• 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!

New Dawlish wall failing?

Status
Not open for further replies.

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
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?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GWRrrr

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2019
Messages
51
Location
.
Trains now running at (much) reduced speed between St. Davids and Newton Abbot. GWR says a signalling fault. Is this related to yesterday, or an entirely new problem?
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
Seems like the same issues, the damaged (now removed) signal is causing the greatest delay at the moment.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,988
Location
Dyfneint
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.

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.

Further round Lyme Bay has been um, interesting, for the last few days.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
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.
Don’t think so. I believe one of the reports on the local planning website for the first phase ruled out such offshore features.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Don’t think so. I believe one of the reports on the local planning website for the first phase ruled out such offshore features.
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.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
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.
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:
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
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.
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.
 

BayPaul

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,219
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.
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.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
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.

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.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
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.
Exactly. Its a resilience programme not a keep railway dry and open at all costs programme.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top