening today (at the expense of some Waterloo services) - you don't need to spend a billion pounds for it, just find a couple of 158s

But, if this market it so important then focus first on doubling the line from Salisbury to Exeter, see about a half hourly service on that section before you need to start digging up Dartmoor

Can we just do some flood work at Cowley & resignal/model Exeter before hacking bits of Dartmoor apart?

Ideally, yes, but we seem so fixated on spending a billion pounds on direct Waterloo - Dartmoor services that practical improvements seem to go out of the window

How is changing from a train, to a train, to a train any worse for passengers than changing from a train, to a coach, to a train which would likely happen now ?

I thought that "diversionary resilience" was important to you? Or are you giving up on that now?

If you'd need to change trains at Exeter and again at Plymouth then it'd be faster to just put people on a coach at Taunton and drive down the M5 - much faster than faffing about on a rambling tour of Dartmoor

A simple single track line from Tavistock to Bere Alston is worth considering

Okehampton - Exeter is eventually getting more than the token Sunday service

But if you are so keen to come up with a fast two track line through Dartmoor then you need to build a case for it, one that doesn't involve Waterloo or diversions or any other fanciful stuff - keep it simple, focus on what'd need to happen to make the railway work (ten thousand new houses in the Dartmoor area? fifty thousand?)

 

[The Ham]

IIRC BR/ Wales & West used to run services from the Southampton area to Exeter - if there's as big a market as you suggest then there's nothing stopping such trains from happening today (at the expense of some Waterloo services) - you don't need to spend a billion pounds for it, just find a couple of 158s

But, if this market it so important then focus first on doubling the line from Salisbury to Exeter, see about a half hourly service on that section before you need to start digging up Dartmoor

I'm not suggesting that the market is large, if you'd seen my previous posts on this, assuming an average of £20 per passenger over a 15 hour day then to get an income of £3 million you'd need an average of 30 passengers per train (circa 110,000 per year) from the SWML area (South and/East of Salisbury), as such almost certainly not large enough to justify a new service, even if there was already a similar amount making the trip.

Not least as they would be from multiple locations. However the main factor would be that, as you highlight, it would be at the expense of the existing services. That would likely mean that actually you'd be losing money by running such a service, which is why it doesn't currently exist and wouldn't in the future (unless there was significant growth and significant spare capacity).

Now if you were to extend the SWR to Plymouth using the existing route, you'd add a delay at Exeter which would likely mean that it wouldn't be much difference between it and going via Okehampton. However you'd have to know that you'd get enough passengers to find it all.

Conversely if you go via Okehampton you've already got the existing costs of the existing services which would be replaced which can be used to cover the costs of running the extended services if the extended services replace the current services.

Now that would add a little bit of time to the journey times, if the 75 minutes quoted in the report is accurate, but enough to reduce/increase the number of trains needed to run the services.

That would mean that running an extension would require more subsidy than the reopening would require.

Now whilst it's never going to be enough to cover the costs of the reopening on its own, I wouldn't be surprised if the business case for the reopening was better than extending the existing services.

 

[tbtc]

if you were to extend the SWR to Plymouth using the existing route, you'd add a delay at Exeter which would likely mean that it wouldn't be much difference between it and going via Okehampton

Why would there be a delay at Exeter, if you ran SWR services to Plymouth?

Because of the need to reverse?

But Exeter would be a major intermediate stop on any Waterloo - Plymouth service, so you'd have a dwell of a couple of minutes regardless of which direction the train was carrying on in

Looking at Bradford Interchange at this time tomorrow (i.e. standard Monday to Friday timetable), trains only stop for two or three minutes including the reversal, which seems reasonable for serving a major city station in the middle of the journey

Realtime Trains | Departures from Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021

Train information at Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

(link shows the Monday lunchtime arrivals/departures at Bradford Interchange, commonly two minutes in duration)

Whereas taking a service that needs to fit precisely into the carefully timed congested corridor from Basingstoke into Waterloo and subjecting it to the vagaries of single track line through Dartmoor.... that's more likely to cause delays in my book - would only take one thing to go wrong and the whole thing would fall apart (if you absolutely had to slot into a narrow window through Woking etc)

 

[30907]

Looking at Bradford Interchange at this time tomorrow (i.e. standard Monday to Friday timetable), trains only stop for two or three minutes including the reversal, which seems reasonable for serving a major city station in the middle of the journey

Realtime Trains | Departures from Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021

Train information at Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The booked time is always 3 minutes, and trains are never booked for more than 4 coaches. You need to allow longer with full-length trains for the driver to change ends, 7 minutes seems to be the best from LNER at Leeds.

 

[The Ham]

Why would there be a delay at Exeter, if you ran SWR services to Plymouth?

Because of the need to reverse?

But Exeter would be a major intermediate stop on any Waterloo - Plymouth service, so you'd have a dwell of a couple of minutes regardless of which direction the train was carrying on in

Looking at Bradford Interchange at this time tomorrow (i.e. standard Monday to Friday timetable), trains only stop for two or three minutes including the reversal, which seems reasonable for serving a major city station in the middle of the journey

Realtime Trains | Departures from Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021

Train information at Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

(link shows the Monday lunchtime arrivals/departures at Bradford Interchange, commonly two minutes in duration)

Whereas taking a service that needs to fit precisely into the carefully timed congested corridor from Basingstoke into Waterloo and subjecting it to the vagaries of single track line through Dartmoor.... that's more likely to cause delays in my book - would only take one thing to go wrong and the whole thing would fall apart (if you absolutely had to slot into a narrow window through Woking etc)

Either the line through Dartmoor is single track or its going to cost ~£1bn (as report on the resilience confirms that it'll be double track throughout).

As to the delay for turning around I didn't say that it would be significant, just that it would reduce the advantage over going along the existing route (a zero delay would be 26 minutes, even 3 minutes would bring it to 23 minutes, whilst 7 minutes would be 19 minutes, each of which wouldn't encourage much use from St. Davids, but from Central could make the direct service attractive enough that people use it over changing trains). Anyway how is it that any mention of a delay in a SWR service and it'll be circa 5 minutes, yet if it's XC or GWR services and it'll be at least 10 minutes (yes I know the trains are longer, but such a reverse would be sitting times of disruption only).

 

[yorksrob]

Why would there be a delay at Exeter, if you ran SWR services to Plymouth?

Because of the need to reverse?

But Exeter would be a major intermediate stop on any Waterloo - Plymouth service, so you'd have a dwell of a couple of minutes regardless of which direction the train was carrying on in

Looking at Bradford Interchange at this time tomorrow (i.e. standard Monday to Friday timetable), trains only stop for two or three minutes including the reversal, which seems reasonable for serving a major city station in the middle of the journey

Realtime Trains | Departures from Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021

Train information at Bradford Interchange around 1201 on 20/09/2021. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

(link shows the Monday lunchtime arrivals/departures at Bradford Interchange, commonly two minutes in duration)

Whereas taking a service that needs to fit precisely into the carefully timed congested corridor from Basingstoke into Waterloo and subjecting it to the vagaries of single track line through Dartmoor.... that's more likely to cause delays in my book - would only take one thing to go wrong and the whole thing would fall apart (if you absolutely had to slot into a narrow window through Woking etc)

If they were that concerned about the "vagaries of single line working" they'd have re-doubled Salisbury - Exeter years ago.

They're not and they haven't.

 

[Irascible]

Either the line through Dartmoor is single track or its going to cost ~£1bn (as report on the resilience confirms that it'll be double track throughout).

That was in 2015, wasn't it? what's that in 2021 costs?

If they were that concerned about the "vagaries of single line working" they'd have re-doubled Salisbury - Exeter years ago.

They're not and they haven't.

It took us forever just to get a loop in at Axminster despite wanting more locals. As far as I know you can't run more services or speed the current ones up because there's just no capacity ( also there would be some inflexibility at Exeter still ) - but the main line is the GWR one, so that's going to get the cash. I think the best we can hope for is a gradual redoubling from the Exeter end as the city continues to grow.

 

[Grecian 1998]

If they were that concerned about the "vagaries of single line working" they'd have re-doubled Salisbury - Exeter years ago.

They're not and they haven't.

It took us forever just to get a loop in at Axminster despite wanting more locals. As far as I know you can't run more services or speed the current ones up because there's just no capacity ( also there would be some inflexibility at Exeter still ) - but the main line is the GWR one, so that's going to get the cash. I think the best we can hope for is a gradual redoubling from the Exeter end as the city continues to grow.

The Network Rail West of England 2020 Line Study can be found at:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...udy-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

A direct quote from p7 is that ''It is impossible to deliver a reliable “on time” railway that has a resilient timetable without reducing the amount of single track on this line.'' This would rather suggest NR do have concerns about the current infrastructure and consider further double tracking is required. It identifies a number of locations for new / extended loops, principally a new one at Whimple or Cranbrook, Honiton (westwards) and Tisbury (both directions).

As ever, the question of where the cash to pay for this comes from is another issue.

Back on topic, I doubt anyone would suggest running through Waterloo-Plymouth via Okehampton services now if it hadn't been done historically. If the northern Exeter - Plymouth route was ever to reopen, then it would make far more sense to run it as part of the GWR 'West' area than try to interlink it with Exeter - Waterloo. Extremely few people in mid and west Devon would regularly use a slow direct service to London - most of those who want to go to London would probably continue to drive to Tiverton Parkway for a Paddington service - and I cannot see there would be any operational convenience in combining the services given Exeter St Davids is almost never at capacity outside times of disruption.

 

[The Ham]

Back on topic, I doubt anyone would suggest running through Waterloo-Plymouth via Okehampton services now if it hadn't been done historically. If the northern Exeter - Plymouth route was ever to reopen, then it would make far more sense to run it as part of the GWR 'West' area than try to interlink it with Exeter - Waterloo. Extremely few people in mid and west Devon would regularly use a slow direct service to London - most of those who want to go to London would probably continue to drive to Tiverton Parkway for a Paddington service - and I cannot see there would be any operational convenience in combining the services given Exeter St Davids is almost never at capacity outside times of disruption

Let's look at the options:

Extra Paddington services - there's no spare capacity between Newbury and Paddington, so that's not a viable option.

Extend the Exeter Semi fast services - possible, however few East of Exeter would use it due to the time penalty. As such you would mostly be looking at medium distance travel from mostly small places, which would limit the viability of such a service. Also every service would have to be 5 coaches long, making it likely that it would be more costly.

Extend the Bedwyn services - this could reduce the time penalty from places like Reading, however would require quite a few extra trains to extend the service. This would make running such trains fairly costly to do, again as all services would need to be 5 coaches long.

Extend the XC services - this isn't possible without significant extra rolling stock for XC. Again all services would have to be 5 coaches long.

Having looked at those options, why is it that someone wouldn't consider extending the SWR services as an option?

Yes the simplist option would be a GWR local only service. However that may not be the best value option.

As although extending the SWR services to serve the local stations would be more costly, it does provide direct services which currently either require a fairly long wait or rely on XC being prompt. Those extra direct connections as well making the connectivity to the wider SWR area could potentially cover those costs. As I've highlighted above it's 110,000 people a year paying £20 each to bring in £3 million (which we likely cover the extra costs over the GWR local only service).

I fully agree that few people would use the service to get to London (although from certain parts of London there may be some where it could be quicker than waiting for the next Paddington service, although close enough to zero to not make any difference, even though each one that did so would likely be paying over £60 for a return).

That was in 2015, wasn't it? what's that in 2021 costs?

The report quoted £875 million, hence why I said ~£1bn (circa £1 billion).

 

[Irascible]

The Network Rail West of England 2020 Line Study can be found at:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...udy-Continuous-Modular-Strategic-Planning.pdf

Thankyou. I should pay more attention to NR ( generally just keep an eye on what the RSSB is up to ). The question arises that if there was more capacity on this end of the line, whether there's enough capacity at Waterloo to cope. If both Paddington *and* Waterloo are full up, then what do we do...

Extremely few people in mid and west Devon would regularly use a slow direct service to London - most of those who want to go to London would probably continue to drive to Tiverton Parkway for a Paddington service

I think you'd be surprised at how many people use the WoE route even from Exeter, it's always been more popular than you'd expect. It'd be faster for me to drive the wrong way to Exeter & get on GWR ( let alone the sensible option of Taunton ), but the journey on the WoE is far more pleasant & I'm not alone around here in thinking that, anecdotally.

 

[Starmill]

Thankyou. I should pay more attention to NR ( generally just keep an eye on what the RSSB is up to ). The question arises that if there was more capacity on this end of the line, whether there's enough capacity at Waterloo to cope. If both Paddington *and* Waterloo are full up, then what do we do...



I think you'd be surprised at how many people use the WoE route even from Exeter, it's always been more popular than you'd expect. It'd be faster for me to drive the wrong way to Exeter & get on GWR ( let alone the sensible option of Taunton ), but the journey on the WoE is far more pleasant & I'm not alone around here in thinking that, anecdotally.

There's a significant contribution from the fact that you can use a Network Railcard on the West of England.

 

[507020]

Thankyou. I should pay more attention to NR ( generally just keep an eye on what the RSSB is up to ). The question arises that if there was more capacity on this end of the line, whether there's enough capacity at Waterloo to cope. If both Paddington *and* Waterloo are full up, then what do we do...

Aren’t they bringing the former International platforms at Waterloo back into use? These could be dedicated to Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth services.

There's a significant contribution from the fact that you can use a Network Railcard on the West of England.

Because the reason it is not a true InterCity service from Waterloo is of course that it was a former NSE service to start with and is still run as such by SWR.

 

[30907]

Let's look at the options:

Extra Paddington services - there's no spare capacity between Newbury and Paddington, so that's not a viable option.

Extend the Exeter Semi fast services - possible, however few East of Exeter would use it due to the time penalty.

Why would anyone want to serve Okehampton and Tavistock directly from Paddington, it would be a tiny market? Especially cutting out Exeter C.

Having looked at those options, why is it that someone wouldn't consider extending the SWR services as an option?

Yes the simplist option would be a GWR local only service. However that may not be the best value option.

Among other things, it would depend on the configuration of the next generation Waterloo-Exeter stock (I would guess at 5x23/24m rather than 3-car sets), the competing demands of Barnstaple (which exists) vs Okehampton (plus possibly Plymouth), and pathing constraints.
Given that Devon want a local service to Honiton/Axminster I would start from there.

 

[Neptune]

Aren’t they bringing the former International platforms at Waterloo back into use? These could be dedicated to Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth services.

They were reopened a fair while ago. I don’t think it would be ideal for capacity for WoE line services to use the international platforms.