Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[K Macdonald]

The North Meldon viaduct imo is repairable, at a much lower sum than a new one. My guestimate would be around 10 million! New timber decking, sandblasting the wrought ironwork, replacing wasted metal, and more steel bracing.
(The South viaduct is not as strong, it now has a concrete deck and used by the cycleway)
Tavistock Council have been shortsighted, and the demolition will add substantially to the cost.
Rolling stock - trains with guards vans, or a parcels van adapted for bikes. Ideal for carrying thousands of bikes, which could make the railway hugely popular. A bike trail!

The plan for the Bere Alston to Tavistock section is for a single track in place of the original two tracks, with space for a cycle/foot path alongside.

 

[tbtc]

There is no reason why if £250m was spent reopening the line through Oakhampton to allow Exeter to Plymouth services that the above projects would also not be able to go ahead (other than the need to potentially have to electrify the reopened route as well if it were an extenssion of SWT's services to Exeter and other than gold plated platforms would just loose their shine after a while!)

You can only spend the money once though, I'm just trying to compare the £250m (which seems to be the accepted figure, though I'm not certain where its come from) with what else you could get for the money in south west England.

If the Government want to fund some big project in the SW as a way of distracting people from the flood damage then there are other things that this could purchase on the railway.

If its a simple "do you want to reopen a closed branchline or not" argument then its a bit pointless, as there's no "cost" to consider. But there is clearly an opportunity cost when spending public money.

All nice to have's, but realistically how much difference is it going to make to a regular rail traveller whether their train is electric or diesel. How much better is the Basingstoke - Exeter line service going to be with double track throughout than it is already. If you're going to spend "£250m" on something, you might as well get a real, tangible improvement rather than "gold plated platforms".

An electrified service from Exeter to Waterloo, having eliminated the single track bottlenecks would be faster than the current service.

The line would have sufficient capacity to allow quieter "local" stations to be served by stoppers, meaning that the journey time to Waterloo gets sped up to compete better with the current B&H offering.

EMUs would presumably be 100mph, which would allow them to fit better onto the Basingstoke - Waterloo section.

The acceleration/braking should be better than a 158 can manage, which should speed up journey times.

Would the Okehampton line benefit more people than (the marginal benefit of) an upgraded Exeter - Salisbury - Basingstoke - Waterloo service? Or electrifying the B&H? Or some less scenic reopenings (Portishead)? Or building a station at Yeovil where the two lines intersect? Or electrifying the "Metro" service through Exeter? Or...

 

[TheWalrus]

In regards to Exeter-Waterloo I really don't see much benefit in improving the infrastructure or service provision on the route, aside from possible line speed increases and 100mph stock. Are the trains really busy between Salisbury and Exeter?

 

[LateThanNever]

SWT used to run services to Plymouth (and on to Penzance?) as an extension of the Waterloo-Exeter service didn't they? What was the reason for scrapping that service? Lack of customers? Lack of units? Lack of line capacity? Or just being told to by the DfT?

I guess the first thing to be done would be to tackle (and eliminate) whatever issue that caused the services to be scrapped in the first place.

Yes they used to go to Plymouth and Paignton and a through service which was staffed by GW to Penzance. Think they were told to stop by DaFT although no idea why. They could run again (no reversing at Exeter St David's if going via a restored link to Okehampton).

On the other hand a 'GW' service could go via Yeovil and Castle Cary from Okehampton to end up at Paddington without reversing and giving a link at last between the 2 stations in Yeovil.

Whilst an Okehampton link does nothing for Torbay in a way, the opportunity could be taken to offer improved through journeys via the Waterloo line which itself is generally better placed for central London than ever Paddington is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In regards to Exeter-Waterloo I really don't see much benefit in improving the infrastructure or service provision on the route, aside from possible line speed increases and 100mph stock. Are the trains really busy between Salisbury and Exeter?

During the day yes and only hourly!-

 

[MarkyT]

Demon work with the crayon there, Mark. If the gradient each side were lessened, at the expense of the slightly longer central tunnel, would not quite a few viaducts be avoided?

I think you may be right Howard. A particularly controversial area could be around Dunchideock, with a significant viaduct near that fair sized settlement and a country house hotel. A lower summit with longer tunnels might reduce the size of that viaduct if not eliminate it entirely. At Alphington I envisaged a new route projected from the end of the old Teign Valley embankment, flying over Marsh Barton Road and Alphington Road (A377) then diving into tunnel between Sainsburys petrol station and the A30. That would not likely need any significant demolition (possibly the petrol station?) but could be seen as a significant nuisance for many local residents. The proximity to existing busy roads might make the nuisance case less cut and dry though. Elsewhere there's very little built property in the way apart from a couple of isolated farms in the bottom of a hidden valley I follow near Trusham. Surface geology looks ok for tunnelling, breccia, sandstone, mudstone, similar to the Teignmouth cliffs, but the deeper you bore into the hills (Not a geologist so I'm guessing here!) the more chance you may encounter some harder unknown inclusion or other obstacle.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think you may be right Howard. A particularly controversial area could be around Dunchideock, with a significant viaduct near that fair sized settlement and a country house hotel. A lower summit with longer tunnels might reduce the size of that viaduct if not eliminate it entirely. At Alphington I envisaged a new route projected from the end of the old Teign Valley embankment, flying over Marsh Barton Road and Alphington Road (A377) then diving into tunnel between Sainsburys petrol station and the A30. That would not likely need any significant demolition (possibly the petrol station?) but could be seen as a significant nuisance for many local residents. The proximity to existing busy roads might make the nuisance case less cut and dry though. Elsewhere there's very little built property in the way apart from a couple of isolated farms in the bottom of a hidden valley I follow near Trusham. Surface geology looks ok for tunnelling, breccia, sandstone, mudstone, similar to the Teignmouth cliffs, but the deeper you bore into the hills (Not a geologist so I'm guessing here!) the more chance you may encounter some harder unknown inclusion or other obstacle.

The line and bridge is single track so you'd need to double it. Probably should be possible without knocking down anything.
Definitely have to get rid of JS petrol station for the tunnel portal - either that or the A377 link to the A30 - which would not be popular!

 

[yorksrob]

SWT used to run services to Plymouth (and on to Penzance?) as an extension of the Waterloo-Exeter service didn't they? What was the reason for scrapping that service? Lack of customers? Lack of units? Lack of line capacity? Or just being told to by the DfT?

I guess the first thing to be done would be to tackle (and eliminate) whatever issue that caused the services to be scrapped in the first place.

I'm sure I remember that the units were needed on the core London - Exeter section.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes they used to go to Plymouth and Paignton and a through service which was staffed by GW to Penzance. Think they were told to stop by DaFT although no idea why...

It was definitely a change imposed by DfT in the 2006 consultation for the 2007 franchise, their original wording was:

...removal of the services from London Waterloo travelling west of Exeter to Plymouth and Paignton, and current SWT services travelling between Salisbury and Bristol - these services duplicate other train operator services and/or appear to have a limited financial or economic case for operation;

However the Bristol extensions were put back into the spec by the 'priced option' mechanism. The general consensus at the time was that the SLC2 increase in the Waterloo - Exeter service to a clock face hourly frequency (from Dec 2009) took priority over the extensions beyond Exeter in the previous timetable.

 

[Tobbes]

SWT used to run services to Plymouth (and on to Penzance?) as an extension of the Waterloo-Exeter service didn't they? What was the reason for scrapping that service? Lack of customers? Lack of units? Lack of line capacity? Or just being told to by the DfT?

I guess the first thing to be done would be to tackle (and eliminate) whatever issue that caused the services to be scrapped in the first place.

Surely the point here is that the SWT Plymouth service went over the LSWR to Exeter and then along the GWR coastal route; what is being proposed here is a new service down the LSWR route, I understand.

 

[The Ham]

You can only spend the money once though, I'm just trying to compare the £250m (which seems to be the accepted figure, though I'm not certain where its come from) with what else you could get for the money in south west England.

If the Government want to fund some big project in the SW as a way of distracting people from the flood damage then there are other things that this could purchase on the railway.

If its a simple "do you want to reopen a closed branchline or not" argument then its a bit pointless, as there's no "cost" to consider. But there is clearly an opportunity cost when spending public money.



An electrified service from Exeter to Waterloo, having eliminated the single track bottlenecks would be faster than the current service.

The line would have sufficient capacity to allow quieter "local" stations to be served by stoppers, meaning that the journey time to Waterloo gets sped up to compete better with the current B&H offering.

EMUs would presumably be 100mph, which would allow them to fit better onto the Basingstoke - Waterloo section.

The acceleration/braking should be better than a 158 can manage, which should speed up journey times.

Would the Okehampton line benefit more people than (the marginal benefit of) an upgraded Exeter - Salisbury - Basingstoke - Waterloo service? Or electrifying the B&H? Or some less scenic reopenings (Portishead)? Or building a station at Yeovil where the two lines intersect? Or electrifying the "Metro" service through Exeter? Or...

I can see your point that there maybe other improvements which could be of more benefit than the one reopening being discussed. However none of them resolve the issue of Dawlish currently being closed. As such it doesn't matter what other improvements could be better spent using that funding, in that it could be money that the politicians will find from somewhere to make themselves look like they are doing something, rather than money for the rail budget for the SW.

In doing so it isn't money that would be able to be used on something "better" for the SW, nor is it likely to be money that would necessarily be spent on the railway, meaning that other improvements for the SW may not have their funding lost.

If it is extra spending from some other pot (so there is still the same amount of money to be spent on railways in the UK as there was before the reopening) by having it built it may mean that the SW may be more likely to get further funding for rail projects as the reopening is likely to generate extra passengers meaning that further investment would see a faster return.

Even if it were to be taken form a future rail budget, (then because it is likely to generate more passenger numbers) the SW could then be higher up the list for investment than other areas of the UK than it would have been other wise.

Rail investment isn't as clear cut as we've spent "x" in one area therefore we can no longer invest there until we've spent a fair amount in all the other areas of the UK.

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely the point here is that the SWT Plymouth service went over the LSWR to Exeter and then along the GWR coastal route; what is being proposed here is a new service down the LSWR route, I understand.

That's right - and there's little or no reason why such a service needs to be connected to the existing SWT device at all anyway. It would work just as well as a Plymouth to Exeter local service as far as I can see, but trying to refresh a Plymouth to Waterloo long way round service - what would be the point?

 

[455driver]

SWT used to run services to Plymouth (and on to Penzance?) as an extension of the Waterloo-Exeter service didn't they? What was the reason for scrapping that service? Lack of customers? Lack of units? Lack of line capacity? Or just being told to by the DfT?

I guess the first thing to be done would be to tackle (and eliminate) whatever issue that caused the services to be scrapped in the first place.

Lack of units was the reason given because the units were needed for the Hourly exeter services.
The fact that SWT had 3 units (6 coaches) out on hire to other TOCs at the time was missed by quite a few.

I believe the actual reason was because the DaFT wanted to tidy up the ORCATs system!

There is no way in a million years SWT would be remotely interested in operating a service over some poxy little branchline in Devon, the only sensible operator is FGW (or whoever has the franchise then)!

 

[The Ham]

That's right - and there's little or no reason why such a service needs to be connected to the existing SWT device at all anyway. It would work just as well as a Plymouth to Exeter local service as far as I can see, but trying to refresh a Plymouth to Waterloo long way round service - what would be the point?

As I explained earlier, the point is that for many people along the SWT's existing corridor it could, depending on timings, be a better option for travel to Plymouth than having to change at Exeter. Yes, there is little point for passengers between Plymouth and London, but then does everything have to be London Centric?

By removing the need to change it does bring a number of benefits and removes the need for a terminating service at Exeter. Terminating trains could cause problems for other services as they then block a platform for at least a few minutes (more than a through service) every time they gets back there.

 

[po8crg]

If there is to be a major upgrade of mainline services to Exeter, then I was thinking that a major upgrade of Basingstoke-Exeter might be easier than Newbury/Bristol-Exeter.

The line is a good deal less busy than the GWR route so extended blockades would create much less disruption if major works are required. It's also a lot more direct than either GWR route.

If Exeter-Salisbury was dualled, the worst of the kinks removed from the line (particularly around Crewkerne and Axminster) and it was electrified to Basingstoke, then it would be an excellent mainline to Exeter. Shame you can't put in a chord between Central and St Thomas to avoid the need to reverse, but I guess another Exe bridge is a bit much.

 

[MarkyT]

Lack of units was the reason given because the units were needed for the Hourly exeter services.
The fact that SWT had 3 units (6 coaches) out on hire to other TOCs at the time was missed by quite a few.

I believe the actual reason was because the DaFT wanted to tidy up the ORCATs system!

There is no way in a million years SWT would be remotely interested in operating a service over some poxy little branchline in Devon, the only sensible operator is FGW (or whoever has the franchise then)!

It could equally be argued that SWT would make an efficient operator for all the local services radiating from Exeter, sharing the fleet, servicing facilities and staff pool at Exeter with the Waterloo route. Cornwall and Bristol locals would remain with the Great Western incumbent however. SWT locals would have the disadvantage of further cementing the Stagecoach monopoly in Devon however, although that might actually be beneficial for negotiating more integrated fares and timetables across the county.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Who "owns" the Dawlish sea-wall? It was built by the railway, but it protects the town and the cliffs. If the main line railway were to be re-routed inland somehow, and with no railway remaining along "the beach" (let's say) would Network-rail still have a duty to maintain the sea wall? Is it an asset or a liability? To NR it's an asset if it supports their railway but a liability if it doesn't.To the town it's an asset whether it has a railway on it or not - it protects from those big waves we've been looking at, but could the Local Authority afford it's up-keep? Do they make a contribution now, maybe?

 

[HowardGWR]

In regards to Exeter-Waterloo I really don't see much benefit in improving the infrastructure or service provision on the route, aside from possible line speed increases and 100mph stock. Are the trains really busy between Salisbury and Exeter?

Yes, very.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The general consensus at the time was that the SLC2 increase in the Waterloo - Exeter service to a clock face hourly frequency (from Dec 2009) took priority over the extensions beyond Exeter in the previous timetable.

That's true although the connections at St Davids are often pretty ropey. What is potentially sensible is that one can usefully travel north as well as south, so an example trip is from (say) Honiton to Bristol as well as to Plymouth. The Honiton line pax are sometimes advised to travel to Bristol via Salisbury (!), it being sometimes quicker. A good interface station at Yeovil, as mentioned by an OP, is of course a no-brainer. But this is a bit OT, sorry.

 

[TheWalrus]

I need to have a look at these Exeter-Waterloo services then.

 

[Llanigraham]

Who "owns" the Dawlish sea-wall? It was built by the railway, but it protects the town and the cliffs. If the main line railway were to be re-routed inland somehow, and with no railway remaining along "the beach" (let's say) would Network-rail still have a duty to maintain the sea wall? Is it an asset or a liability? To NR it's an asset if it supports their railway but a liability if it doesn't.To the town it's an asset whether it has a railway on it or not - it protects from those big waves we've been looking at, but could the Local Authority afford it's up-keep? Do they make a contribution now, maybe?

Quite probably, but you would really need to see the wording of the original Act.
If it was the case and there was no railway there then it is a liabilty, but if the railway is there then it could be a laible asset.

 

[tbtc]

I can see your point that there maybe other improvements which could be of more benefit than the one reopening being discussed. However none of them resolve the issue of Dawlish currently being closed. As such it doesn't matter what other improvements could be better spent using that funding, in that it could be money that the politicians will find from somewhere to make themselves look like they are doing something, rather than money for the rail budget for the SW.

In doing so it isn't money that would be able to be used on something "better" for the SW, nor is it likely to be money that would necessarily be spent on the railway, meaning that other improvements for the SW may not have their funding lost.

If it is extra spending from some other pot (so there is still the same amount of money to be spent on railways in the UK as there was before the reopening) by having it built it may mean that the SW may be more likely to get further funding for rail projects as the reopening is likely to generate extra passengers meaning that further investment would see a faster return.

Even if it were to be taken form a future rail budget, (then because it is likely to generate more passenger numbers) the SW could then be higher up the list for investment than other areas of the UK than it would have been other wise.

Rail investment isn't as clear cut as we've spent "x" in one area therefore we can no longer invest there until we've spent a fair amount in all the other areas of the UK.

We can't abandon a route along the south coast of Devon - any Okehamton route wouldn't stop the need to reopen the current Dawlish route in the short term (or possibly find a new alignment along the southern coast in the medium term).

So the first priority is getting the existing route back into action (with a bigger thicker wall at Dawlish) - I don't think there can be any argument about that.

The question, once Dawlish is reopened, is what would be the biggest (other) priority in the south west. And I think that a line through Okehampton wouldn't be top of that list.

 

[The Ham]

We can't abandon a route along the south coast of Devon - any Okehamton route wouldn't stop the need to reopen the current Dawlish route in the short term (or possibly find a new alignment along the southern coast in the medium term).

So the first priority is getting the existing route back into action (with a bigger thicker wall at Dawlish) - I don't think there can be any argument about that.

The question, once Dawlish is reopened, is what would be the biggest (other) priority in the south west. And I think that a line through Okehampton wouldn't be top of that list.

I am not saying abandon a route along the south coast of Devon, nor are many (if any) in favour of the route through Oakhampton. Rather it would have the added advantage (in addition to being able to bypass Dawlish if needed) of actually linking up a load of places which would generate extra passengers by doing so.

I agree that (assuming Dawlish hadn't fallen into the sea) that there are many other priorities in the SW. However given that is has there will now be a lot of political pressure for there to be an alternative route to Plymouth (i.e. read two routes, so Dawlish would be part of the equation). That said, that doesn't mean that the alternative route is of real higher importance than the other projects, just that because there is the political desire to get it done that it could be done ahead of the other projects.

However as I've said before having more passengers travelling around and from the SW could mean that the SW projects which are of "real" higher priority than the route through Oakhampton more of a priority nationally than they would have otherwise been.

 

[Tobbes]

The question, once Dawlish is reopened, is what would be the biggest (other) priority in the south west. And I think that a line through Okehampton wouldn't be top of that list.

You're quite right to look at the opportunity costs, tbtc, and in an ideal world you'd drive investment decisions on opportunity costs, BCRs and all kind of other evidence-based analysis.

However, bear with my cynicism: there is a political need to get services restored asap to Dawlish and Plymouth, but there is also a (reasonable?) expectation that there will be more frequent, more destructive storms in future, and without an alternate route, Plymouth and Cornwall (and yes, Adrian Sanders, even Torbay)will be cut off from the national network. On this basis, there would at any time - let alone ahead of two hard fought elections in 12 months - be a need for a credible alternative route: Okehampton - Tavistock delivers that, as well as opening up new travel options from North Devon.

What would make most sense to me it to use the need for electrification and engineering blockades on the GWR routes to double the LSWR from Exeter to Salisbury, and relay Okehampton to Bere Alston - with some doubling there, too, to ensure that there are sufficient paths as necessary. (And if not up front, then at least ensure that nothing is done to impede the provision of future double tracking - believe this could be a future issue for BordersRail).

Of course, when electrification goes to Penzance, there'd be every reason to do the LSWR routes as well (as far as Basingstoke) with OHLE, as the Southern will at some point come into the 20th century with 25kV AC!

Tobbes

 

[D1009]

Who "owns" the Dawlish sea-wall? It was built by the railway, but it protects the town and the cliffs. If the main line railway were to be re-routed inland somehow, and with no railway remaining along "the beach" (let's say) would Network-rail still have a duty to maintain the sea wall? Is it an asset or a liability? To NR it's an asset if it supports their railway but a liability if it doesn't.To the town it's an asset whether it has a railway on it or not - it protects from those big waves we've been looking at, but could the Local Authority afford it's up-keep? Do they make a contribution now, maybe?

See posts #303 and #309.

 

[455driver]

As I explained earlier, the point is that for many people along the SWT's existing corridor it could, depending on timings, be a better option for travel to Plymouth than having to change at Exeter.

By removing the need to change it does bring a number of benefits and removes the need for a terminating service at Exeter. Terminating trains could cause problems for other services as they then block a platform for at least a few minutes (more than a through service) every time they gets back there.

I was going to reply to this pie in the sky post but cant be bothered! :roll:

 

[ianhr]

It could equally be argued that SWT would make an efficient operator for all the local services radiating from Exeter, sharing the fleet, servicing facilities and staff pool at Exeter with the Waterloo route. Cornwall and Bristol locals would remain with the Great Western incumbent however. SWT locals would have the disadvantage of further cementing the Stagecoach monopoly in Devon however, although that might actually be beneficial for negotiating more integrated fares and timetables across the county.

Devon definitely deserves it's own integrated transport plan, something which 'Paddington centric' management has never addressed. Local/regional rail services in the county started to fragment as soon as the BR Western Region took over the former SR lines in the early 1960's, and they have never even tried to provide a decent local service on the GWR lines with a high density of population e.g. Exeter-Torbay or around Plymouth. Does Tiverton Parkway (ex Tiverton Junction) have a bus to Tiverton? Why was Paignton-Kingswear closed long after Beeching? The SR routes form a better foundation for developing something new focussed on Exeter Central e.g. Exmouth-Barnstaple 1 tph + Axminster-Okehampton 1 tph with bus links to Sidmouth, Ilfracombe, Bideford, Bude etc with the potential for rail extensions to perhaps at least Tavistock & Bideford.

Although I support the principle of the Dawlish avoiding line, as providing a faster long distance service to Plymouth & Cornwall, I agree with other posts on here that the local service along the coastal route could decay as a consequence.

 

[transmanche]

Devon definitely deserves it's own integrated transport plan, something which 'Paddington centric' management has never addressed.

Which prompts the question; was merging three franchises (Wessex, ICGW and Thames Valley) into one a good idea? But maybe that's a question for another day (and another thread)...

 

[Cliveblackpool]

..If the railway along the sea wall was closed... :cry:
NR, as well as the 'expensive to maintain bits', own some very valuable property, eg station sites etc.
They might do a deal with a Council to dispose of their liabilities.
Won't be in my lifetime!

I think we would all agree that Cowley bridge should be the first in the Exeter area to be sorted. That could be many years away.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Tavistock.html

Maybe Network Rail should put in a bid....?

 

[HowardGWR]

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Tavistock.html

Maybe Network Rail should put in a bid....?

The rear is charming, being the down platform which is preserved quite well with awning in SR colours still - a blast from the past.

 

[The Ham]

Given Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton is about 60 miles along the old route, assuming that trains run at the same speed as Exeter to Barnstaple (which is about 40 miles) then a journey time of about 90 minutes would seams about right for the reopened route.

The trains from Exeter to Plymouth currently take about 60 minutes, however leave with in 3 minutes of the Waterloo train coming in (making a connection nearly impossible) or about 20 minutes later (although is some cases this can be up to 50 minutes later).

Therefore IF SWT's were to extend their services most people would probably carry on to Plymouth on them rather than change as they would already have a seat, and they would at best only be getting into Plymouth 10 minutes faster.

Even from Basingstoke getting to Plymouth via Reading would only be about 25 minutes faster. Which isn't a lot of time, and if ticket prices were less then some people would still use it as a preference.

The problem with it being run as a Exeter-Plymouth service is that there are limited paths through Exeter, meaning that as it would result in two paths (one for the Waterloo service and one for the Exeter Plymouth service, both of which would have their end point in Exeter) through Exeter may mean that other services may not be able to be increased (i.e. Exeter to Exmouth may have to stay as 2tph rather than be able to increase to 3tph). Yes there are ways around that (e.g. Exmouth to Plymouth services), but then there would be less through passengers as it is likely that the change times would be better at Exeter (at least for some services) and it would be a smaller catchment.