Network Rail warns it may not be able to maintain the coastal route to Dover indefinitely.

[yorksrob]

This isnt a unique problem. Its a complex landslide and more importantly its bloody massive on all scales. I was talking to someone at Rail Live about the monitoring in-situ there about just how sketchy the landslip is.

Its a giant rotational failure with the toe beneath sea level and the back scarp way way beyond the railway at the top. This is also full of many smaller landslides. Increased groundwater levels from wetter weather is causing an issue also.

Remedial measures for deep-seated earthworks are varied and toe weighting is a method that is used and has been used here, however it only offers short term stability. To remediate this you would need significant deep piling and earthworks over a colossal area making things like Eden Brows pale in comparison. There isnt an infinite money pot and the money you would spend to remediate this fully, could be spent remediating/renewing a lot of other sites.

Decisions will have to be made over things like this and the weighing up of costs and benefits of which lines to prioritise, crying that this is the thin end of the wedge and is essentially Beeching Mk2 and closure by stealth helps no one.

The route is the railway equivalent to an A road/trunk route. As a country we're still building plenty of these from new, so the cost of securing the line should at the very least be considered in this context, rather than simply another pull on the railway maintenance budget.

 

[izvor]

I'd hate to see it closed, but this stretch of line must be one of the most expensive to maintain, per mile, on the network. One huge viaduct (Foord), 4 long tunnels, the sea wall at Dover (recently rebuilt) and a long stretch through the Warren which is an unstable landslip needing permanent monitoring, as yoyo mentions above. It may be "strategic" but usage is relatively light. There are 4 buses per hour between the 2 towns, which both have rather poorly sited stations. London can be reached from Dover by other lines. I am sure NR would love to be shot of it. It's only semi-local journeys (eg Folkestone-Deal, Dover-Ashford/Ramsgate) that would be severely impacted. The suggested link (zwk500) at Canterbury, and increased use of the Minster chord, could mitigate some of these and, incidentally, offer some other improved journey opportunities.

I also understand that 2x6-car Javelins are not permitted through Shakespeare Tunnel due to clearance/evacuation issues, unless both sets are fully manned; perhaps an insider could clarify this.

As for strategic, well the line collapsed during WW1 and was not thought worth rebuilding until after the war!

 

[yorksrob]

I'd hate to see it closed, but this stretch of line must be one of the most expensive to maintain, per mile, on the network. One huge viaduct (Foord), 4 long tunnels, the sea wall at Dover (recently rebuilt) and a long stretch through the Warren which is an unstable landslip needing permanent monitoring, as yoyo mentions above. It may be "strategic" but usage is relatively light. There are 4 buses per hour between the 2 towns, which both have rather poorly sited stations. London can be reached from Dover by other lines. I am sure NR would love to be shot of it. It's only semi-local journeys (eg Folkestone-Deal, Dover-Ashford/Ramsgate) that would be severely impacted. The suggested link (zwk500) at Canterbury, and increased use of the Minster chord, could mitigate some of these and, incidentally, offer some other improved journey opportunities.

I also understand that 2x6-car Javelins are not permitted through Shakespeare Tunnel due to clearance/evacuation issues, unless both sets are fully manned; perhaps an insider could clarify this.

As for strategic, well the line collapsed during WW1 and was not thought worth rebuilding until after the war!

Two trains an hour, increasing at peak times, I'll expect most being more than four carriage.

Much as I love the Settle and Carlisle, that's more traffic than that carries.

And it seems disingenuous to bring the tunnels and viaduct into the equation, given how many similar structures there are around the network.

I wonder whether the change from the spirit of Eden Brows is really entirely down to scale or rather more due to unfortunate political pressures.

I note that someone seems to have built an expensive looking A20 between Folkestone and Dover in recent years, in spite of other roads being available to the two locations. Perhaps a bit of spending on the railway ought to be considered.

 

[PTR 444]

Two trains an hour, increasing at peak times, I'll expect most being more than four carriage.

Much as I love the Settle and Carlisle, that's more traffic than that carries.

And it seems disingenuous to bring the tunnels and viaduct into the equation, given how many similar structures there are around the network.

I wonder whether the change from the spirit of Eden Brows is really entirely down to scale or rather more due to unfortunate political pressures.

I note that someone seems to have built an expensive looking A20 between Folkestone and Dover in recent years, in spite of other roads being available to the two locations. Perhaps a bit of spending on the railway ought to be considered.

The A20 between Folkestone and Dover is strategically important for cross-channel road freight, and provides resilience in the event that the A2 route is closed. Any international rail freight would have come off at the Channel Tunnel, so there is not really any strategic importance for a Folkestone - Dover rail link.

That said, the line is still important on a local level, and I wonder if anything else has been looked into to keep the route intact, such as building an avalanche shelter.

 

[Nottingham59]

Its a complex landslide and more importantly its bloody massive on all scales. I was talking to someone at Rail Live about the monitoring in-situ there about just how sketchy the landslip is.

Its a giant rotational failure with the toe beneath sea level and the back scarp way way beyond the railway at the top. This is also full of many smaller landslides. Increased groundwater levels from wetter weather is causing an issue also.

I wonder if anything else has been looked into to keep the route intact, such as building an avalanche shelter.

They may protect from smaller landslips, but if it's a rotational failure, then when that goes the avalanche shelter will just move with the railway.

"Network Rail has warned that it may not be able to maintain the coastal route to Dover indefinitely".

If that is true, then the low-cost options that NR should take today are:

• Safeguard the land at Canterbury in case it is needed for that chord
• Redefine the "South East Mainline" to terminate at Folkestone
• Introduce a new Engineers Line Reference (FDB?) for the Folkstone-Dover Branchline. Most MPs would never get beyond the name of line before deciding if they were for or against closure.

The A20 between Folkestone and Dover is strategically important for cross-channel road freight, and provides resilience in the event that the A2 route is closed.

Sounds like a perfect route for DfT to choose as the first trial in England of an Autonomous Express Bus Service to match the CAVForth project in Scotland.

CAVForth – The world’s most ambitious and complex autonomous bus pilot.

www.cavforth.com

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is this route likely to be a higher or lower priority candidate for funding than Dawlish, I wonder?

I'd say higher, because of a few reasons.

1) The eastern section adjacent to the sea is very close to some nationally significant infrastructure (the Port of Dover), so the railway line in that area and the docks could be protected with a joint scheme, sharing costs across both NR and the Port.

2.) You'd only need around 2.5 miles of new cut and cover tunnel or advanced sea shelter (similar to an avalanche shelter) to protect the remainder of the section between the edge of Folkestone and Dover that is not already in tunnel.
In contrast, your Dawlish avoider needed to completely sea proof the route would need to be from Newton Abbot to Exminster (at least approximately around 10 miles of mostly bored tunnel).

3) It could be argued that there is even less than 2.5 miles that needs reinforcing west of the Port - the approx. 0.75 miles section around Samphire Hoe Country Park (which contains the English cooling station for the Channel Tunnel - therefore important to protect) has a rather substantial sea wall and the railway is over 100m from the sea wall at any point - unlikely to get flooded even if the wall was overtopped in a significant flood.

 

[zwk500]

If that is true, then the low-cost options that NR should take today are:

• Redefine the "South East Mainline" to terminate at Folkestone
• Introduce a new Engineers Line Reference (FDB?) for the Folkstone-Dover Branchline. Most MPs would never get beyond the name of line before deciding if they were for or against closure.

Most MPs would reject any attempt to redefine Folkestone-Dover as not a mainline, and probably don't know ELRs exist so changing that would achieve precisely nothing.

 

[Nottingham59]

Most MPs would reject any attempt to redefine Folkestone-Dover as not a mainline, and probably don't know ELRs exist so changing that would achieve precisely nothing.

You'd be surprised. Public reaction to HS2 would have been very different without the words "High Speed" in the name.

National Highways have learnt the lesson. After the M40, new motorways in England have all had names like "A417 Missing Link project" and "A428 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet scheme".

 

[yorksrob]

If we are talking about a large stabilisation project, perhaps NR ought to commence sooner and aim to complete them over a longer timeframe to spread costs.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I'd say higher, because of a few reasons.

1) The eastern section adjacent to the sea is very close to some nationally significant infrastructure (the Port of Dover), so the railway line in that area and the docks could be protected with a joint scheme, sharing costs across both NR and the Port.

2.) You'd only need around 2.5 miles of new cut and cover tunnel or advanced sea shelter (similar to an avalanche shelter) to protect the remainder of the section between the edge of Folkestone and Dover that is not already in tunnel.
In contrast, your Dawlish avoider needed to completely sea proof the route would need to be from Newton Abbot to Exminster (at least approximately around 10 miles of mostly bored tunnel).

3) It could be argued that there is even less than 2.5 miles that needs reinforcing west of the Port - the approx. 0.75 miles section around Samphire Hoe Country Park (which contains the English cooling station for the Channel Tunnel - therefore important to protect) has a rather substantial sea wall and the railway is over 100m from the sea wall at any point - unlikely to get flooded even if the wall was overtopped in a significant flood.

1) Unsure on this being too relevant with it having access from multiple direction

2)Not sure what you think a cut and cover tunnel would achieve here. The risk isnt from landslides ending up on the railway, its that the whole thing is one giant landslide complex moving down the slope. Its moving and taking the railway with it.

3) Again flooding isnt the problem, its preventing movement on the failure plane that is below sea level and is lubricated by groundwater (which can be at elevated levels due to wetter weather).

I was discussing this site in passing at work yesterday and couldnt really come up with a reasonable solution to this issue. It is just constructed through absolutely awful ground conditions

 

[AlastairFraser]

1) Unsure on this being too relevant with it having access from multiple direction

2)Not sure what you think a cut and cover tunnel would achieve here. The risk isnt from landslides ending up on the railway, its that the whole thing is one giant landslide complex moving down the slope. Its moving and taking the railway with it.

3) Again flooding isnt the problem, its preventing movement on the failure plane that is below sea level and is lubricated by groundwater (which can be at elevated levels due to wetter weather).

I was discussing this site in passing at work yesterday and couldnt really come up with a reasonable solution to this issue. It is just constructed through absolutely awful ground conditions

1.) The breakwater may be extended towards Shakespeare Beach at the same time as reinforcement of the existing harbour breakwater to protect the existing infrastructure (if they work together).

2.) That's a fair point, but the question of Eurotunnel comes up again. Surely they have an interest in preventing a landslide that would end up taking out their cooling station, so funding may be able to prevent the landslide along that section at least.

3.) This section I agree is more complex to solve, especially without the possibility of any additional non-NR funding. But is it more expensive than the 10 miles of bored tunnel you'll need from Exminster to Newton Abbot?

 

[najaB]

But is it more expensive than the 10 miles of bored tunnel you'll need from Exminster to Newton Abbot?

Depends on the geological conditions. Tunnels can be cheaper per unit length than above-ground earthworks.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd say higher, because of a few reasons.

1) The eastern section adjacent to the sea is very close to some nationally significant infrastructure (the Port of Dover), so the railway line in that area and the docks could be protected with a joint scheme, sharing costs across both NR and the Port.

But a railway connection to the port would be retained in any case (if that is even deemed to be significant, which I'd argue against).
Indeed, if you build a chord at Canterbury the only significant loss of connectivity would be between Folkestone and Dover itself.

The chord would cost way less than doing anything to this route.

The existing line is probably a money pit in terms of a never ending war against nature to keep it open.

 

[AlastairFraser]

But a railway connection to the port would be retained in any case (if that is even deemed to be significant, which I'd argue against).
Indeed, if you build a chord at Canterbury the only significant loss of connectivity would be between Folkestone and Dover itself.

The chord would cost way less than doing anything to this route.

The existing line is probably a money pit in terms of a never ending war against nature to keep it open.

I wasn't arguing about a railway connection for the port- more that a breakwater reinforcement and extension could be done economically at the same time, when Dover Port's main breakwater needs repair.

 

[paul1609]

Closure is a viable long term solution, with a chord at Canterbury to preserve local access. If the line had terminated at Folkestone nobody would be seriously proposing a line on this alignment.

I dont see why youd build a chord at Canterbury. The Dover line south of Canterbury East generates virtually no business. Snowdown is the least used station in Kent
If you want a diverted High Speed service I'd suggest that you'd be far better off instead investing in extra stock which is anycase needed for the Ashford to London section. Introduce a new High Speed service calling at Stratford Int, Ashford, Canterbury West and then via the existing Minster Chord, Sandwich, Deal, Walmer and Dover, it would certainly generate far more business than a new chord at Canterbury.
Terminate the Folkestone Line at a new Folkestone Parkway station at the site of the harbour branch junction with an integrated bus service to Dover

 

[AlastairFraser]

Depends on the geological conditions. Tunnels can be cheaper per unit length than above-ground earthworks.

Well, there is a granite deposit underlying a chunk of the Dawlish avoider tunnel route, so it'll be difficult to get through that. An alternative scheme could also be built (the Heathfield and Teign Valley line reinstated as a diversion) which would require only 2 miles of tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

I dont see why youd build a chord at Canterbury. The Dover line south of Canterbury East generates virtually no business. Snowdown is the least used station in Kent
If you want a diverted High Speed service I'd suggest that you'd be far better off instead investing in extra stock which is anycase needed for the Ashford to London section. Introduce a new High Speed service calling at Stratford Int, Ashford, Canterbury West and then via the existing Minster Chord, Sandwich, Deal, Walmer and Dover, it would certainly generate far more business than a new chord at Canterbury.

A routing via Minster chord would be rather slow, you'd reach Minster not long before you'd be in Canterbury if you built the chord.
You could run a loop service with extra stock though.

Terminate the Folkestone Line at a new Folkestone Parkway station at the site of the harbour branch junction with an integrated bus service to Dover

If you cut the line back to Folkestone central you could avoid the maintenance for keeping the viaduct suitable for rail traffic.

 

[Nottingham59]

Terminate the Folkestone Line at a new Folkestone Parkway station at the site of the harbour branch junction with an integrated bus service to Dover

This, precisely. Much better to do it in a controlled planned manner than leaving it until the inevitable crisis.

If you cut the line back to Folkestone central you could avoid the maintenance for keeping the viaduct suitable for rail traffic.

I don't know the area, but Folkestone West might be the better place for the bus link to Dover. From the maps, it has direct access to the A20 via the A2034 and seems to already have bus stands ready to go.

 

[paul1609]

A routing via Minster chord would be rather slow, you'd reach Minster not long before you'd be in Canterbury if you built the chord.
You could run a loop service with extra stock though.

Admittedly it would be a bit slower Canterbury West to Dover is 30 miles via Minster versus 16 from Canterbury East but the first part of the Minster route is now 80/90 mph and there is far more intermediate business via Sandwich, Deal etc than via Sheperdswell. It would also concentrate the hgh speed services on Canterbury West rather than splitting them at West and East. As an existing route its also free and wouldnt require months and years of Network Rail Project Closures.

 

[HSTEd]

Admittedly it would be a bit slower Canterbury West to Dover is 30 miles via Minster versus 16 from Canterbury East but the first part of the Minster route is now 80/90 mph and there is far more intermediate business via Sandwich, Deal etc than via Sheperdswell. It would also concentrate the hgh speed services on Canterbury West rather than splitting them at West and East. As an existing route its also free and wouldnt require months and years of Network Rail Project Closures.

A significant section of the via Canterbury East line is ~90mph.
Indeed I'm not even going via Minster would beat a reverse at Dover Priory for getting to Deal!

Splitting the high speed service at Canterbury is a little annoying, but I think trying to serve Dover via Minster is just going to drive all the traffic back onto the non HS1 options. It's probably politically impossible.

EDIT:
As far as I can tell from the sectional appendix, the only 80mph on the via Minster route is west of Canterbury West station, and most would be used on both routes
EDIT #2: I think it's all west of Whitehall Level crossing, so pretty much all of it would be used by both possible routings. Although there may be a few yards on the east side on the eastbound line.

 

[paul1609]

A significant section of the via Canterbury East line is ~90mph.
Indeed I'm not even going via Minster would beat a reverse at Dover Priory for getting to Deal!

Splitting the high speed service at Canterbury is a little annoying, but I think trying to serve Dover via Minster is just going to drive all the traffic back onto the non HS1 options. It's probably politically impossible.

EDIT:
As far as I can tell from the sectional appendix, the only 80mph on the via Minster route is west of Canterbury West station, and most would be used on both routes
EDIT #2: I think it's all west of Whitehall Level crossing, so pretty much all of it would be used by both possible routings. Although there may be a few yards on the east side on the eastbound line.

The Hs1/ not hs1 option from beyond Ashford isnt really related to journeytime and only marginally related to price. Its 90% related to where the destination is. if its docklands stratford (Westfield, West Ham) London City, Stansted, North (of the Thames) London Rail terminals, East Anglia its HS1. If its Southbank, Westminster, Traf Sq. Picadilly, London Bridge, City, Waterloo Luton/ Gatwick its not hs1.

 

[PTR 444]

Would extending the HS1 London - Faversham service to Dover Priory via Canterbury East produce a quicker London - Dover journey time than a routing via Ashford and Canterbury West?

 

[HSTEd]

The Hs1/ not hs1 option from beyond Ashford isnt really related to journeytime and only marginally related to price. Its 90% related to where the destination is. if its docklands stratford (Westfield, West Ham) London City, Stansted, North (of the Thames) London Rail terminals, East Anglia its HS1. If its Southbank, Westminster, Traf Sq. Picadilly, London Bridge, City, Waterloo Luton/ Gatwick its not hs1.

That might be true now, but once you add something like 20 minutes to the journey time via HS1, would it still be true?

I can't help but feel that that is going to change the calculus substantially.

Would extending the HS1 London - Faversham service to Dover Priory via Canterbury East produce a quicker London - Dover journey time than a routing via Ashford and Canterbury West?

I am doubtful, by the time the train reaches Faversham the current train via Ashford would be only a few minutes from Ramsgate.

 

[paul1609]

That might be true now, but once you add something like 20 minutes to the journey time via HS1, would it still be true?

I can't help but feel that that is going to change the calculus substantially.

Realistically I think that new chord/ minster chord are both going to add to the journeytime. Quite a lot of the Dover Prioriy traffic is using that station because it has the best service. Once that is removed by either option whats going to happen is a lot of people are going to drive to a new railhead, Ashford is probably the best option and has ample car parking and fairly easy access from the M20 at Junction 10A. if you are not going to maintain the coastal route via Folkestone the Minster Chord option is probably the best option economically.

 

[brad465]

How many services per hour used the line when Dover Marine was still open (not including services using the old terminus from the north)?

 

[PTR 444]

This discussion has got me wondering whether there ought to be a wholesale recast of rail services within Kent to take into account the loss of a through route.

If Folkestone Central becomes the eastern terminus of the SEML, it may become no longer viable to operate HS1 services from there due to vastly reduced passenger numbers on a severely curtailed route. While removing HS1 from Folkestone would lead to longer journey times to London, it could pave way for a more standardised service pattern in Kent, as I will explain below.

For starters, if you built the Canterbury chord, you could run 2tph on HS1 from St Pancras to Canterbury, with 1tph running over the chord towards Dover and the other extending to Ramsgate. Alternatively you could have the Dover train run via Minster and Sandwich to save on the cost of building a new chord (although the journey time would be somewhat longer).

With Ashford - Thanet now served by an HS1 train, there’d be no need to continue running the Charing Cross - Margate service beyond Ashford. I’d divert that to Folkestone to make up for the loss of HS1 and create an even interval half-hourly service on that route

The HS1 service via Margate to Sandwich can remain as a stub running as far as Dover, but I would also consider extending the Faversham terminator to Ramsgate to standardise the service on the North Kent coastal route. This could then form a loop service back to London with the HS1 train via Canterbury West.

I’d also extend the Charing Cross - Maidstone service to Canterbury via Ashford with the Victoria - Ashford train cut back to Maidstone East. This would allow the stations east of Maidstone to have a faster service to London, as well as comply with my plan to cease running long-distance Kent trains to Victoria, as I will explain below.

I’d metroise the Chatham Main Line, with 4tph all stations from London Victoria to Orpington, 2tph semi-fast to Maidstone East and 2tph semi-fast to Gillingham. Semi-fast trains would call at Herne Hill, Beckenham Junction, Bromley South and all stations beyond. Dover - Victoria would be diverted to Charing Cross and Ramsgate - Victoria would be replaced by the additional HS1 service via Herne Bay.

Any thoughts?

 

[paul1609]

i dont think you have a good understanding of the mechanics of Kent. Exits and Entrys from Folkestone Central and West combined are about 1.4 million pa wheras Dover is just under 900k. Wheras Dover and Folkestone districts both have roughly the same population Folkestone has by far the higher number of rail passengers.
Likewise the coast services via Ashford are far more important than the North Kent Services especially past Gillingham and once past faversham the Dover line is a Ghost train service.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course, back in the old days, Canterbury East used to be the main Canterbury station for London, but that's now been usurped somewhat by HS1.

 

[30907]

How many services per hour used the line when Dover Marine was still open (not including services using the old terminus from the north)?

There was one fast and one slow Kent Coast service per hour, not very different from now.
The core daytime boat train service was 2 per day to Ostend and 2 to Calais (one via Folkestone) with reliefs as needed, plus a couple of seasonal extras.
From the late 60s there were dedicated Hoverspeed services/portions from Charing X but the details varied considerably.

 

[paul1609]

Of course, back in the old days, Canterbury East used to be the main Canterbury station for London, but that's now been usurped somewhat by HS1.

ORR Entries and Exits
Canterbury West 2.2m, biggest destination St Pancras 150k,
Canterbury East 900k, biggest destination Faversham 9.5K
usurped by quite a lot!