• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The proper assessment has been done, as per the requirements for Business cases. The optional assessment of wider economic benefits hasn’t been done, because no party offered to provide an estimate of those benefits. Whether this was because they didn’t know how to calculate them, or they didn’t exist, is a matter of conjecture.

On the second point, I read this last night, didn’t understand the logic, assumed I was too tired and/or emotional, so slept on it hoping to understand this morning. I still don’t.

One is a piece of research that says the high price of rail travel affects students choice of university (which is hardly news).

The other is a policy that the value of a pound of cost saved or generated, or a minute of time saved, or a kg of carbon saved, or a decibel of noise reduced, is the same everywhere in the country, regardless of how it is generated. Or put another way, that a pound saved or generated is not worth more than a pound if it happens to be caused by a new transport link.

How are the two related?

Quite simply because public transport users in places such as Tavistock without a rail link, have less opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of travel, in terms of social, economic or educational activity than those who do.

It is wrong to treat road access and rail access as interchangeable when a large section of the population does not have the ability or the wealth to take advantage of the road access. Rail access should be valued more highly in these cases because it is open to more people.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Yes it is, as the journey time savings, cost savings etc will naturally be much higher for people on a new link. Assuming they use it of course.
Is this not based on savings to journeys that would have been made anyway, rather than new journey opportunities for those previously denied.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Quite simply because public transport users in places such as Tavistock without a rail link, have less opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of travel, in terms of social, economic or educational activity than those who do.

It is wrong to treat road access and rail access as interchangeable when a large section of the population does not have the ability or the wealth to take advantage of the road access. Rail access should be valued more highly in these cases because it is open to more people.
I don't see how a train which serves only one station is any more accessible than a bus that makes multiple stops. And if the fares reflected the necessary capital investment, the bus fare would be a tiny fraction of the train fare.

Is this not based on savings to journeys that would have been made anyway, rather than new journey opportunities for those previously denied.
The demand modelling that estimates the benefits forthe BCR takes account of both.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I don't see how a train which serves only one station is any more accessible than a bus that makes multiple stops. And if the fares reflected the necessary capital investment, the bus fare would be a tiny fraction of the train fare.


The demand modelling that estimates the benefits forthe BCR takes account of both.

1, trains don't get caught up in road congestion like buses.

2, bus fares don't reflect capital investment so the point isn't relevant.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
It is wrong to treat road access and rail access as interchangeable when a large section of the population does not have the ability or the wealth to take advantage of the road access

There is something like 35 million registered cars in the uk and out of a population of not even 70 million thats a hell of amount of cars - so I would hope that you could back up your statement I have bolded.
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
782
Quite simply because public transport users in places such as Tavistock without a rail link, have less opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of travel, in terms of social, economic or educational activity than those who do.

It is wrong to treat road access and rail access as interchangeable when a large section of the population does not have the ability or the wealth to take advantage of the road access. Rail access should be valued more highly in these cases because it is open to more people.
So, trains are for poor people. You must be joking. A not very well off family of four or five will find it much cheaper to pile into a cheap second hand car and go directly to where they want to go than to faff about getting to a railway station take a train to another station and then have to get to their final destination.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
1, trains don't get caught up in road congestion like buses.

2, bus fares don't reflect capital investment so the point isn't relevant.
Both are true but neither make any difference to your claim that I was commenting on, that trains are more accessible. Train fares to somewhere like Tavistock would only be comparable to bus fares if no attempt was made to recover the cost of re-building the line. It might be justifiable to do that, but the justification would be a business case with a good BCR to persuade the government to spend the money on this scheme rather than tax cuts or a new hospital.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
So, trains are for poor people. You must be joking. A not very well off family of four or five will find it much cheaper to pile into a cheap second hand car and go directly to where they want to go than to faff about getting to a railway station take a train to another station and then have to get to their final destination.

Firstly, trains are very much for poor people. Travel on any local train service, and you will find the whole range of income groups going about their business. Even on IC journeys, you'll find a lot of people on advance purchase fares.

Your example of the family car doesn't quite hold true as it requires the whole family to travel together on all journeys. I grew up in a single car family and there were many occasions where we were going to different places and the train was a good option for some of us.

Both are true but neither make any difference to your claim that I was commenting on, that trains are more accessible. Train fares to somewhere like Tavistock would only be comparable to bus fares if no attempt was made to recover the cost of re-building the line. It might be justifiable to do that, but the justification would be a business case with a good BCR to persuade the government to spend the money on this scheme rather than tax cuts or a new hospital.

You misunderstand my claim.

It isn't that trains are necessarily more accessible. It is that public transport as a whole is more accessible if a town has the full range of public transport options.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The BCR ratio that Network Rail has done was solely on the use of Exeter-Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth for a local stopping service - I believe an hourly one in each direction.

However, many people see the line having a wider role, with more frequent services at each end, used for long distance through services and for diversions and capacity.

I dont believe that any study has been done on those.

I don’t know the detail, but what I am reasonably sure of is that whatever was studied was agreed by the task force in advance, which included all the relevant local authorities.

Quite simply because public transport users in places such as Tavistock without a rail link, have less opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of travel, in terms of social, economic or educational activity than those who do.

It is wrong to treat road access and rail access as interchangeable when a large section of the population does not have the ability or the wealth to take advantage of the road access. Rail access should be valued more highly in these cases because it is open to more people.

But what about a public transport bus or coach service? It might take longer for the ‘main haul’ but some of that would be mitigated by being closer to origin / destination for the journey (unless you happen to live next to Tavistock station, and work at Plymouth station). Surely this should have the same weighting as for a pub,in transport rails scheme? The transport assessment would account for the difference in journey times through the benefits calculation.

Is this not based on savings to journeys that would have been made anyway, rather than new journey opportunities for those previously denied.

No, it is definitely calculated to include new trips as well - these are all modelled in various (very clever) network models, and includes for those switching modes. Hence why car user journey time savings are included as a benefit to rail and bus / coach schemes.
 

caliwag

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2009
Messages
608
Location
York
I thought that a house developer was obliged, as a planning condition, to contribute to railway works...a station and line rebuild. I've not read all the thread, can Someone point me in the direction of comment number, or has it been quietly kicked into the long grass?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
I thought that a house developer was obliged, as a planning condition, to contribute to railway works...a station and line rebuild. I've not read all the thread, can Someone point me in the direction of comment number, or has it been quietly kicked into the long grass?
Post #947 might be the one, it links to an Okehampton Times article. The Tavistock housing developer was down for a £11M contribution, which turns out to be only a small fraction of what is needed overall.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Location
Blackpool south Shore
The improvements to the GWR main line, are between Parsons Tunnel and the River Teign. The part that got washed away (Dawlish) is not included?
Voyagers will still be stopped at high water when spray is likely. Debris etc in a storm will still stop the trains, and damage to Dawlish station will still cause problems/ closure.
With just one railway to Plymouth and Cornwall, resilience will still not be guaranteed. Deciding on a major servicing outfit at Laira etc would lose points. Also businesses take that into account.
I thought NR report for reinstating the LSWR route was double track and a new Meldon Viaduct.
If Dawlish is blocked, trains could run from Torbay to Plymouth and onward, also connect to the sleeper at Plymouth.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
The improvements to the GWR main line, are between Parsons Tunnel and the River Teign. The part that got washed away (Dawlish) is not included?
Voyagers will still be stopped at high water when spray is likely. Debris etc in a storm will still stop the trains, and damage to Dawlish station will still cause problems/ closure.
With just one railway to Plymouth and Cornwall, resilience will still not be guaranteed. Deciding on a major servicing outfit at Laira etc would lose points. Also businesses take that into account.
I thought NR report for reinstating the LSWR route was double track and a new Meldon Viaduct.
If Dawlish is blocked, trains could run from Torbay to Plymouth and onward, also connect to the sleeper at Plymouth.
There is a separate phase of work already started on the western end of the section at Dawlish, and AIUI it is currently suspended for the summer holiday season. The recently announced section is just one part of the whole job.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
968
Location
Blackpool south Shore
There is a separate phase of work already started on the western end of the section at Dawlish, and AIUI it is currently suspended for the summer holiday season. The recently announced section is just one part of the whole job.
Thanks for that
is there an estimate for the whole scheme? (Presumably cheaper than the DAL tunnels)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Thanks for that
is there an estimate for the whole scheme? (Presumably cheaper than the DAL tunnels)
I suspect they are adding to it section by section, and when still at the consultation stage, (like for Parsons - Teignmouth), detailed costs come later, I think this is very much a broad brush consultation about the principle, with a TWA order application still to be drawn up later. The current bit at Dawlish seems to be quoted as £30M.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I thought that a house developer was obliged, as a planning condition, to contribute to railway works...a station and line rebuild. I've not read all the thread, can Someone point me in the direction of comment number, or has it been quietly kicked into the long grass?

Post #947 might be the one, it links to an Okehampton Times article. The Tavistock housing developer was down for a £11M contribution, which turns out to be only a small fraction of what is needed overall.

As with most Section 106 obligations, such a contribution is only required if the project being funded actually happens, and is usually time bound. In this case I think that if the railway doesn’t happen (which seems likely) the money is to be spent on other transport initiatives.

The deal was brokered in the first place because the developer was persuaded by a consultant that the new houses would be worth more with a new rail link than without - which is undoubtedly true. However, the value gain of the new homes is evidently not sufficient to pay for the railway now, and there is no mechanism established for capturing the increased value of land on properties already constructed.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Given that we are told that road improvements cost as much, if not more than rail improvements, one wonders how they expect to spend the Section 106 funding on any capital improvements.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Given that we are told that road improvements cost as much, if not more than rail improvements, one wonders how they expect to spend the Section 106 funding on any capital improvements.

The S106 agreement is on the West Devon BC planning website. As well as £11m for reinstatement of the railway (or an alternative ‘public transport system’, defined as pretty much any type of rail, light rail, or bus system) it includes sums for a new school, public realm, subsidising s bus service, and some local road improvements.

For the railway element, the time limit is 5 years after the final payment (payments are staged by occupation of the homes), after that time period the council can then use the cash alternatively on highway schemes that could reduce road congestion between Tavistock and Plymouth. This doesn’t have to be new highways of course, indeed I’d suggest it is unlikely although some small scale junction improvements etc are a possibility. However also a possibility could, for example, be works associated with a bus priority scheme (which would fall under the definition of the ‘Public Transport Scheme’; the agreement explicitly states that the cash can be spent on subsidy as well (or instead of) capital works.

Alternatively, the S106 makes provision for money to be spent on additional affordable housing in the borough, through provision of a number of dwellings equivalent of up to 40% of the development size.

Finally, in the event the money is not spent within 10 years, of the final payment, it has to be repaid to the developer. This is a usual clause in such agreements as no one would sign up to it if it was not time bound.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
There is something like 35 million registered cars in the uk and out of a population of not even 70 million thats a hell of amount of cars - so I would hope that you could back up your statement I have bolded.

With the exception of those who happen to be travelling at the same time and to the same place as the 35 million car owners, that's practically every one else.

Mainly because they dont run on the road but what they do, do, is get caught up in railway congestion.

Less likely to have train congestion on Tavistock to Plymouth though, aren't we.
 

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
78% of households in the UK have access to one or more cars, vans or similar meaning that 22% do not. However, 43% have access to only one vehicle. If that one vehicle is used by only one person at a time - a frequent occurrence - probably a majority of households have no access to a vehicle for a large part of the day or week. This is one reason among many why public transport is necessary in many parts of the country and for many people. To simplify, if you're under 17, over 90, poor, part of a household living away from "home" (e.g. student...), you have little choice but to use public transport for some or all journeys. Source: ONS Office for National Statistics https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...egrouptenureandhouseholdcompositionuktablea47 accessed 25/07/2019.

However: people who live in more rural areas are much more likely to be dependent on their own car or one owned by someone else. I guess that the proportion of households without a vehicle is lower in Tavistock than in Islington or in Hull.

My heart very much wants a larger rail network. My head says that investment needs prioritisation. Both together want major efforts to be made to reduce the cost of reopenings to the point where there are some!
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
78% of households in the UK have access to one or more cars, vans or similar meaning that 22% do not. However, 43% have access to only one vehicle. If that one vehicle is used by only one person at a time - a frequent occurrence - probably a majority of households have no access to a vehicle for a large part of the day or week. This is one reason among many why public transport is necessary in many parts of the country and for many people. To simplify, if you're under 17, over 90, poor, part of a household living away from "home" (e.g. student...), you have little choice but to use public transport for some or all journeys. Source: ONS Office for National Statistics https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...egrouptenureandhouseholdcompositionuktablea47 accessed 25/07/2019.

However: people who live in more rural areas are much more likely to be dependent on their own car or one owned by someone else. I guess that the proportion of households without a vehicle is lower in Tavistock than in Islington or in Hull.

My heart very much wants a larger rail network. My head says that investment needs prioritisation. Both together want major efforts to be made to reduce the cost of reopenings to the point where there are some!
The penetration of motor cars per head of population has always been higher in rural areas than in towns since the very early days of motoring. Then the char-a-banc had not yet been developed to be suitable for effective public transport. Essentially horseless carriages replaced the pony and trap in country areas - think of the local GP in his de Dion Bouton - and the statistical situation has never really changed.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Don't know if anyone has seen this article from the BBC new website

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-50016322

Plans to move a storm-hit coastal rail line on to a beach have been described as "horrifying" by residents.

Network Rail has announced plans to move a mile-long stretch of the main railway away from crumbling cliffs.

Campaigners claimed it would involve the destruction of more than half of Holcombe beach near Teignmouth, Devon.

Network Rail said the plans were the "best possible solution" to preserve the line that connected Devon and Cornwall to the rest of the country.

The proposals have been part of a broader series of plans by Network Rail to safeguard the line.
These included the expansion of the sea wall, which began at Dawlish in June, following a major collapse and destruction of the rail line in February 2014.

That project was expected to be completed in January 2020 at a cost of £30m.

Ruth Ward from the Save Holcombe Beach campaign said there must be alternatives to destroying "such a beautiful beach".

"Surely in this day and age we know the sea is rising and moving it out to sea is going to make the problem from the sea worse," she added.

In 2014 the storm damage cost the local economy £1bn as a result of the six-week closure of the line, according to a spokesman for Network Rail.

"Leaving it is not an option. Changing our plans to potentially re-grade the cliff would mean we would have to close the railway line.

"It would have a massive impact on the peninsula, all the way down through Devon and into Cornwall," he added.

Network Rail said the plans were not final and further consultation would be held.

If the project went ahead the building work would begin in 2022 and take up to six years.

Personally I don't have any strong views on the matter, but I think Network Rail are right to take action to safeguard the long term future of the line, rather than wait for a storm to do the same damage that it did at Dawlish in 2014.

It is all very well the residents describing the plan as "horrifying", but if the railway line was to be closed on a long term basis, or even permanently, they would be the first ones to complain.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Don't know if anyone has seen this article from the BBC new website

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-50016322



Personally I don't have any strong views on the matter, but I think Network Rail are right to take action to safeguard the long term future of the line, rather than wait for a storm to do the same damage that it did at Dawlish in 2014.

It is all very well the residents describing the plan as "horrifying", but if the railway line was to be closed on a long term basis, or even permanently, they would be the first ones to complain.
They probably wouldn't actually. The main beneficiaries of the railway line are those in western Devon and Cornwall for whom it's an important link to the rest of the world. If it was washed away the locals would lose their train service but individuals who don't actually use it may not care too much.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
The main beneficiaries of the railway line are those in western Devon and Cornwall for whom it's an important link to the rest of the world. If it was washed away the locals would lose their train service but individuals who don't actually use it may not care too much.

Maybe you are right, but if the line was washed away, the political pressure from those in Western Devon and Cornwall to get the line reinstated would be huge.

Can you imagine any government, of whatever political party, saying "..sod you Devon and Cornwall, we don't care about the fact that your link to the outside world has been cut, now just go away and shut up..."

I can remember David Cameron being at Paddington in 2014 to see off the first train after the line had been re-opened.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Maybe you are right, but if the line was washed away, the political pressure from those in Western Devon and Cornwall to get the line reinstated would be huge.

Can you imagine any government, of whatever political party, saying "..sod you Devon and Cornwall, we don't care about the fact that your link to the outside world has been cut, now just go away and shut up..."

I can remember David Cameron being at Paddington in 2014 to see off the first train after the line had been re-opened.
That may be so, but my point is that the particular group of people linked in your OP may not care at all about whether the railway survives.

As to the government, they've already shown complete disregard for the views of Scotland and Northern Ireland and a willingness to ignore many the conventions that allow the state to function. If things continue as they are then Devon and Cornwall might be next, especially if the winning party relies on votes from other regions and doesn't see any prospect of gaining or losing seats there in the future.
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,648
Sorry but that's a daft idea moving the railway into the sea (not literally, but as regards the proposals) - Dawlish is one of the easiest seasides and places to access as the station and beach is either side of the mainline.

All that Network Rail need to do is make the wall a bit higher.
 

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,043
Location
Stockport
Sorry but that's a daft idea moving the railway into the sea (not literally, but as regards the proposals) - Dawlish is one of the easiest seasides and places to access as the station and beach is either side of the mainline.

All that Network Rail need to do is make the wall a bit higher.

But how much higher would it need to be exactly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top