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

[deltic08]

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to any studies that confirm your assertion (though on past performance I'm not holding my breath). In the meantime forum members could try reading this short article: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554997.htm as an introduction to the subject. While this article also provides no links to any studies it does appear reasonably trustworthy. In particular I note that it claims that tyre and brake wear cause only 3% to 7% of harmful particulate pollution attributable to road transport. If true that suggests that while the issue is certainly worthy of further research the most pressing issue arising from road vehicle pollution is indeed exhaust emissions. It also says the quantity of such materials produced annually in Europe is just 40,000 tonnes; what does the number of 440,000 tons refer to?

I can't provide a link but just google Oslo Effect. That is where I took my facts from.
Yes 440.000 should read 44,000 tons annually. Thank you for pointing that out. Still a sizeable amount and accounts for up to 50.000 premature deaths in the UK annually.
I was also wrong stating only 23% of particulate matter comes from exhaust emissions. It is only 10%. 90% comes from tyre and brake wear which you do not get with rail vehicles.

 

[AndrewE]

I can't provide a link but just google Oslo Effect. That is where I took my facts from.
Yes 440.000 should read 44,000 tons annually. Thank you for pointing that out. Still a sizeable amount and accounts for up to 50.000 premature deaths in the UK annually.
I was also wrong stating only 23% of particulate matter comes from exhaust emissions. It is only 10%. 90% comes from tyre and brake wear which you do not get with rail vehicles.

I'm afraid you do get brake wear (although reduced by regenerative braking.) Rail vehicles, being bigger and heavier than most road vehicles will be worse, but against that they don't have to brake anywhere near as often as town traffic and whatever is generated is further away from pedestrians.

 

[Meerkat]

We've devised clever ways of rail accounting (BCR) that, like all rail planning techniques are good at stopping huge amounts of money being wasted on pet projects.
Just corrected that for you
“A lot of disruption” - is it really a lot? And how little would it be if they replaced the Voyagers?

 

[deltic08]

We've devised clever ways of rail accounting (BCR) that, like all rail planning techniques are good at stopping huge amounts of money being wasted on pet projects.
Just corrected that for you
“A lot of disruption” - is it really a lot? And how little would it be if they replaced the Voyagers?

What a sad person you are if you think providing a failsafe route to Plymouth and Cornwall by rail is a pet project.

 

[yorksrob]

We've devised clever ways of rail accounting (BCR) that, like all rail planning techniques are good at stopping huge amounts of money being wasted on pet projects.
Just corrected that for you
“A lot of disruption” - is it really a lot? And how little would it be if they replaced the Voyagers?

And squandered on the roads instead, to appease the motor lobby/taxpayers alliance brigade.

 

[Meerkat]

What a sad person you are if you think providing a failsafe route to Plymouth and Cornwall by rail is a pet project

It’s a pet project because it is a very expensive way to provide something that isn’t really necessary.
Passengers just get put on buses (and aren’t they faster than the trains?!) - that is the failsafe route.

As someone else posted here. Sort out a service Exeter-Okehampton, build Bere Alston to Tavistock.
See what the usage is like. Also reduces the headline cost of linking them up if something crazy happens and it becomes financially feasible.

If your plan replaced the vulnerable section it might have a chance, but the Dawlish bit must remain open - it just isn’t feasible to spend huge amounts keeping Dawlish open and still demand money for a back up plan

 

[deltic08]

It’s a pet project because it is a very expensive way to provide something that isn’t really necessary.
Passengers just get put on buses (and aren’t they faster than the trains?!) - that is the failsafe route.

As someone else posted here. Sort out a service Exeter-Okehampton, build Bere Alston to Tavistock.
See what the usage is like. Also reduces the headline cost of linking them up if something crazy happens and it becomes financially feasible.

If your plan replaced the vulnerable section it might have a chance, but the Dawlish bit must remain open - it just isn’t feasible to spend huge amounts keeping Dawlish open and still demand money for a back up plan

That is just your opinion. If you lived west of Dawlish you would think differently.

Two dead end branch lines can't be as profitable as a through route. That's a well known fact throughout the industry.

Rail replacement buses can't take bikes, heavy luggage, wheelchairs or freight. Everyone hates bustitution.

 

[Brush 4]

Pet project isn't an official term considered by those funding projects, it is just a term used by those individuals who don't want a line reopened. (What a bizarre attitude) All the reopened lines are pet projects to many on here, the Waverley Route perhaps the most desired. Yet, it happened and a Hawick extension seems to be a realistic option now. Yes, Okehampton first, Tavistock second and when they both exceed pessimistic passenger forecasts, as most of the re-openings have, go for the middle bit to make a through route again, not instead of Dawlish but in addition to it. The circular local service I mentioned in post 639, extended Waterloo-Exeter services and the diverted trains as well. This is strategic long term thinking not wishful thinking. East-West Rail and the Waverley are subject to longer term thinking.

 

[Meerkat]

Two dead end branch lines can't be as profitable as a through route. That's a well known fact throughout the industry.

None of the options will be profitable. Why would a through route be more profitable - who wants to go on the through bit?

This is strategic long term thinking not wishful thinking

“Strategic long term thinking” is just standard pet project lingo, resorted to when the numbers don’t add up.

 

[swt_passenger]

Pet project isn't an official term considered by those funding projects, it is just a term for those individuals who don't want a line reopened...

You probably mean a term ‘used by’ those individuals etc?

 

[Bald Rick]

That is just your opinion. If you lived west of Dawlish you would think differently.

If you lived west of Dawlish, and caught the train to east of Dawlish, and needed to at a time when the line was closed, and found the alternatives less attractive.

In total, a rather small fraction of the total population west of Dawlish. Most of the rest couldn’t care less.

 

[Meerkat]

And NR are planning on spending massive amounts of money on reducing how often the line is closed

 

[deltic08]

If you lived west of Dawlish, and caught the train to east of Dawlish, and needed to at a time when the line was closed, and found the alternatives less attractive.

In total, a rather small fraction of the total population west of Dawlish. Most of the rest couldn’t care less.

Why bother strengthening Dawlish then? Close the lot west of Exeter. It won't affect me. I'm weary of campaigning for others benefit. I'm alright Jack.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps you'd like to provide a link to any studies that confirm your assertion (though on past performance I'm not holding my breath). In the meantime forum members could try reading this short article: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554997.htm as an introduction to the subject. While this article also provides no links to any studies it does appear reasonably trustworthy. In particular I note that it claims that tyre and brake wear cause only 3% to 7% of harmful particulate pollution attributable to road transport. If true that suggests that while the issue is certainly worthy of further research the most pressing issue arising from road vehicle pollution is indeed exhaust emissions. It also says the quantity of such materials produced annually in Europe is just 40,000 tonnes; what does the number of 440,000 tons refer to?

I was also wrong stating only 23% of particulate matter comes from exhaust emissions. It is only 10%. 90% comes from tyre and brake wear which you do not get with rail vehicles.

You didn’t say that 23% of particulate matter comes from exhaust emissions. You said:

Only 23% of vehicle pollution comes from exhaust emissions

Which is very different.

A quick google this morning led me to the following link from 2014:

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online final version 2.pdf

This provides a reasonably comprehensive literature review of the subject. It is useful as it combines a number of different studies, which have quite varied conclusions. In summary, it finds that brakes and tyres produce approximately the same amount of PM10 particulate emissions between them as the exhaust of a Euro 5 / Euro 6 engine; put another way approximately 50% of PM10s produced from road vehicles is from sources other than the exhaust.

This is just PM10. The amount of that produced per vehicle km is measured in single digit milligrams. Of course, there are a whole host of other emissions from the engine: CO2, CO, NOx, ammonia, unburnt hydrocarbons etc, which between them form at least 99.9999%, by weight, of undesirable emissions from road vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.

I'm afraid you do get brake wear (although reduced by regenerative braking.) Rail vehicles, being bigger and heavier than most road vehicles will be worse, but against that they don't have to brake anywhere near as often as town traffic and whatever is generated is further away from pedestrians.

Interestingly the above link also suggests that particulates produced by brakes cause between 16-55% of non-exhaust particulate matter, and tyres 5-30%; such wide ranges depend on the nature of the road, and (obviously) how often you use the brakes. As more hybrid / electric vehicles take to the roads, the amount produced by braking will reduce, eventually to almost nothing.

The report also suggests that much of the particulate matter produced ends up attached to other parts of the vehicle, (as anyone who has had to change a wheel will testify) or on the road and into the drains and watercourses. Indeed, the Goverment issued a call for evidence about this very subject earlier this year to help inform the new Clean Air Strategy, which is apparently in development.

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/airquality/brake-tyre-and-road-surface-wear/

It’s all interesting stuff.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why bother strengthening Dawlish then? Close the lot west of Exeter. It won't affect me. I'm weary of campaigning for others benefit. I'm alright Jack.

To protect the railway that already exists. And, significantly, to protect the community as well.

 

[Brush 4]

“Strategic long term thinking” is just standard pet project lingo, resorted to when the numbers don’t add up.

What are the numbers that don't add up? The lines aren't open yet so, their are no numbers. You didn't challenge the point about re-opened lines that exceeded passenger forecasts. They always seem to be underestimated. The East-West Route is subject to strategic long term thinking so, by your logic that must be a pet project. Finally, where does this bizzare opposition to re-opening lines come from? Which lines do you want to see re-opened?

 

[deltic08]

You didn’t say that 23% of particulate matter comes from exhaust emissions. You said:



Which is very different.

A quick google this morning led me to the following link from 2014:

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online final version 2.pdf

This provides a reasonably comprehensive literature review of the subject. It is useful as it combines a number of different studies, which have quite varied conclusions. In summary, it finds that brakes and tyres produce approximately the same amount of PM10 particulate emissions between them as the exhaust of a Euro 5 / Euro 6 engine; put another way approximately 50% of PM10s produced from road vehicles is from sources other than the exhaust.

This is just PM10. The amount of that produced per vehicle km is measured in single digit milligrams. Of course, there are a whole host of other emissions from the engine: CO2, CO, NOx, ammonia, unburnt hydrocarbons etc, which between them form at least 99.9999%, by weight, of undesirable emissions from road vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.



Interestingly the above link also suggests that particulates produced by brakes cause between 16-55% of non-exhaust particulate matter, and tyres 5-30%; such wide ranges depend on the nature of the road, and (obviously) how often you use the brakes. As more hybrid / electric vehicles take to the roads, the amount produced by braking will reduce, eventually to almost nothing.

The report also suggests that much of the particulate matter produced ends up attached to other parts of the vehicle, (as anyone who has had to change a wheel will testify) or on the road and into the drains and watercourses. Indeed, the Goverment issued a call for evidence about this very subject earlier this year to help inform the new Clean Air Strategy, which is apparently in development.

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/airquality/brake-tyre-and-road-surface-wear/

It’s all interesting stuff.

I know what I mean!

Each different study produces different values but overall road transport is more polluting than rail. Fact.

 

[Meerkat]

What are the numbers that don't add up? The lines aren't open yet so, their are no numbers. You didn't challenge the point about re-opened lines that exceeded passenger forecasts. They always seem to be underestimated. The East-West Route is subject to strategic long term thinking so, by your logic that must be a pet project. Finally, where does this bizzare opposition to re-opening lines come from? Which lines do you want to see re-opened?

Got a cost/benefit ratio that is worthwhile? Or just relying on saying ‘strategic’?
Which lines have exceeded forecasts? Will the initial Borders hold up, and do those numbers cover the significant cost increase?
East West is based on building enormous numbers of houses....can’t see that happening round the edge of Dartmoor....
I don’t look for lines to re-open, I just look for where building a railway makes sense whether or not something used to be there.
Railways are highly inefficient rural transport. They are good for bulk freight, fast transit between regional centres, and high volume commuting. Your proposal is none of those.

 

[Brush 4]

All negativity. You are an accountant or a consultant and I claim my £5. It's not my proposal, I just support it, along with all re-openings everywhere that are proposed by local authorities, although more progress seems to be made in Wales and Scotland than in England.

 

[Meerkat]

All negativity. You are an accountant or a consultant and I claim my £5. It's not my proposal, I just support it, along with all re-openings everywhere that are proposed by local authorities,

Nope, i am a taxpayer though. So if my taxes are given to the railways then I want them spent on making what we have more suitable before throwing money to create the need for more subsidy.
You support ALL proposed reopenings?!?! Blimey.

 

[Brush 4]

All the official policy ones. I don't know why any railway supporter wouldn't. We are all taxpayers, that doesn't automatically mean objecting to expansion of our transport network. Cost isn't the only valid criteria to consider.

 

[Meerkat]

So if a council dreams up a scheme you want the Treasury to fund it whatever the business case looks like?
Cost is a factor, but value is the critical one - there are much better things to spend money on if it is available.

 

[RT4038]

So if a council dreams up a scheme you want the Treasury to fund it whatever the business case looks like?
Cost is a factor, but value is the critical one - there are much better things to spend money on if it is available.

Quite. A new direct line between Exeter and Plymouth (avoiding Dawlish and the South Devon curves and banks) journey time about 30 min., with a branch to Torbay, would be a good start.

 

[Brush 4]

So first it was enthusiasts who have pet projects now, councils 'dream' up schemes. Ultimately, it is not our decision anyway, either Tavistock will go ahead or it won't. Okehampton seems to be a commitment now.

 

[The Ham]

Quite. A new direct line between Exeter and Plymouth (avoiding Dawlish and the South Devon curves and banks) journey time about 30 min., with a branch to Torbay, would be a good start.

The problem is that there's no spare capacity between London and Newbury along with our of Birmingham so that new line would only benefit a few trains an hour, unless you build a much longer line or build a lot of other small upgrades.

As such is likely to cost over £5 billion, for which you could:
- redouble the WofE line (or at least enough of it to run a much more frequent service
- build the route via Okehampton
- build a fleet of bimodal trains for the WofE line
- at least start to investigate electrification of the WofE line if not get wires between Basingstoke and Southampton via Salisbury

That would give much more benefits to many more passengers than would benefit from a 30 minutes journey time between Exeter and Plymouth (given that Salisbury station had 2 million passengers a year and Plymouth had 2.5 million that's probably a fairly reasonable statement).

 

[Meerkat]

It would be the equivalent of EU regional funding though - trying to improve the connections to a poor corner of the country that doesn’t have great transport links.

For the moment I would only do the Newton Abbot - Totnes - Plymouth bit, and leave the Dawlish cut off until the protection works begin to fail.

 

[Pigeon]

Shall we all go back to Victorian ways of building infrastructure then?

Read my final paragraph

 

[Pigeon]

For the moment I would only do the Newton Abbot - Totnes - Plymouth bit, and leave the Dawlish cut off until the protection works begin to fail.

...but of course not say you were going to leave it until the other bit was built and you could use it having cost a lot more than expected as an excuse.

 

[Midnight Sun]

That is just your opinion. If you lived west of Dawlish you would think differently.

Two dead end branch lines can't be as profitable as a through route. That's a well known fact throughout the industry.

Rail replacement buses can't take bikes, heavy luggage, wheelchairs or freight. Everyone hates bustitution.

When Dawlish was breached the Teignbridge timber freight was lost to road haulage.

 

[deltic08]

When Dawlish was breached the Teignbridge timber freight was lost to road haulage.

Had there been an alternate rail route via Tavistock it would not have been lost?