Any news on proposals to build an alternative route between Exeter & Plymouth?

[RT4038]

It certainly would be. Even if that policy ran for say ten years, that would be £10bn invested into new lines in areas where re-connection is much needed.

If such a policy was implemented I would concentrate on the shorter "missing links" first, such as Bourne End to High Wycombe, Colne to Skipton and Uckfield to Lewes. Once most of these "missing links" were finished, then move onto larger projects such as the one discussed in this forum thread.

I certainly don't advocate every single line that was closed should reopen. However there are some very strong cases where reinstatement would be very beneficial. It is those that need to be progressed ASAP, rather than the continual dragging of feet that occurs, especially when the cap is passed round for funding.

However another issue is the TOC's themselves, many aren't interested in running new services unless dictated by Government to do so. GWR for instance aren't interested in running a regular service between Plymouth and Okehampton, SWT had no interest in restoring services to a new Southampton Terminus station. The only operator I have seen, interested in running new services has been Chiltern.

And when you see the constant strife on the railways, the ballooning costs of operating what we have got and of any new build, and the comparatively small number of people that benefit from railways, it is hardly surprising that Government is reluctant to open more. As for TOCs, why would any want to run such uneconomical services you mention on their own account?

 

[eastdyke]

https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1060178391356317697
Oooh - an interesting comment from Martyn Oates BBC SW Political Correspondent who is usually on the ball...

Why would that have been a surprise to anybody or even be news?
Network Rail are continuing their study at a cost of £15million, the results of which are not due until (spring)/summer 2019.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Given that Network Rail started consultations for the moving of the line seawards in Autumn 2016, this would appear to be a major departure - I suspect that the intention is to buy up the properties on the cliff to cut it back without moving the line.

 

[eastdyke]

Given that Network Rail started consultations for the moving of the line seawards in Autumn 2016, this would appear to be a major departure - I suspect that the intention is to buy up the properties on the cliff to cut it back without moving the line.

That was/is an option.
Whatever happens to the railway the dwellings along the cliff-top will be at risk from cliff erosion in years to come. CP of some property would at least alleviate some of the uncertainty.
A fully robust (100 year?) causeway option would be very very expensive and of course meet with more widespread concern regarding loss of amenity (Holcombe beach).
But doing something at Holcombe does not stand alone, the whole coastal route must be safeguarded with equal resilience.

 

[AndrewE]

That was/is an option.
Whatever happens to the railway the dwellings along the cliff-top will be at risk from cliff erosion in years to come. CP of some property would at least alleviate some of the uncertainty.
A fully robust (100 year?) causeway option would be very very expensive and of course meet with more widespread concern regarding loss of amenity (Holcombe beach).
But doing something at Holcombe does not stand alone, the whole coastal route must be safeguarded with equal resilience.

Spoken like a true Canute! Give General Melchitt another medal!

 

[eastdyke]

Spoken like a true Canute! Give General Melchitt another medal!

Melchett if you please

 

[4141]

Melchett if you please

Thank you Darling

 

[Cowley]

Beh.

Operation ‘Winkle out the cliffs’.

 

[krus_aragon]

Beh.

Operation ‘Winkle out the cliffs’.

Don't worry.: if the sea wall should falter, Melchett and Darling will be about 35 miles behind you (in Okehampton).

 

[Wuz]

Just read the line will probably be closed at Dawlish from 15:00. It will be the third time this week!

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/devon-trains-cancelled-friday-because-2199934

Surely some inland route should be considered especially if Okehampton and (less likely) Tavistock ever do go ahead!

Wuz

 

[MarkyT]

Disruption, not closure, from 15:00. Trains may be short terminated at Exeter. Voyagers no doubt. They can also instigate single line working on the inner (up) line. This gets all trains a further track width away from the force of the waves and any debris they may carry, but clearly could be highly disruptive to timetables.

 

[83G/84D]

I heard earlier this year that IET’s were unable to run down the up line due to a gauging issue at Teignmouth.

Anyone seen one run that way?

 

[MarkyT]

Spotlight (BBC TV local news) just saying the line will CLOSE at 6:30 this evening. That is about half an hour before high tide which is a moderately high one, but coincides with highest wind speeds this evening. I don't know how long for but expect it will be reopened before midnight, assuming no major damage, as the storm is largely over by then and the tide will have fallen significantly.

 

[Meerkat]

Have these precautionary closures always been standard practice, an understandable safety first reaction to the collapse the other year, or Network Rail making sure politicians/DfT realise they need to sign off some very big bills ASAP?

Cynical? Me?!

 

[Robertj21a]

I agree.

It is obvious that a number of rail schemes will one day, eventually happen. It makes more sense to get on with them now, rather than in X years time when prices have increased further, making the "business case" even less viable.

Why on earth Government can't just commit £1bn a year for X number of years solely for re-openings is beyond me, especially when they CAN seem to commit XX Billions towards new road schemes on a whim.

£1bn a year would get at least two reopening projects a year, off the ground. This money would be spent once feasibility studies have been carried out, completed and shown to be a "positive case".

I'm not at all sure that the majority of the population would support £1bn a year being allocated solely for re-openings. Everyone seems to forget that it's you and me that have to actually foot the bill and I'm sure there's plenty of more worthy causes that deserve £1bn every year.
Just because some rail-fans would like some more joined up track doesn't mean that the bulk of the population, who never go near a train, would see any justification whatsoever.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not at all sure that the majority of the population would support £1bn a year being allocated solely for re-openings. Everyone seems to forget that it's you and me that have to actually foot the bill and I'm sure there's plenty of more worthy causes that deserve £1bn every year.
Just because some rail-fans would like some more joined up track doesn't mean that the bulk of the population, who never go near a train, would see any justification whatsoever.

And they're happy to allocate several billion for high speed ?

The majority of people want a train service which goes near to them and is easy to use, which is why reopenings generally interest the public more than central government favoured projects.

Obviously the usual suspects, who are more less against any public spending, will be against, but I suspect that the majority would support.

 

[Bald Rick]

The majority of people want a train service which goes near to them and is easy to use, which is why reopenings generally interest the public more than central government favoured projects.

Obviously the usual suspects, who are more less against any public spending, will be against, but I suspect that the majority would support.

I’m afraid the majority of people couldn’t care less about a train service, whether it goes near them or not.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m afraid the majority of people couldn’t care less about a train service, whether it goes near them or not.

I think that's balderdash frankly. Of the people I know, most of whom aren't enthusiasts, or even regular rail travellers, most appreciate the option of having a train service nearby and would be angry were their existing one to be taken away.

 

[AndrewE]

I think that's balderdash frankly. Of the people I know, most of whom aren't enthusiasts, or even regular rail travellers, most appreciate the option of having a train service nearby and would be angry were their existing one to be taken away.

True, but unfortunately it's also true that they probably never use it... That argument doesn't get roads closed but I'm afraid it is used against railways.
I hope the time will come when a good (better) network and coordinated bus services are recognised and then provided as an effective way to de-carbonise the economy, reduce pollution and congestion and improve our health all at the same time. Sadly I don't think I will live to see it.

 

[yorksrob]

True, but unfortunately it's also true that they probably never use it... That argument doesn't get roads closed but I'm afraid it is used against railways.
I hope the time will come when a good (better) network and coordinated bus services are recognised and then provided as an effective way to de-carbonise the economy, reduce pollution and congestion and improve our health all at the same time. Sadly I don't think I will live to see it.

I don't think it is though. I suspect that even amongst those who rarely use the train, they will use it occasionally, or have a family member that does.

 

[83G/84D]

Both lines closed at Dawlish due to adverse weather conditions.

 

[Clayton]

I'm not at all sure that the majority of the population would support £1bn a year being allocated solely for re-openings. Everyone seems to forget that it's you and me that have to actually foot the bill and I'm sure there's plenty of more worthy causes that deserve £1bn every year.
Just because some rail-fans would like some more joined up track doesn't mean that the bulk of the population, who never go near a train, would see any justification whatsoever.

Odd view for someone on this board. A billion isn’t a whole lot in terms of the national budget and investment in transport is generally seen as essential given that driving into towns won’t be tenable in future.

 

[AndrewE]

I don't think it is though. I suspect that even amongst those who rarely use the train, they will use it occasionally, or have a family member that does.

You are right, I was forgetting the generation that isn't learning to drive (or buying, maybe can't afford to buy cars) - millenials? Also if the rich crusties would admit that they ought not to be driving still (or really ought to give up soon - you know who you are!) but put their weight into lobbying for better public transport we might all have a better future.

Odd view for someone on this board. A billion isn’t a whole lot in terms of the national budget and investment in transport is generally seen as essential given that driving into towns won’t be tenable in future.

and a billion is less than £40 a head - and with progressive taxation lots of us wouldn't be paying much more, or even that much anyway. However it is high time that the rail network was analysed again with the objective of identifying missing links or capacity limitations (that can't be dealt with by doubling train lengths!) and a transport strategy devised to address the deficiencies.

 

[sciisfun]

marine parade (the road that runs from Dawlish station to the tunnel) is a little wet at the moment, large waves coming over both lines from time to time, wouldn't want to be on a pacer going through that! can only imagine what its like the other side of Dawlish station

 

[Meerkat]

A billion might only be £40 a head but if the Treasury was going to find that for public spending how far down the popular list for spending would be reopening some enthusiasts pipe dream railway and committing to subsidise it from thence forward?
Higher than more nurses, more policeman, and fewer potholes?

 

[AndrewE]

A billion might only be £40 a head but if the Treasury was going to find that for public spending how far down the popular list for spending would be reopening some enthusiasts pipe dream railway and committing to subsidise it from thence forward?
Higher than more nurses, more policeman, and fewer potholes?

All of that could be done (and the railway too) for £200 or £300 a head then. I've said it before, you are living in a fool's paradise if you think you can have a developed-world infrastructure at no cost. Go to Africa if you want to see what it's like when there is no tax income and hence no public services.

 

[Meerkat]

Ha! That’s a very odd way to justify pipedream reinstatements that a fraction of the population care about.....
How are you going to get people to vote for £300 a head tax rises? Or is this the usual ‘tax the bankers’ bonuses nonesense?

 

[Clayton]

Ha! That’s a very odd way to justify pipedream reinstatements that a fraction of the population care about.....
How are you going to get people to vote for £300 a head tax rises? Or is this the usual ‘tax the bankers’ bonuses nonesense?

Just think for a minute. Income tax makes up a small part of all tax revenues

 

[Robertj21a]

Odd view for someone on this board. A billion isn’t a whole lot in terms of the national budget and investment in transport is generally seen as essential given that driving into towns won’t be tenable in future.

Not at all 'odd'. I'm a realist and there's numerous other things for any government to spend £1bn p.a on.

Just because this is a rail forum it seems that some people forget that the vast majority of people never use a train. Many would never even think of using a train. They won't see any point whatsoever in joining up a few lines if it's going to cost £1bn p.a - and in response to the earlier comment on the cost of HS2, Yes, that's another waste of money.

 

[AndrewE]

Just think for a minute. Income tax makes up a small part of all tax revenues

That's as maybe. We're talking about how much some extra spending would cost us. I was only pointing out that with more than 50 million people in the country a billion is less than £40 a head. Are you saying that you couldn't afford (or would begrudge) £40, or even £200, for properly funded public services?
Decent progressive taxation would mean that people who didn't have much wouldn't pay any more, while the comfortable would. I'm not even getting into the cuts in corporation tax, or financial juggling.
As I said, if you think you can pay negligible tax and still have first-world provision of healthcare, transport, water supply, Trading standards, road cleaning and surfacing, policing (add your own favourite) then you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. If you don't want to pay taxes then emigrate to the USA, somewhere in Africa or another failing state and see how you like it.