Unlike the 802 it seems?It’s not designed to be a defence against spray. It’s designed to be a defence against being undermined. It’s still there, so I’d say that’s working as designed.
Unlike the 802 it seems?It’s not designed to be a defence against spray. It’s designed to be a defence against being undermined. It’s still there, so I’d say that’s working as designed.
It’s not designed to be a defence against spray. It’s designed to be a defence against being undermined. It’s still there, so I’d say that’s working as designed.
Don’t think so. I believe one of the reports on the local planning website for the first phase ruled out such offshore features.If there's more spray & less actual waves then I'd say it's working. Are they dropping rocks into the seabed too to break up wave cycles? I don't know the details of what they're actually doing.
I understand they studied various ideas for offshore structures, but they didn't work as effectively as they have elsewhere in the particular local conditions, and there were concerns about people possibly swimming out to them.Don’t think so. I believe one of the reports on the local planning website for the first phase ruled out such offshore features.
Yes, that rings a bell. I‘ve found a short paper explaining why an offshore breakwater, (a bit more than dropping rocks), was ruled out for the current phase of work. A bit too much to quickly summarise:I understand they studied various ideas for offshore structures, but they didn't work as effectively as they have elsewhere in the particular local conditions, and there were concerns about people possibly swimming out to them.
Had you seen the images on the west side of Dawlish station, near the tunnel, you would have seen that we are not talking of spray, but huge walls of water that even reached the esplanade over the railway tracks, that were also of course flooded, In fact the drainage system under the tracks to take the water back again seemed to be working reasonably well, but,as I remarked earlier, the new wall is evidently no defence against overtopping when there is a high rough sea and the storm wind is from the south east. The prevailing wind is of course from the south west, so it is a seldom occurence, which perhaps was taken into consideration.It’s not designed to be a defence against spray. It’s designed to be a defence against being undermined. It’s still there, so I’d say that’s working as designed.
Again, though, I don't think that it is intended to do so. The entire coast from Salcombe to Lyme Regis has been feeling the same storms, with breakwaters overtopped all along, the Paignton - Torquay road closed and so forth. Trains managed to continue running along the up line for the majority of the time, and the structure wasn't damaged, so as far as I can see it did its job. Unless it was 12 feet higher there would still be walls of water going over the top.Had you seen the images on the west side of Dawlish station, near the tunnel, you would have seen that we are not talking of spray, but huge walls of water that even reached the esplanade over the railway tracks, that were also of course flooded, In fact the drainage system under the tracks to take the water back again seemed to be working reasonably well, but,as I remarked earlier, the new wall is evidently no defence against overtopping when there is a high rough sea and the storm wind is from the south east. The prevailing wind is of course from the south west, so it is a seldom occurence, which perhaps was taken into consideration.
I suggest that you have misunderstood the reasons for building the new sea wall and the proposed realignment of the line between Dawlish and Teignmouth to be further away from the crumbling cliffs.Had you seen the images on the west side of Dawlish station, near the tunnel, you would have seen that we are not talking of spray, but huge walls of water that even reached the esplanade over the railway tracks, that were also of course flooded, In fact the drainage system under the tracks to take the water back again seemed to be working reasonably well, but,as I remarked earlier, the new wall is evidently no defence against overtopping when there is a high rough sea and the storm wind is from the south east. The prevailing wind is of course from the south west, so it is a seldom occurence, which perhaps was taken into consideration.
Exactly. Its a resilience programme not a keep railway dry and open at all costs programme.I suggest that you have misunderstood the reasons for building the new sea wall and the proposed realignment of the line between Dawlish and Teignmouth to be further away from the crumbling cliffs.
Nowhere has anyone suggested that the higher sea wall was intended to keep the railway dry, only that it was to increase the resilience of the railway in resisting the effects of bad weather. Look at, for example, the Network Rail articles on the subject on its web site.
In other words the chances of closure of the line because of water on the tracks or damage to the infrastructure will be reduced. The line will re-open quicker and less or no damage will have to be repaired after a storm.