-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Any news on proposals to build an alternative route between Exeter & Plymouth?
- Thread starter longylong
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
coppercapped
Established Member
To your first point, I assume that you realise that in the decade from 1920 to 1930 the number of cars registered for use on the road (which can be taken as a proxy for 'ownership') increased FIVE TIMES? In the subsequent decades to 1980, with the exception of the hiatus caused by the Second World War, the rate of increase in the number of cars registered for use on the road then dropped, only doubling every 10 years. Since then the number of cars registered for use on the road has continued to increase, but not as quickly.
As you say, car ownership continued to increase after the 'Beeching cuts', but the cuts were not the reason. If one plots the number of cars registered for use on the roads each year - the data are available - there is no noticeable increase, or change in the trends, during the period (1962 to 1972) when most of the lines were being closed.
Car ownership took off in the 1920s because the car was more convenient than either the horse or the train for many people's purposes. The increase in car ownership did not correlate with rail closures and car ownership per head of the population has always been higher in rural districts right from the early days of motoring, with the local GP in his de Dion-Bouton, than in urban areas.
It's time this myth was put to sleep.
Last edited:
coppercapped
Established Member
Going on about the real or imagined 'wrongs' decisions that were made 50 years ago - we woz robbed! - will not open, or re-open, a single inch of railway.
By the very fact of subscribing to this Forum its members show they are interested in railways, the corollary is that many, if not most, would like to see more railway rather than less.
I include myself among these, I would be delighted if the link between Exeter and Plymouth via Okehampton (among others) were to be reinstated. But one has has to realise that the money has to come from somewhere - and for most infrastructure projects this means from the Government. In some cases there might be some reusable alignment, but as far as the Law and raising money goes, one is building a new railway.
He who pays the piper calls the tune - which means that one has to play by the Government's rules. These are quite clearly set out here. To stand any chance of success this process must be followed.
If you a serious about getting railways re-opened, get stuck in! I am trying to do something similar with a conservation area in my town - just bitching butters no parsnips. You have to roll your sleeves up.
Well I did write to the leader of Plymouth Council after he spoke out against reopening the route.
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Do please provide a suitable link. Or at least share some details via the appropriate thread. Assuming of course that "latest developments" is not just a reference to yet another less than convincing report accessible only via your desk drawer.
Sir Felix Pole
Member
Slightly worrying news from Tavistock...
A friend there tells me that there have recently been trial excavations at the proposed housing development off Callington Road which is also the site of the proposed railway station. Bovis Homes issued a statement in October stating that development would commence 'early 2019' - one (discounted) rumour doing the rounds is that there are concerns about arsenic contamination from the nearby disused Crowndale Copper Mine, last worked during WW1. The statement contains no reference to a contribution to the rail link - even though this was a condition of planning permission - merely 'financial contributions towards a new school in the area, as well as play provisions and local bus services'.
https://www.bovishomes.co.uk/news/bovis-homes-and-livewest-to-deliver-398-new-homes-in-tavistock/
It would appear that Bovis have wriggled out of their commitment - unless monies are being held until the railway can be progressed - I am visting next week and will endeavour to find out more from local councillors.
A friend there tells me that there have recently been trial excavations at the proposed housing development off Callington Road which is also the site of the proposed railway station. Bovis Homes issued a statement in October stating that development would commence 'early 2019' - one (discounted) rumour doing the rounds is that there are concerns about arsenic contamination from the nearby disused Crowndale Copper Mine, last worked during WW1. The statement contains no reference to a contribution to the rail link - even though this was a condition of planning permission - merely 'financial contributions towards a new school in the area, as well as play provisions and local bus services'.
https://www.bovishomes.co.uk/news/bovis-homes-and-livewest-to-deliver-398-new-homes-in-tavistock/
It would appear that Bovis have wriggled out of their commitment - unless monies are being held until the railway can be progressed - I am visting next week and will endeavour to find out more from local councillors.
A direct 'new line' is what is required. Anything else is second rate. Aim high. Whether I believe in Father Christmas is irrelevant. Not sure why freight train weights per loco are really an issue (virtually no freight on the railway) and the technology is now available to increase loco power to cope with this in the UK context.
Play the 'insult to the disabled' card if you like, but carrying passengers who do not have a car or cannot/won't drive to small towns is quite possible by road transport service, rather than paying millions to re-open bucolic secondary lines of yesteryear as a priority.
'Connecting communities' - a rail industry report banging their own drum to increase dependency on rail and secure their own future. They would make that kind of recommendation wouldn't they!
coppercapped
Established Member
It's a start! But I'm afraid it won't be a very productive one - the person has already come down against the re-opening. Complaining won't work.
What is necessary is find out why he/she was against re-opening. Were they afraid that they would lose money intended for some other project? Did they expect their district would have to contribute? And any one of many such reasons or fears.
You, or the action group(s) promoting the reopening, will have demonstrate that there is a benefit to this person if the line reopens. This could be financial; it could be that it assists the local Council in meeting its planning objectives and policies; or one of many other reasons. You have to demolish each of the arguments raised against re-opening - in detail, with figures that are based on facts not wishful thinking.
You will need to identify sources of money, work with the Local Enterprise Partnerships, local councils, politicians, businesses, local community associations, local rail action groups. Look at the way that the East-West Rail Consortium has campaigned for years to get the Cambridge - Bedford - Bletchley - Oxford line reopened. Finally, it's happening.
What will NOT work is to simply say that village or town XYZ deserves a rail service because it used to have one. If you say that NOBODY will open the door for you again. You'll be classified as a railway enthusiast and be discounted as a nutcase.
It will not be easy and it will take a long time. You will have to give up a lot of your free time.
Best of luck.
I would be interested in your findings Sir Felix. I wrote to both Devon County Council
https://new.devon.gov.uk/roadsandtr...ston-railway-and-associated-multi-use-trails/ and the Kilbride Group http://kilbridegroup.com/home/railprojects/tavistock/ asking about the lack of news. I asked if the rail plans have been quietly dropped. No reply so far.
As for the whole route, it would be far more than just a diversionary route. That implies it would be rebuilt then left unused, except for a few days in winter when the seawall is under siege. Hardly, so it would have to be reopened as a separate route with its own services, both local and long distance. If SWR are still in business (not a given at the moment!), they would want a slice of the West Country cake, just as the SR did, by extending some Waterloo - Exeters to Plymouth. A useful and versatile local service would be achievable by running a circular service each way. Plymouth-Totnes-NA-Ex-Oke-Tav-Ply and vice-versa. No reversing needed. Locals would have a greater choice of destinations and, it would be one of the great scenic train journeys of Britain. Coast, River estuaries, Dartmoor, Saltash bridges, Navy ships and the Devon hills. Freight could routed that way to avoid the Devon banks, either continuing via Yeovil or, running round in Riverside yard.
We need Okehampton and Tavistock reinstated first. That would build momentum for the middle bit.
https://new.devon.gov.uk/roadsandtr...ston-railway-and-associated-multi-use-trails/ and the Kilbride Group http://kilbridegroup.com/home/railprojects/tavistock/ asking about the lack of news. I asked if the rail plans have been quietly dropped. No reply so far.
As for the whole route, it would be far more than just a diversionary route. That implies it would be rebuilt then left unused, except for a few days in winter when the seawall is under siege. Hardly, so it would have to be reopened as a separate route with its own services, both local and long distance. If SWR are still in business (not a given at the moment!), they would want a slice of the West Country cake, just as the SR did, by extending some Waterloo - Exeters to Plymouth. A useful and versatile local service would be achievable by running a circular service each way. Plymouth-Totnes-NA-Ex-Oke-Tav-Ply and vice-versa. No reversing needed. Locals would have a greater choice of destinations and, it would be one of the great scenic train journeys of Britain. Coast, River estuaries, Dartmoor, Saltash bridges, Navy ships and the Devon hills. Freight could routed that way to avoid the Devon banks, either continuing via Yeovil or, running round in Riverside yard.
We need Okehampton and Tavistock reinstated first. That would build momentum for the middle bit.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
That just isn’t how franchised TOCs operate, unfortunately. Extending the historic LSWR for little more than nostalgic reasons is a suggestion made many times in this thread, but it would only happen if it suited DfT. The SWR or successor TOC couldn’t do it unilaterally. If GWR are running Okehampton to Exeter by the end of their franchise (as already proposed) wouldn’t they become the obvious TOC to extend anyway?
I didn't complain to him. I merely explained to him in detail the error of his ways.
GWR extending is fine, it doesn't matter who operates it. However, that would mean through trains reversing at Exeter St Davids every time. Waterloo is the obvious starting/finishing point and serves different towns east of Exeter as well. Of course, Pad trains could go via Yeovil to avoid reversing but, that would mean more re-doubling west of Yeovil which I think is planned anyway.
Why are you so bitter? I hate travelling by bus as do most people. They only do because they have to. Given the choice, it would be train.
Like it or not, railways will have to reopen due to congestion and air pollution and before you come back with electric cars are pollution-free, anything on a rubber tyre is not pollution free.
Even to-day, locos can only haul certain weights up gradients as steep as South Devon banks. To provide two locos can make a service marginal or uneconomic. Ask yourself why there is little or no freight on this line. Falmouth would make an ideal container port but not enough units per loco could be hauled due to local topography to make each train profitable.
You may be able to increase horse power but you are still reliant on adhesion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do wonder if combining two projects would result in a better result that you would get for each on their own.
Given that it's known that the single track sections of the WofE line would limit the likelihood of services running to Plymouth from Waterloo, yet there's not enough passenger demand to justify redoubling on the WofE line why not look at both together?
The reason being is that by having services run to Plymouth it would increase demand on the WofE line, it would also mean that there's more passengers using the via Okehampton route.
Add in an extension to the Brighton to Southampton service so that it runs to Plymouth (massively reducing journey times between the south coast and Exeter/Plymouth/etc.), which also increases the number of services benefiting from the new redoubling, and it could be that the answer for everything is better.
However because everything is linked there would be no scope to split into the component parts.
The final timetable could look something like:
- 1 tph Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton (existing Exeter service with some stops skipped to reduce journey times)
- 1tph Waterloo to Paignton (existing Yeovil/Salisbury services)
- 1tph Brighton to Plymouth via Okehampton (existing Southampton service)
- 1tph Plymouth to Exeter stopping service (possibly with local extensions at each end
By adding some of the more minor stations from the current Exeter services, as well as according the need to wait for trains at the passing locations, there would be journey time savings (and therefore a costed benefit). This could fairly easily be 15 minutes, although it could be more, putting Waterloo to Exeter at 3:10, possibly sub 3 hours, which could make it a more attractive option for people traveling to Exeter from London given the lower cost. Especially given that from the Waterloo area to get to Exeter could be nearly as fast depending on the times that the trains are leaving London.
South Devon would also benefit as there would be an increase in travel between there and the Hampshire/Surrey/Wiltshire/Sussex areas as well as an extra direct service to Exeter. As well as improving journey times for them when the GWR services need to divert along the WofE line as they wouldn't need to call at any of the stations as there is space for the normal services to carry on running, or at least enough of the existing services that there's no need for the GWR services to call at all the stations other than maybe a few key stops.
Yes it may well cost £2-£3 billion however I would have thought that the benefits would be significantly higher, including to South Devon (other than the need to still use buses during problems at Dawlish, however hopefully there write be more scope for single line running witha diversion route via Okehampton for the long distance services), than building any of the DAL options.
Given that it's known that the single track sections of the WofE line would limit the likelihood of services running to Plymouth from Waterloo, yet there's not enough passenger demand to justify redoubling on the WofE line why not look at both together?
The reason being is that by having services run to Plymouth it would increase demand on the WofE line, it would also mean that there's more passengers using the via Okehampton route.
Add in an extension to the Brighton to Southampton service so that it runs to Plymouth (massively reducing journey times between the south coast and Exeter/Plymouth/etc.), which also increases the number of services benefiting from the new redoubling, and it could be that the answer for everything is better.
However because everything is linked there would be no scope to split into the component parts.
The final timetable could look something like:
- 1 tph Waterloo to Plymouth via Okehampton (existing Exeter service with some stops skipped to reduce journey times)
- 1tph Waterloo to Paignton (existing Yeovil/Salisbury services)
- 1tph Brighton to Plymouth via Okehampton (existing Southampton service)
- 1tph Plymouth to Exeter stopping service (possibly with local extensions at each end
By adding some of the more minor stations from the current Exeter services, as well as according the need to wait for trains at the passing locations, there would be journey time savings (and therefore a costed benefit). This could fairly easily be 15 minutes, although it could be more, putting Waterloo to Exeter at 3:10, possibly sub 3 hours, which could make it a more attractive option for people traveling to Exeter from London given the lower cost. Especially given that from the Waterloo area to get to Exeter could be nearly as fast depending on the times that the trains are leaving London.
South Devon would also benefit as there would be an increase in travel between there and the Hampshire/Surrey/Wiltshire/Sussex areas as well as an extra direct service to Exeter. As well as improving journey times for them when the GWR services need to divert along the WofE line as they wouldn't need to call at any of the stations as there is space for the normal services to carry on running, or at least enough of the existing services that there's no need for the GWR services to call at all the stations other than maybe a few key stops.
Yes it may well cost £2-£3 billion however I would have thought that the benefits would be significantly higher, including to South Devon (other than the need to still use buses during problems at Dawlish, however hopefully there write be more scope for single line running witha diversion route via Okehampton for the long distance services), than building any of the DAL options.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If LSWR re-opening is to have a hope of succeeding then it needs to take a gradual approach and minimise costs at every stage, while thinking about how later expansion can be made possible without extra cost up front.
So I'd suggest the first stage would be to get a 7-day service running to Okehampton. The track is already there and if that can't be made to work then frankly there's no hope for a line through to Plymouth. Yes the passenger numbers will be lower than a through service, but with no restoration of route the costs will be hugely lower so the ratio of the two should be better. The numbers using Okehampton eastwards would provide a pretty good basis to predict how many intermediate passengers would use a through route. The next stage would be Tavistock before attempting to get funding for the link between the two.
I'd suggest also that the infrastructure is kept basic, single with loops aiming to support an hourly Sprinter service, but hopefully avoiding the error on Borders of saving small amounts by rebuilding bridges for single track with no easy method of doubling them. At times of blockage via Dawlish 80x units could run in the same paths instead, to provide capacity for through passengers and serve the local stations by Selective Door Opening rather than requiring full-length platforms.
Any suggestion of through-running beyond Exeter at this stage merely complicates the project and creates more things that have to go right for it to succeed. The time for such refinements is after the route is reinstated.
So I'd suggest the first stage would be to get a 7-day service running to Okehampton. The track is already there and if that can't be made to work then frankly there's no hope for a line through to Plymouth. Yes the passenger numbers will be lower than a through service, but with no restoration of route the costs will be hugely lower so the ratio of the two should be better. The numbers using Okehampton eastwards would provide a pretty good basis to predict how many intermediate passengers would use a through route. The next stage would be Tavistock before attempting to get funding for the link between the two.
I'd suggest also that the infrastructure is kept basic, single with loops aiming to support an hourly Sprinter service, but hopefully avoiding the error on Borders of saving small amounts by rebuilding bridges for single track with no easy method of doubling them. At times of blockage via Dawlish 80x units could run in the same paths instead, to provide capacity for through passengers and serve the local stations by Selective Door Opening rather than requiring full-length platforms.
Any suggestion of through-running beyond Exeter at this stage merely complicates the project and creates more things that have to go right for it to succeed. The time for such refinements is after the route is reinstated.
There's nothing saying that SWR couldn't run semi fast services (Exeter, Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth only) and GWR run stopping services along the line, in the same way that other TOC's do on other lines.
Yes GWR wouldn't be able to compete on speed, however there would still be those who opted to use their services (maybe not end to end) as the timings of their services would still be better. For example being able to leave home 10 minutes later than the previous service and getting to Exeter/Plymouth 5 minutes earlier than the next service could be enough for people to use it. Especially if it allows them to hold the next service in reserve by aiming to get the train before the one you need to get incase of delays.
It's also worth considering that by being able to run between Exeter and Plymouth rather than two branch line it makes managing trains easier and probably wouldn't increase the number of units in service. Especially as even the stopping services are likely to be able to run faster over their existing sections and you also remove the need for four lots of buffer in the timetable at each end of the journey (even through you may have slightly more time at each of the two ends) which can reduce the amount of idle time.
Chances are, even post Crossrail 2, there would be demand for no more than 2 semi fast services.
While I agree that a stepped approach can work, I think that it's not always the best option.
Yes, get Exeter - Okehampton services running, but have a business case showing that there's a good case for doing the bigger picture as otherwise little will get done.
I sent an email to Tavistock Council yesterday to ascertain any news of progress and received a reply at 09.35 today. 35 minutes against 2 weeks for Devon CC and 1 week for Kilbride Group so far, still waiting.
This is the reply.
'I understand that this matter is still being considered, and is mainly linked to the proposed development at Callington Road. Building works have now started, but I’m not sure at what point the railway link will actually be decided on/started. As you would expect, funding is one of the major issues for this scheme.
I’m sorry I can’t be of any more help than that, I believe it really is a case of ‘wait and see’!
Regards'
So, no decision about starting at all, let alone when. Why are the English so obsessed with money and how to avoid spending it. The Scots and Welsh just get on and build stuff, although they also indulge in cheapest is best at times. Cheapest of all is to not build any infrastructure anywhere. The old saying 'Knowing the price of everything but, the value of nothing' applies.
This is the reply.
'I understand that this matter is still being considered, and is mainly linked to the proposed development at Callington Road. Building works have now started, but I’m not sure at what point the railway link will actually be decided on/started. As you would expect, funding is one of the major issues for this scheme.
I’m sorry I can’t be of any more help than that, I believe it really is a case of ‘wait and see’!
Regards'
So, no decision about starting at all, let alone when. Why are the English so obsessed with money and how to avoid spending it. The Scots and Welsh just get on and build stuff, although they also indulge in cheapest is best at times. Cheapest of all is to not build any infrastructure anywhere. The old saying 'Knowing the price of everything but, the value of nothing' applies.
Last edited:
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,520
I think that both these viewpoints are correct. Given that the infrastructure is already there, we don't want to be waiting forever to get Okehampton up and running. That should be ASAP.
Similarly, we need to be thinking about getting Tavistock added. But this should all be done with a view to the end outcome of the through route.
There are plenty of good campaigns already out there (just look at the Wealden, which has been going on for many years), however until there is a change in policy, and Government decides to direct some of its infrastructure spending towards such re-instatements, nothing will happen.
There are indeed some good campaigns out there, and many have achieved success in their objective to reopen lines / stations /improve services. The best campaigns are those that work with the industry in a constructive manner, provide good evidence and reasoning for their proposals, gain consistent and continued local stakeholder support (local authorities and relevant MPs), and listen to feedback.
I’m afraid the Wealden campaign is not one of them.
Given that it has already resulted in studies showing that the route would cover its revenue costs (2008 being the one that springs to mind) I would say that it has done well. One has to wonder what more a good campaign can do (or what these "many" successful reopening campaigns, wherever they may be, have done).
I'm afraid that it is now policy that needs to step up.
I see that the line from Bere Alston to Tavistock has had firm local and regional support for many years, as well as an unassailable justification.
If your faith in the system is justified, residents of Tavistock can look forward to their line being restored in good time, rather than being left peeing in the wind, as appears to be the case at present.
Last edited:
If the justification was unassailable for Bere Alston to Tavistock, it would have happened, just like the number of other new / reopened lines and stations in this country have done. There’s lots of them, I’ve done the list of lines twice before, I’m not doing it again.
And there’s more on the cards; eg the Camp Hill Line is looking very positive, good stakeholder support, great evidence, I think it will happen fairly soon.
Those will be all the ones that were either in the dieing days of BR or Scotland and Wales then.
I would welcome Camp Hill, however its not really comparable as the line already exists.
The line does indeed exist, just like the lines to Ebbw Vale, Alloa, Vale of Glamorgan, Aberdare, Aylesbury Vale, Corby, most of the Robin Hood Line, Oxford - Bicester, etc etc etc. There have been very few line reopenings that have been on completely closed lines: Airdrie-Bathgate, Snow Hill Phase 2 (mostly), Borders, Larkhall are those that immediately spring to mind. I’m sure there’s others.
Back on topic re Bere Alston - Tavistock; I’ve had a good look around, and whilst there have been a lot of reports, mostly by Devon CC, I can’t find any recent appraisals or robust cost estimates for this section alone. (And by robust, I mean prepared or validated by organisations who have something to do with building railways. The £26m estimate by Devon CC is not robust. Even using Borders railway rates, which were comfortably the cheapest of any new railway recently, it would be at least 4 times that now.)
Is there any recent appraisal / estimate out there? I remember the work done about 12 years ago, and that was suspect back then.
Even at the same cost per mile as the Borders route, the Tavistock line would be good value.
If the price has gone up by four times since then, the industry is doing something wrong.
Good value by what measure? That is my point, I can’t find anything that shows it is good value (or bad value, or anywhere in between).
The point about price - you miss my point. Devon CCs estimate was £27m a few years ago. All I’m saying is that if you apply the same cost per mile of Borders, which is known to be the cheapest of all the ‘new line’ reopenings in recent times, at current prices, then Tavistock to Bere Alston would be over £100m. The price hasn’t gone up, it’s just comparing different rates.
I'm saying that £100m for a railway linking a decent sized market town and its nearest city, along a commuter route which suffers congestion is good value for money.
Good value compared to what though? That is the point; value is a tool for comparison. And when you want to spend £100m of someone else’s cash (and in my view it will be more than £100m), then you need to make sure you have compared all reasonable options.
Last edited:
- Status