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

[yorksrob]

Repairing the breach and cliff landslide at Dawlish cost £50m. Repair was too quick to carry out a benefit/cost analysis. The work was just done and I didn't hear of questions being asked about doing it.

To be honest, I can see why they didn't bother as the mainline would have had to have been repaired anyway.

I note however, that the suggested suggested economic study into the Okehampton route has yet to take place.

 

[HowardGWR]

Even after privatisation, a postage stamp costs the same to Thirsk from Penzance, as from Bristol to Bath. It should be the same with public transport. Plymouth to Exeter via Okehampton will be well-used service with wider benefits and give resilience to Plymouth and the whole of Cornwall.
Strategic decisions do not require BCRs.

 

[eastdyke]

I note however, that the suggested suggested economic study into the Okehampton route has yet to take place.

? Only if you discount the work done to produce:
West of Exeter Route Resilience Study - 'Summer 2014'
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/West-of-Exeter-Route-Resilience-Study.pdf
And the studies ongoing ever since which should culminate (after a further £15million spending) in the robust recommendations promised for (spring)/summer 2019.

 

[Bald Rick]

Repairing the breach and cliff landslide at Dawlish cost £50m.

Source for the £50m?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26874503

The main railway line through Dawlish in Devon has reopened after part of the track was destroyed during winter storms.

The track was swept away with part of the sea wall in early February, cutting off the service linking Cornwall and much of Devon with the rest of the UK.

A 300-strong Network Rail team has rebuilt the track at a cost of £35m.

Prime Minister David Cameron praised the "Herculean effort" of workers on round-the-clock shifts.

The BBC at the time suggested the cost was £35m.

 

[reddragon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26874503



The BBC at the time suggested the cost was £35m.

That was for the hole, but nearby was the very costly bank slip in addition to that!

 

[Meerkat]

Strategic decisions do not require BCRs

So how do you decide which strategic schemes to prioritise, and how do you choose between different solutions to a single ‘strategic’ problem?

 

[AndrewE]

So how do you decide which strategic schemes to prioritise, and how do you choose between different solutions to a single ‘strategic’ problem?

You don't. That's exactly why the railway should be recognised as national infrastructure, with politicians (accountable to the electorate) authorising emergency spending (and not necessarily out of the railway's budget either.)

 

[Meerkat]

They are recognised as national infrastructure.
How do you decide what is worthy of emergency spending?

 

[eastdyke]

Source for the £50m?

Network Rail:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...otect-vital-railway-artery-to-the-south-west/

The damage caused by the extreme weather in 2014 cost £50m to repair and caused significant disruption to residents up and down the line, visitors and businesses that use and rely on the line.

I can see reasons why it might have actually been rather more than that as it is not clear that the £50m includes cliff face works etc., along with compensation payments to operators etc. ....
Please enlighten us?

 

[AndrewE]

They are recognised as national infrastructure.
How do you decide what is worthy of emergency spending?

If it's recognised as national infrastructure then by definition it is worthy of emergency spending.
Of course there comes a point when you have to recognise that something is no longer defensible and look for a different way round...

 

[Robertj21a]

I'd still build a tunnel.

 

[Mark J]

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.

I agree. For a rail forum I find some of the attitudes rather strange regarding expansion of the network. If comments were read correctly, it would be understood that those of us who call for reopenings are NOT advocating every single mile of closed track is reopened. There are some viable options that DO need to be put back, affecting some now sizable settlements and communities.

However If £33 Billion can be found for new road projects, why not rail? After all roads also got a sizable investment of around £15 billion a few years back.

My previous suggestion was £10 billion (£1 Billion a year) over a ten year period, less than a third given to new road projects in 2018. This money would be more than enough to pay for Okehampton to Bere Alston, High Wycombe to Bourne End, Uckfield to Lewes, Bristol to Portishead, Colne to Skipton and Norfolk Orbital Rail.

At the end of the day there are some lines that should have never been closed, Okehampton to Bere Alston being one. It is utter madness that Devon and Cornwall is reliant on one double tracked railway line next to the Sea, that is prone to closure (or worse), due to poor weather. The knock on effect of closure is felt much further up the line.

 

[HowardGWR]

So how do you decide which strategic schemes to prioritise, and how do you choose between different solutions to a single ‘strategic’ problem?

A national rail access map is drawn and then the gaps filled according to population currently deprived. The whole of Cornwall , Plymouth an North Devon would seem to earn a high priority. Add to that the South Devon community that need a Dawlish coastal avoiding route and that's two high priority projects!

 

[The Ham]

A national rail access map is drawn and then the gaps filled according to population currently deprived. The whole of Cornwall , Plymouth an North Devon would seem to earn a high priority. Add to that the South Devon community that need a Dawlish coastal avoiding route and that's two high priority projects!

Personally I would develop a design of the Dawlish Avoiding Route (DAR) with it being protected from development and buy up the land required as it comes to market. However not build it in the medium term.

Unlike the Okehampton route which I would build to facilitate a 60-75 minute journey time (with redundancy to allow for more capacity and/or faster journey times). With through running of services from Waterloo via Salisbury, so as to improve journey options from Southern England to Plymouth, including linking (with one change of trains) two navy ports.

With the Okehampton route built passenger numbers between Plymouth and Exeter/the rest of the UK would be able to grow and make the justification for the DAR better.

 

[Chester1]

I agree. For a rail forum I find some of the attitudes rather strange regarding expansion of the network. If comments were read correctly, it would be understood that those of us who call for reopenings are NOT advocating every single mile of closed track is reopened. There are some viable options that DO need to be put back, affecting some now sizable settlements and communities.

However If £33 Billion can be found for new road projects, why not rail? After all roads also got a sizable investment of around £15 billion a few years back.

My previous suggestion was £10 billion (£1 Billion a year) over a ten year period, less than a third given to new road projects in 2018. This money would be more than enough to pay for Okehampton to Bere Alston, High Wycombe to Bourne End, Uckfield to Lewes, Bristol to Portishead, Colne to Skipton and Norfolk Orbital Rail.

At the end of the day there are some lines that should have never been closed, Okehampton to Bere Alston being one. It is utter madness that Devon and Cornwall is reliant on one double tracked railway line next to the Sea, that is prone to closure (or worse), due to poor weather. The knock on effect of closure is felt much further up the line.

The reason for the skepticism is that there are members of this site who have a quasi religious view in favour of reopening lines, often while being anti light rail and HS2 etc. Its easy to just assume people strongly in favour of a particular reopening are like that. My view of the post 1945 closures is 1/3 each for a) lines that definitely should have been closed, b) on balance it was right to close and c) should not have been closed. There are also some lines that should have been closed if another had stayed open.

 

[KeithP]

With through running of services from Waterloo via Salisbury, so as to improve journey options from Southern England to Plymouth, including linking (with one change of trains) two navy ports.

The link (with one change of trains) between Portsmouth and Plymouth is already in place - change at Westbury.

 

[swt_passenger]

The link (with one change of trains) between Portsmouth and Plymouth is already in place - change at Bristol TM.

The Navy traffic that The Ham considers probably isn’t large enough to justify special consideration anyway. Although I thought change at Westbury was the preferred option if not changing at Salisbury and Exeter.

 

[yorksrob]

The reason for the skepticism is that there are members of this site who have a quasi religious view in favour of reopening lines, often while being anti light rail and HS2 etc. Its easy to just assume people strongly in favour of a particular reopening are like that. My view of the post 1945 closures is 1/3 each for a) lines that definitely should have been closed, b) on balance it was right to close and c) should not have been closed. There are also some lines that should have been closed if another had stayed open.

Oh please, like the "anything but heavy rail" brigade aren't quasi-religious in their pronouncements.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree. For a rail forum I find some of the attitudes rather strange regarding expansion of the network. If comments were read correctly, it would be understood that those of us who call for reopenings are NOT advocating every single mile of closed track is reopened. There are some viable options that DO need to be put back, affecting some now sizable settlements and communities.

However If £33 Billion can be found for new road projects, why not rail? After all roads also got a sizable investment of around £15 billion a few years back.

My previous suggestion was £10 billion (£1 Billion a year) over a ten year period, less than a third given to new road projects in 2018. This money would be more than enough to pay for Okehampton to Bere Alston, High Wycombe to Bourne End, Uckfield to Lewes, Bristol to Portishead, Colne to Skipton and Norfolk Orbital Rail.

At the end of the day there are some lines that should have never been closed, Okehampton to Bere Alston being one. It is utter madness that Devon and Cornwall is reliant on one double tracked railway line next to the Sea, that is prone to closure (or worse), due to poor weather. The knock on effect of closure is felt much further up the line.

It's good to see such a sensible and well reasoned post as this.

 

[The Ham]

The link (with one change of trains) between Portsmouth and Plymouth is already in place - change at Westbury.

Yet for much of the day the rail planners suggest the one change route is via Bristol Temple Meeds. Which is about 90 minutes longer than a via Okehampton route wood be with a change at Salisbury.

However that was just one possible example. Each may not generate much traffic but with direct or with one change of trains the following could all add up to a reasonable flow:
- Guildford
- Southampton
- Andover
- Salisbury
- Croydon
- Brighton
- Woking
As well as lots of little places between.

Yes it may not be as much as the via Reading services, but it would be enough to justify running through trains rather than a shuttle service which would likely only be used by local passengers.

Local passengers are likely to pay between £5 and £10 return, longer distance passengers could be paying £40 to £50 just for the Salisbury to Plymouth leg, which is a lot more for not really needing to do much more than run the current service and the shuttle service. As such two or three longer distance passengers could be worth as much as 4-8 local passengers (if not more given that you're selling them just one ticket rather than several and the fact that they are only taking up one seat).

 

[Robertj21a]

I agree. For a rail forum I find some of the attitudes rather strange regarding expansion of the network. If comments were read correctly, it would be understood that those of us who call for reopenings are NOT advocating every single mile of closed track is reopened. There are some viable options that DO need to be put back, affecting some now sizable settlements and communities.

However If £33 Billion can be found for new road projects, why not rail? After all roads also got a sizable investment of around £15 billion a few years back.

My previous suggestion was £10 billion (£1 Billion a year) over a ten year period, less than a third given to new road projects in 2018. This money would be more than enough to pay for Okehampton to Bere Alston, High Wycombe to Bourne End, Uckfield to Lewes, Bristol to Portishead, Colne to Skipton and Norfolk Orbital Rail.

At the end of the day there are some lines that should have never been closed, Okehampton to Bere Alston being one. It is utter madness that Devon and Cornwall is reliant on one double tracked railway line next to the Sea, that is prone to closure (or worse), due to poor weather. The knock on effect of closure is felt much further up the line.

More will always be spent on roads than rail as there's far more traffic using roads - whether freight or people. I don't want to see £1bn automatically set aside every year when there may be far more pressing national needs than just joining up a few loose end rail tracks.

If there's a few truly key issues, such as Dawlish, then I totally agree that the necessary funding needs to be secured, but that's a much more deserving case than most of the others mentioned so far. I think some people on here forget just what a small proportion of the UK population actually use trains on a regular basis.

 

[matacaster]

More will always be spent on roads than rail as there's far more traffic using roads - whether freight or people. I don't want to see £1bn automatically set aside every year when there may be far more pressing national needs than just joining up a few loose end rail tracks.

If there's a few truly key issues, such as Dawlish, then I totally agree that the necessary funding needs to be secured, but that's a much more deserving case than most of the others mentioned so far. I think some people on here forget just what a small proportion of the UK population actually use trains on a regular basis.

"there's far more traffic using roads" - I think you need to replace the word "traffic" by "voters"

 

[Railwaysceptic]

"there's far more traffic using roads" - I think you need to replace the word "traffic" by "voters"

The cargo that travels by road doesn't vote. Traffic is the more appropriate word.

 

[edwin_m]

Whatever we may say here, 90% or so of motorised passenger-miles are by cars and vans, with buses and trains sharing the remaining 10%.

Rail has considerably more than 10% on some flows, but they tend to be between centres of large cities where it has a speed advantage.

 

[Mark J]

In addition if Okehampton was reopened, a circular route (akin to the Norfolk Orbital proposal) could be created around Devon. Trains from London, Bristol and elsewhere to Plymouth and local services from Exeter would:

Go via Okehampton/Tavistock to Plymouth, then back up via Dawlish

Go Via Dawlish and back up via Tavistock/Okehampton.

 

[imagination]

Whatever we may say here, 90% or so of motorised passenger-miles are by cars and vans, with buses and trains sharing the remaining 10%.

Rail has considerably more than 10% on some flows, but they tend to be between centres of large cities where it has a speed advantage.

To give more accurate figures, using the 2017 data from NS0303:
Car/Van - 82.1%
Motorcycle - 0.5%
Bus - 5%
Heavy Rail - 9%
Taxi - 0.9%

Bear in mind this is data for England only. I also ignored other private transport entirely as it isn't broken down - apparently this is mostly private hire buses inc. school buses. Unfortunately, light rail is included in the "other public transport" category

 

[Class37.4]

My view is if your going to build an alternate line then you should look the viability of going the whole hog and look at high speed line between Exeter and Plymouth to substancially reduce journey time, and by high speed line I mean an electrified line with at least 140mph top speed which could initially take advantage IET max capability with perhaps 1 intermediate probably Parkway station depending on routing. Possibly it wouldn't have a good BCR but it could be looked at by the government as a commitment to significantly improve infrastructure to the South West.

The problem with Okehampton route is two fold, one is its unlikely to be significantly quicker, and two the diversionary route is a justification by the fanatics desperate to get this route reopened.

 

[yorksrob]

My view is if your going to build an alternate line then you should look the viability of going the whole hog and look at high speed line between Exeter and Plymouth to substancially reduce journey time, and by high speed line I mean an electrified line with at least 140mph top speed which could initially take advantage IET max capability with perhaps 1 intermediate probably Parkway station depending on routing. Possibly it wouldn't have a good BCR but it could be looked at by the government as a commitment to significantly improve infrastructure to the South West.

The problem with Okehampton route is two fold, one is its unlikely to be significantly quicker, and two the diversionary route is a justification by the fanatics desperate to get this route reopened.

And why, pray tell, is it acceptable to ignore a BCR for the sake of a few speed fanatics, when its not acceptable to do so to provide decent rail links for central and North Devon ?

 

[The Ham]

My view is if your going to build an alternate line then you should look the viability of going the whole hog and look at high speed line between Exeter and Plymouth to substancially reduce journey time, and by high speed line I mean an electrified line with at least 140mph top speed which could initially take advantage IET max capability with perhaps 1 intermediate probably Parkway station depending on routing. Possibly it wouldn't have a good BCR but it could be looked at by the government as a commitment to significantly improve infrastructure to the South West.

The problem with Okehampton route is two fold, one is its unlikely to be significantly quicker, and two the diversionary route is a justification by the fanatics desperate to get this route reopened.

Firstly, you'd be limited to 1 fast trains per hour from London still, so for much of the time there would be very few trains on it.

Secondly, at best, you'd get journey times from London reduced by 30 minutes (so at best 2:30).

Third, to get the shortest route (and therefore the quickest) would be across a fairly inhibited area, meaning that a parkway station wouldn't have many passengers and Totnes would lose intercity services (other than those heading to Paignton).

What does it matter if the time spent on the train via Okehampton is longer. Let's say there's two services from Exeter St Davids an hour taking 60 minutes each. Then there's one train per hour taking 80 minutes from Exeter Central to Plymouth via Okehampton. Most people from Central would take the latter to avoid a change during the half of the hour in which it runs, whilst in the other half of the hour they would opt for the trains going via the coast.

In times of disruption adding 15 minutes to your journey time is fairly insignificant when most people would be using the service for over an hour, if not two hours, and existing delays can easily be 30 minutes when one track is used due to spend/high tides.

By looking for a slightly slower, Via Okehampton, route there could be cost savings over what was presented to the Government.