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

[Ash Bridge]

Out of interest, Did the Borders Railway reopening create this much controversey when it was first seriously proposed back in the early 2000's?

Well that would have actually predated RUK Forums, though just try suggesting a further reinstatement back towards Carlisle and watch the response

 

[yorksrob]

I would very much like to see a fully documented breakdown of this "£20m a day" cost. I suspect that it is pure fantasy, a figure plucked out of thin air with no basis in reality. Remember, this is a line which carries zero freight traffic, so business is not being inconvenienced. Ninety percent of passenger traffic uses the roads anyway and during closure of the route, rail passengers are transferred to road to reach their destination, so nobody is being prevented from getting where they want to go. It is not even the holiday season for goodness sake.

If this figure is 'pure fantasy' then so too must be the claims that time savings of five and ten minutes here and there on the road and rail networks, amount to billions of pounds worth of savings.

 

[Amlag]

Out of interest, Did the Borders Railway reopening create this much controversey when it was first seriously proposed back in the early 2000's?

As a member of 'Campaign for Borders Rail' from its early days there was vocal and significant
opposition, from some elected representatives of the people of the Scottish Borders and also from some Scottish newspapers, to the proposal to reinstate the railway from Edinburgh to Galashiels ( closed in early 1969); not least saying the whole project was a waste of money which would be better spent on further improvements to the A7 .
How wrong this opposition has proved to be and how well used the Borders Railway trains are, with a a real chance now of extending south to St Boswells and Hawick and even to Carlisle.

Many people in Cornwall (particularly from north) currently make over 100 miles round trips frequently by car to Exeter (and even further to Tiverton Parkway) to catch or meet trains.
The catchment area for an Okehampton railhead is surprisingly large and serving a population potentially far bigger than Galashiels/Tweedbank.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think it's worth pointig out that the reinstatements for Tavistock to Plymouth and Okehampton to Exeter were already examined in previous reports and that Devon CC and the Plymouth UA are in favour of the schemes. They just don't have the legal ability to self-finance and depend on the DfT, unlike the Scottish Government (devolution needed?). The only stretch that needs a separate justification is the middle one and I suspect that it would be tactically preferable for the councils to press on and get DfT support for the two schemes and justify the missing link as a separate exercise.
The northern schemes are not seen as any alternative schemes to making South Devon more rail-resilient but would be complementary to those schemes, for Plymouth and Cornwall, who need alternative rail routes in the same way they have two Primary road routes from the peninisula.

 

[yorksrob]

Ref RAIL 866

Andrea Davis of the Peninsula Task Force has come out clearly in favour of the Okehampton route, stating that the £20m a day cost of the route closure, that is £60m in November 2018, is wholly unacceptable and whilst strengthening the Dawlish route is priority 1, she sees the need for the northern route by 2030 due to climate change causing increasing levels of damage & disruption via Dawlish whatever they do. It is estimated that the annual cost of disruption will be double the total cost of rebuilding the line by 2060 and already makes this a positive BCR on that basis. It is concluded that the route must be operational before 2040 by which point regular disruption levels will be unacceptable.

Significant benefits to northern Cornwall and Devon ate cited, including access to trains for a huge unserved area, diversionary benefits and enabling housing development.

I've just got around to reading this interview, and its extremely heartening to hear the Peninsular Task Force reiterating the need for the route via Okehampton.

Lets hope that this leads to some action.

 

[coppercapped]

If this figure is 'pure fantasy' then so too must be the claims that time savings of five and ten minutes here and there on the road and rail networks, amount to billions of pounds worth of savings.

They are. The amounts are based on notional values of people's time and vary depending on whether business or leisure travel is being considered. This is a large part of the basis for cost-benefit analyses.

The actual cost of the disruption is simply that of forgone fares income, the extra costs incurred due to staff and stock being out of position and the costs of the reinstatement of any damage to the infrastructure. These can be measured - the other numbers are essentially codified and formalised versions of 'sticking one's finger in the air'.

 

[yorksrob]

They are. The amounts are based on notional values of people's time and vary depending on whether business or leisure travel is being considered. This is a large part of the basis for cost-benefit analyses.

The actual cost of the disruption is simply that of forgone fares income, the extra costs incurred due to staff and stock being out of position and the costs of the reinstatement of any damage to the infrastructure. These can be measured - the other numbers are essentially codified and formalised versions of 'sticking one's finger in the air'.

Well, in that case we can come up with codified and formalised ways of estimating the benefit to local residents of increased employment, educational and work opportunities for communities gaining a new railway station.

 

[coppercapped]

Well, in that case we can come up with codified and formalised ways of estimating the benefit to local residents of increased employment, educational and work opportunities for communities gaining a new railway station.

Yes, you can. This is already done.

The issue is that the costs (that is, the total of the actual spent money) can be greater than the notional benefits.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, you can. This is already done.

The issue is that the costs (that is, the total of the actual spent money) can be greater than the notional benefits.

Well, it's certainly nice to hear that the Task Force will be pushing for these benefits to be monetised alongside the diversionary benefits.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes, you can. This is already done.

The issue is that the costs (that is, the total of the actual spent money) can be greater than the notional benefits.

Which is exactly why the railway, as infrastructure with all sorts of wider implications, should be fully in the public sector. Politicians would then be answerable for delivery (or non-delivery) and not just looking at either a narrow business case or even a only CBA for justification of investment. It could also remove the need for what seems like the billions of pounds spent on studies (over the whole country over the years) with no outcome.

 

[coppercapped]

Which is exactly why the railway, as infrastructure with all sorts of wider implications, should be fully in the public sector. Politicians would then be answerable for delivery (or non-delivery) and not just looking at either a narrow business case or even a only CBA for justification of investment. It could also remove the need for what seems like the billions of pounds spent on studies (over the whole country over the years) with no outcome.

Not this argument again? Social cost analysis originally developed in the 1960s and used, inter alia, to justify the construction of the Victoria tube line, has evolved and is now called cost-benefit analysis. It is a way for Government or Local Authorities to justify spending money on a particular project and prioritise the order in which such projects are authorised. It is needed since the proceeds of the expenditure will not necessarily return directly to the Government or Local Authority body paying for and authorising the work. Such expenditure is generally intended to benefit in one way or another a wide cross-section of society. Cost-benefit analysis are not used by private industry as any expenditure in, say, new product development will accrue - if they are successful - directly to the company offering the product. The calculation is comparatively simple compared to one which is trying to include wider social benefits.

Railway infrastructure is already in the public sector - you may not have noticed but Network Rail is a company wholly owned by the state and administered by the Department for Transport. All the money it spends comes either from usage payments by the TOCs and FOCs or, critically in this case, directly from the taxpayer via the Treasury and the DfT. The Government needs a way of identifying needs - as they are not signalled to it via the price mechanism - and as there are many competing demands for Government expenditure and its income is, remarkable as it may seem, limited it commissions studies to advise it. Sometimes more than one as other factors may need to be considered or the ground rules have changed.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well, it's certainly nice to hear that the Task Force will be pushing for these benefits to be monetised alongside the diversionary benefits.

The problem being that even if the Dawlish route was to be unavailable for a week every single year the diversionary benefits would be tiny as part of the overall picture. The scheme would stand or fall on the benefits arising from meeting the demand between Tavistock and Exeter in one direction and between Okehampton and Plymouth in the other. And these benefits have to be set against the cost of the re-instatement works as well as the operating costs. The populations of said towns, though growing, are nevertheless relatively small when set against the distances involved.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem being that even if the Dawlish route was to be unavailable for a week every single year the diversionary benefits would be tiny as part of the overall picture. The scheme would stand or fall on the benefits arising from meeting the demand between Tavistock and Exeter in one direction and between Okehampton and Plymouth in the other. And these benefits have to be set against the cost of the re-instatement works as well as the operating costs. The populations of said towns, though growing, are nevertheless relatively small when set against the distances involved.

Oh, I' ve been arguing this case for years.

We've had the "you're trying to justify this line for reopening, but you can't justify it for local use as well" arguments for years.

The truth is you will serve a number of purposes with this reinstatement and if you take into account all the benefits, this reinstatement makes sense.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Oh, I' ve been arguing this case for years.

We've had the "you're trying to justify this line for reopening, but you can't justify it for local use as well" arguments for years.

The truth is you will serve a number of purposes with this reinstatement and if you take into account all the benefits, this reinstatement makes sense.

At this point all you have is opinion and some very sketchy numbers. And if a relatively cheap coastal defence scheme for the Dawlish area proves possible then the political imperative disappears. Given the apparent strength of feeling expressed by some it's strange that nobody seems to have produced a robust financial study, ie one that is based on realistic forecasts and costings. There's a danger of this scheme starting to look like the Leeds Northern (Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton) one, all hype and no substance. Time for some serious people to get a grip on this and deal with it professionally.

 

[coppercapped]

Oh, I' ve been arguing this case for years.

We've had the "you're trying to justify this line for reopening, but you can't justify it for local use as well" arguments for years.

The truth is you will serve a number of purposes with this reinstatement and if you take into account all the benefits, this reinstatement makes sense.

Please show your working.

Assertion is not proof.

 

[Meerkat]

It so obviously makes sense that no one even bothers with a proper CBA!

 

[yorksrob]

At this point all you have is opinion and some very sketchy numbers. And if a relatively cheap coastal defence scheme for the Dawlish area proves possible then the political imperative disappears. Given the apparent strength of feeling expressed by some it's strange that nobody seems to have produced a robust financial study, ie one that is based on realistic forecasts and costings. There's a danger of this scheme starting to look like the Leeds Northern (Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton) one, all hype and no substance. Time for some serious people to get a grip on this and deal with it professionally.

Ah, but that's the difference. The task force's raison detre is that the main line should be preserved. And they quite rightly make that case all the time. Yet they still understand the importance of the Okehampton route to Plymouth as well.

 

[yorksrob]

Please show your working.

Assertion is not proof.

What, like we wanted proof that passengers would railhead to larger stations in the Beeching Report ?

Like we wanted evidence of how much money the disastrous closure programme actually saved?.

It would be fascinating if you were to provide these.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

What, like we wanted proof that passengers would railhead to larger stations in the Beeching Report ?

Like we wanted evidence of how much money the disastrous closure programme actually saved?.

It would be fascinating if you were to provide these.

It's all very well complaining about the wrongs of the past but that approach will not succeed in obtaining a single penny from the Treasury towards any reinstatement. I have commented in other threads about the need for campaigners to be politically savvy and that rail campaigners are so often lacking in that regard. I'm afraid your post serves only to highlight my point. That's not to say that I hold you personally responsible for generating a suitably supportive case but without it the Dartmoor Line is going nowhere.

 

[furnessvale]

What, like we wanted proof that passengers would railhead to larger stations in the Beeching Report ?

Like we wanted evidence of how much money the disastrous closure programme actually saved?.

It would be fascinating if you were to provide these.

We might as well throw in the Serpell report which proposed closing everything west of Exeter with everyone from Cornwall and most of Devon railheading at Exeter.

 

[BigCj34]

I do wonder, as far as sea defences for places like Dawlish are concerned, why plastic is not used more. Especially when the sea is full of it, it could be used for what it does best, its resistance to erosion. Could be a cost-effective means, maybe transparent plastic screens could be placed by the beach side part of the track to prevent seawater penetration.

 

[MarkyT]

I do wonder, as far as sea defences for places like Dawlish are concerned, why plastic is not used more. Especially when the sea is full of it, it could be used for what it does best, its resistance to erosion. Could be a cost-effective means, maybe transparent plastic screens could be placed by the beach side part of the track to prevent seawater penetration.

I've read the signalling equipment cabinets through the area are heavy duty plastic, which is rare.

 

[Meerkat]

Plastic can’t be that great at resisting sea erosion as they keep going on about how it breaks up into tiny bits in our fish fingers

 

[deltic08]

You mean a commuter from Torbay to Exeter would be expected to get a train to Newton Abbot, then one to Plymouth, then one to Exeter via the LSWR route?

Such a diversion would not suit long distance passengers for Teignbridge, Torbay and the South Hams either.

Promoting the LSWR option as a suitable diversionary route for the 400,000 people in the above three districts doesn't work. They will still need buses, and a lot of them, during sea wall disruption. Most importantly it doesn't require sourcing buses during disruption. Something that isn't easy to arrange at short notice. We've seen in Bristol recently just how bad a supposedly properly organised bustitution service, long planned for the Filton Bank closure, can be.

A Dawlish Avoiding Line between Exminster and Newton Abbot, with the potential for a park and ride to serve Dawlish and Teignmouth, keeps all existing passenger flows rail served during disruption. It also allows for modest journey time improvements for Plymouth and Cornwall. Long distance trains can take the DAL route to Newton Abbot and beyond. Semi-fasts and locals can stick to a rationalised sea wall route.

The LSWR route has merit as a line to attract new business to the railways. For local services serving North and West Devon certainly. Alternative long distance services can also go that way if the business case stacks up. It should not however be costed on its suitability as a diversionary route during sea wall closures. That option does nothing for the existing considerable passenger numbers to and from Teignbridge, Torbay and the South Hams.

We are discussing Exeter-Plymouth trains here in the event of closure of the Dawlish route.

 

[deltic08]

The populations are tiny, and there must be high car ownership or no one would get anywhere!

High car ownership only because of public transport poverty. Rapid car ownership followed Beeching cuts.

Borders railway is a very expensive single track commuter branch.

No it isn't. It provided a service that was there and taken away by a system that only looked at money not hardship. It has provided the Borders with a very good service much quicker and more comfortable than bus and opened out the Borders to incomers and tourists.
It is usually a case of those that already have complaining about those that are without wanting a rail connection.

 

[deltic08]

I think it is a view from the 1860s that everywhere should be connected to the rail network....... Tavistock and Okehampton are small places, where public transport is better suited to buses. Sad I know to the nostalgic enthusiast, but pragmatic.
Unless you believe that some form of compulsion should be used to force people to use trains, (and suffer the concomitant tyranny of timetables and railway staff/owners), the only way for the railways to survive is for them to provide services that a large enough collection of people wish to use voluntarily. Inter alia, speed is going to be a major factor in that decision.
Already there are calls to upgrade the A38 road to motorway standard. This will come. If the railway doesn't keep up in the speed race it will die a slow death. Tavistock and Okehampton have no priority in transport spending (save further road improvements) and are unlikely to be contributing anything worthwhile to the railway network. On the pile with Selby-Driffield reopening please!
(Okehampton could get a Single car one-person-operated diesel unit shuttle, as there is an existing line, if some money needed pouring down a drain)

You should apply for a job at the DafT with that attitude. You would be sure to get it.
You must be one of these complainers with a good rail service.

You are right, the issues at Dawlish are a problem. Reinstating the former SR line via Okehampton is not the answer. Please see my posts further up concerning the required new direct railway line between Exeter and Plymouth (following the line of the A38), with a branch to Newton Abbot and Torbay, and why. Plymouth, Cornwall and Torbay deserve nothing less. Where exactly is this population West Devon 55,300 and Torrington 67 000? Must be pretty dispersed and not suitable for being served by a railway in the motor road vehicle age. (Certainly not one you'd build now)

Just switch off your brain for a minute and consider the possibilities. Your suggestion of a route following the A38 would still have a gradient similar to west of Newton Abbott even if partly in tunnel. Still limiting freight train weights per loco. The LSWR route is more gradual and freight train friendly.
Do you really think a new line is going to be built? You must still believe in Father Christmas. A reinstated LSWR route is still much cheaper. We are talking of alternatives to the coastal route when closed in an emergency not how the population spread of various North Devon towns would pay for the route to reopen. Once open it would be used as railheads of Tavistock and Okehampton have a large catchment.
Not all users of trains are rail enthusiasts and not all users have a car or can drive. I can't drive since having a stroke this year so don't insult the disabled.
Idiotic to infer we are seeking to reinstate rail to every hamlet. "Connecting Communities" recommended all towns 15,000 and over that could be connected should be connected if possible unless within 4 miles of an already rail connected town.

 

[deltic08]

There's a danger of this scheme starting to look like the Leeds Northern (Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton) one, all hype and no substance. Time for some serious people to get a grip on this and deal with it professionally.

Are you talking as someone who knows its all hype or are you ignorant? I suggest the latter as I know you are not party to the latest developments.

 

[deltic08]

I do wonder, as far as sea defences for places like Dawlish are concerned, why plastic is not used more. Especially when the sea is full of it, it could be used for what it does best, its resistance to erosion. Could be a cost-effective means, maybe transparent plastic screens could be placed by the beach side part of the track to prevent seawater penetration.

Don't you mean corrosion...…………….to salt water and air

 

[The Ham]

We are discussing Exeter-Plymouth trains here in the event of closure of the Dawlish route.

Quite, in the event of a closure what happens now? Hundreds of people from every train from Plymouth have to get buses along with all the passengers from South Devon.

What would change if the Via Okehampton route existed? Those hundreds of passengers would be able to be diverted via Okehampton, freeing up more bus space for those from South Devon.

Alternatively all the long distance trains could divert and only those trains serving South Devon could use the land side track. However with a lot less services to fit in the confusion and delay would be more limited (and no one likes confusion and delay).

Finally it could be possible to send freight trains via Okehampton, that could potentially allow more services to run to/from South Devon (especially if there was a north facing junction to allow trains to avoid Exeter).

As such although the benefits for South Devon aren't as clear and obvious as it would be if the DAL was the route, there are benefits. It's just those benefits will cost a lot less than a DAL option.

 

[yorksrob]

It's all very well complaining about the wrongs of the past but that approach will not succeed in obtaining a single penny from the Treasury towards any reinstatement. I have commented in other threads about the need for campaigners to be politically savvy and that rail campaigners are so often lacking in that regard. I'm afraid your post serves only to highlight my point. That's not to say that I hold you personally responsible for generating a suitably supportive case but without it the Dartmoor Line is going nowhere.

I will keep on going on about the wrongs of the past until someone actually does something to put them right.

At least with the support of the Task Force, there's more chance of the appropriate analysis being done and the case being made.