Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[The Planner]

Or you could re-time the FGW or SWT and make a connection and make all that a fairly moot point.

 

[455driver]

I catch the SWT to Exeter quite a lot and have only missed the onward XC to Newton Abbott maybe once or twice out of a couple dozen trips, it is a cross platform transfer and takes 30 seconds tops.

 

[tbtc]

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

That seems a very complicated expensive "solution" to solve the "problem" of tight connections at Exeter (dunno how many passengers an hour make that connection). I'm all for re-opening lines with a good case, but a lot of the justifications being trotted out on here for Okehampton are fairly flimsy.

But, if you think that the problem is poor connections between SWT arrivals into Exeter and FGW/XC service to Plymouth (up to twenty minutes wait?) then my flimsy suggestion is to spend some of the mythical £250m on redoubling the Salisbury - Exeter line (eliminating bottlenecks, allowing more trains down the line which would allow local stops to be picked up by local trains thus allowing the Waterloo services to be sped up to arrive at Exeter earlier to connect with existing services to Plymouth)?

 

[HowardGWR]

I catch the SWT to Exeter quite a lot and have only missed the onward XC to Newton Abbott maybe once or twice out of a couple dozen trips, it is a cross platform transfer and takes 30 seconds tops.

Yes, I've done that too, but someone planning a journey will not be given that as being possible, quite correctly. Many long distance trains are now looked up and booked on the net services. In any case, nobody in the normal public would chance that. (It's 'Abbot' by the way, hope that is helpful).

 

[yorksrob]

That seems a very complicated expensive "solution" to solve the "problem" of tight connections at Exeter (dunno how many passengers an hour make that connection). I'm all for re-opening lines with a good case, but a lot of the justifications being trotted out on here for Okehampton are fairly flimsy.

If you call the case for reopening a route which:

• Is already subject to a reopening proposal due to congestion at one end

• Has serious aspirations for reopening at the other end for reasons of economic development

• Avoid the two above mentioned projects being left as dead end branchlines, with all the implications for connectivity and future sustainability that implies.

• Would massively increase the resilience of the West Country network as a whole (something clearly wanting, since on no other major corridoor would a blockade of potentially several months be seen as acceptible

weak, then I'd sorely love to see what your idea of a "strong" case would be.

Certainly (as you've admitted in other threads) redoubling schemes don't really cut the mustard.

 

[34104]

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.

Would the journey time would be 90 minutes? I have a book by O.S.Nock which gives details of a run from Plymouth North Road to Exeter St Davids in 79 minutes,a heavily loaded train hauled by a Battle of Britain class locomotive.I'd have thought that more modern traction and engineering techniques could knock quite a few minutes off that time-the LSWR route wasn't really that much longer than the GWR,57 miles compared to 52.

 

[tbtc]

If you call the case for reopening a route which:

• Is already subject to a reopening proposal due to congestion at one end

• Has serious aspirations for reopening at the other end for reasons of economic development

• Avoid the two above mentioned projects being left as dead end branchlines, with all the implications for connectivity and future sustainability that implies.

• Would massively increase the resilience of the West Country network as a whole (something clearly wanting, since on no other major corridoor would a blockade of potentially several months be seen as acceptible

weak, then I'd sorely love to see what your idea of a "strong" case would be.

Certainly (as you've admitted in other threads) redoubling schemes don't really cut the mustard.

Resilience? The Dawlish route has been open over 99% of the time in recent years (going by the figures provided by Goatboy), which probably compares reasonably well with other lines. Where was the demands for a new line from Chester to Holyhead when the North Wales coast line was closed recently? Is that not a "major corridor"? Does it depend on whether there was an alternative line closed by Beeching?

Dead end branch lines? In which case we'd need to worry about the "connectivity and future sustainability" of most lines in Cornwall (as well as the Welsh Valleys etc)

Serious aspirations for reopening at both ends? Good luck to them, but let each end be dealt with on its own merits, rather than this pretence that a slow meandering route through the moors (serving relatively low populations) is a solution to getting a sturdy route through Dawlish. There are proposals for reopening virtually every bit of railway closed in the Beeching era though - this doesn't elevate the Okehampton scheme to the top of that list.

What would be a strong case in my eyes? An electrified route from Exeter to Waterloo, double track throughout? Just a suggestion.

 

[The Ham]

Would the journey time would be 90 minutes? I have a book by O.S.Nock which gives details of a run from Plymouth North Road to Exeter St Davids in 79 minutes,a heavily loaded train hauled by a Battle of Britain class locomotive.I'd have thought that more modern traction and engineering techniques could knock quite a few minutes off that time-the LSWR route wasn't really that much longer than the GWR,57 miles compared to 52.

I was being conservative to show that a SWT's service wouldn't be much slower than a GW service having changed at Exeter.

If it is possible to run it so that the journey time was (say) 75 minutes then even with a 30 second change at Exeter you'd only arrive in Plymouth about 15 minutes later on the direct service, but with none of the risk of changing trains (lack of seat, delayed connection, etc.).

(Although as pointed out above rail journey planners will not allow you to have 30 seconds as a valid connection. Meaning that if it were timetabled perfectly to allow for valid connections it would be about 10 minutes difference).

 

[Tobbes]

Resilience? The Dawlish route has been open over 99% of the time in recent years (going by the figures provided by Goatboy), which probably compares reasonably well with other lines. Where was the demands for a new line from Chester to Holyhead when the North Wales coast line was closed recently? Is that not a "major corridor"? Does it depend on whether there was an alternative line closed by Beeching?

The point here surely is that there is a viable alternative route that was closed, is largely intact, and would be useful in its own right. (And no, Holyhead-Bangor-Afon Wen-Portmadoc-Birmingham-London is not comparable).

What would be a strong case in my eyes? An electrified route from Exeter to Waterloo, double track throughout? Just a suggestion.

Indeed - and it should be done. Since the 750V DC is going to be replaced over time, you may as well make the whole lot 25kV AC whilst you're at it.

 

[The Ham]

The point here surely is that there is a viable alternative route that was closed, is largely intact, and would be useful in its own right. (And no, Holyhead-Bangor-Afon Wen-Portmadoc-Birmingham-London is not comparable).

Given the population sizes I would suggest that beyond Plymouth and the North Wales Line would be more comparable.

Indeed - and it should be done. Since the 750V DC is going to be replaced over time, you may as well make the whole lot 25kV AC whilst you're at it.

Not that reopening through Okehampton means that redoubling and/or electrification of Basingstoke to Exeter is less likely (i.e. we've already spent the money). As I've suggested before if SWT's run the route as an extension of this service then it could be argued that it could make it more likely, as passenger numbers could be higher than they otherwise would have been.

 

[po8crg]

What would be a strong case in my eyes? An electrified route from Exeter to Waterloo, double track throughout? Just a suggestion.

There's some straightening possible along that route (Crewkerne and Axminster are the obvious ones) as well as the redualling and double-tracking.

Electrification from Basingstoke to Southampton is due to be converted to 25kV AC overhead. If Waterloo-Basingstoke-Salisbury-Exeter is also done in overhead, then it starts looking tempting to convert the whole L&SWR / SWT network.

 

[K Macdonald]

Conversely, I think a Dawlish avoiding line could end up worse for those living in Torbay as it would possibly sound the death knell for the line along the coast, which in turn would mean loss of the local stations and services, particularly if the wall gets breached too often. At least with Newton Abbott and Torquay depending on it, they're obliged to keep services along the coast.

Eh? Sorry, I don't quite follow that. A Dawlish Bypass would speed-up travel between Exeter and Newton Abbot (and Torbay beyond it). Why would that be worse for those living in Torbay?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... but there is also a (reasonable?) expectation that there will be more frequent, more destructive storms in future, ..

That very much depends which group of experts you are paying to give you an answer. Even the Met Office (strongly pro Climate Change) is careful to say "yes maybe" and "no maybe" in the very same briefings/press releases, to hedge their bets. Their long range forecasts are measured in probabilities, and 50% is the most frequent probability. Cut out the waffle and they are saying it is a coin-toss. Other groups of experts even say that globally we'd been having less extreme weather!

As for the Dawlish Sea Wall itself, it is highly ironic that the first year of operation in 1846 also saw the first breach in the line. In that year Brunel personally inspected 8 breaches in the line, The original newspaper report from 1846 is here.

https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/431559126838030336/photo/1

In a space of 15 years from 1853 the line was breached continually, with many other breaches since. Just prior to the history linked above, there were great storms locally in 1817 and 1824, the latter described as an ‘extreme hurricane’.

Perhaps the most significant event in the lines history was 1901 when part of the sea wall was rebuilt 5 metres further out into the sea. It was noted this had a dramatic effect on lowering the beach levels.

The 1901 reference is especially interesting as the remainder of the wall –badly constructed of stone backfilled with rubble-was scheduled to be re-built at that time, but never was. It was that old part that collapsed .

It seems that storms are no different now to those over the last couple of centuries. The real story is that an already inadequate sea wall structure which carries the main line railway, has taken numerous hits from waves and storms since its inception and has become steadily weakened. Sand levels have been allowed to drop, thereby reducing soft protection to the base of the wall.

And we're surprised that the wall eventually collapsed?

Dawlish is famous for its Black Swans. To compound the irony, the Black Swan Theory is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

 

[DDB]

As I see it Network rail is going to be asked to have a quick look at all possible options including doing nothing but repairing the route, reusing old alignments and a totally new route. In the mean time we can only speculate but speculation is fun...

So my speculation is

The Dawlish sea wall route is too famous and now too much of a political hot potato to be closed and so will remain the main route but a "cheap" diversion route is highly desirable.

I suspect in the modern world the legal/political challenge for any "new" line is much harder and expensive than the engineering challenge. Therefore any new build will be restricted to reopening a former line.

It sounds like the Tavistock Oakhampton route is the easiest from this perspective as it only requires the purchase of a handful of houses which may even be able to be bought without a compulsory purchase order by making them an offer they can't refuse. The council offices shouldn't be a problem as the council should jump at the chance to connect one of its towns to both the regions cities. In fact if I were the council I would buy the old station building that is up for sale which could be used as council housing/offices until the line reopens.

The BCR for a diversion route for the dawlish route may not be enough by itself. The BCR for reconnecting Oakhampton or Tavisitock to the network may not be enough by itself. However the combined BCR for creating a diversion route for Dawlish, and reconnecting both Oakhampton and Tavistock to both Exeter and Plymouth could well tip the balance.

As I understand it the road options in the area aren't brilliant hence the retention off part of the Tavistock branch in the first place which should count in the favour of connecting the bigger towns back tot he rail network.

As it is only a diversion route only for use for planned weekend engineering work and in the event of emergency you wouldn't need to try and run normal service levels via the diversion. You would have a preplanned "Dawlish blocked" timetable like the snow day timetables.

E.g. you could terminate all Cross country at Exeter and run an Exeter Plymouth shuttle service. It should be easier to retain enough route knowledge for FGW by ensuring crews on the mianline services do a few turns on the Plymouth-Tavistock-Oakhampton-Exeter stopper from time to time.

An enterprising TOC might offer a round robin ticket which I suspect would be popular with tourists and enthusiasts.

DDB

 

[yorksrob]

Eh? Sorry, I don't quite follow that. A Dawlish Bypass would speed-up travel between Exeter and Newton Abbot (and Torbay beyond it). Why would that be worse for those living in Torbay?
[/url]

This question has very much been framed as a North Devon verses South Devon debate. Yet there are a good few thousand South Devoners who live in the Teignmouth/Dawlish area, and whilst I'd like to believe that a mainline diversion (from Newton Abbot, but missing out the coastal settlements) and local route could co-exist, if breaches at Dawlish become more common, it might not be seen as economical to reopen the coast route.

Net result, part of South Devon has somewhat faster services whilst another part loses its service altogether. Overall a minus in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Resilience? The Dawlish route has been open over 99% of the time in recent years (going by the figures provided by Goatboy), which probably compares reasonably well with other lines. Where was the demands for a new line from Chester to Holyhead when the North Wales coast line was closed recently? Is that not a "major corridor"? Does it depend on whether there was an alternative line closed by Beeching?

Perhaps if it had a City the size of Plymouth, as well as its various seaside towns. Also, if there is an alternative to that route, does it have any towns such as Tavistock and Okehampton likely to generate trafficalong its way ? You can pretend to yourself that Dawlish is exactly the same as any other stretch of line in terms of exposure to severe weather, but I can't see many people being taken in.

Dead end branch lines? In which case we'd need to worry about the "connectivity and future sustainability" of most lines in Cornwall (as well as the Welsh Valleys etc)

Serious aspirations for reopening at both ends? Good luck to them, but let each end be dealt with on its own merits, rather than this pretence that a slow meandering route through the moors (serving relatively low populations) is a solution to getting a sturdy route through Dawlish. There are proposals for reopening virtually every bit of railway closed in the Beeching era though - this doesn't elevate the Okehampton scheme to the top of that list.

With the exception of Gunnislake all of the branches end on the coast, so there aren't that many travel opportunities beyond the various termini (except perhaps for fishermen ). However, it seems patently obvious that a fully integrated through route is likely to generate more usage and establish itself as an important transport node than a series of branch lines.

Also, surely travellers from Tavistock heading North would be better off travelling North, rather than piling onto the already busy trains in South Devon.

What would be a strong case in my eyes? An electrified route from Exeter to Waterloo, double track throughout? Just a suggestion.

And how is that a stronger case exactly.

• Faster and more frequent services for those that already have them, but how much greater is that need for towns that already have a relatively fast and frequent service than for towns that have no service.

• Increased resilience for a route that already has, and uses a diversionary route, or resilience for a route that currently has none and will be out of action for six weeks at the moment.

Your suggestion fails miserably in comparison to the Okehampton route in all respects, except possibly one. It might be cheaper. That is the entire basis of your argument.

We can always find something cheaper that could be worth doing at some stage, but unless someone has the vision to instigate something that may be more expensive but will provide a vast improvement to travel opportunities we will be left with a network designed for the 1970's that doesn't meet the aspirations of today's travellers.

All this talk of the old Southern route being "long and meandering" tosh to me. Look on a map and it doesn't meander much more than the existing mainline. In fact several have pointed out on here that journey times weren't that much different to the Great Western route before it was run down.

 

[HowardGWR]

There is no chance that the Torbay area will lose the rail connection direct to Exeter. The Okehampton line (please, please note spelling) is not being proposed as a substitute to the GWR link (how could it be except as an extreme temporary fix as in this situation?) and it would defeat the object. It does have and has always has had a raison d'etre.

In the 30s to the 60s, the SR and GWR drivers signed both routes and used each other's engines.

Back to the future! It's a sort of progress I suppose.

 

[The Planner]

Still betting that in 3-6 months time this will be dead and nothing comes of it.

 

[Kettledrum]

What would be a strong case in my eyes? An electrified route from Exeter to Waterloo, double track throughout? Just a suggestion.

Until a few years ago, this idea would be pie in the sky. However, things are changing - we see that with HS2 proposed, East- West rail happening, major electrification schemes etc.

As for what the business case for what the business case would look like - who knows? - but the electrification RUS ranked electrification from Basingstoke to Exeter relatively highly with a BCR of 3.1 in 2009.

 

[455driver]

Still betting that in 3-6 months time this will be dead and nothing comes of it.

Yeah but this thread is a bloomin good larf!
What started off as a simple diversionary route has now electrified from Basingstoke to Plymouth and converted the while Southern Region to 25KV overhead electrification! Who would have thought a few bricks being washed away could have such an impact!

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Cameron-promises-high-profile-HS2-rail-built/story-20614543-detail/story.html

Latest 'news'. The price seems to have gone £700m now - no idea where that has come from. I do not think Dawlish has received as much attention from a British PM in its whole history - it couldn't possibly be anything to do with the number of Con / Lib Dem marginals in the South West could it? Lots of 'floating' voters if you pardon the pun.

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps if it had a City the size of Plymouth, as well as its various seaside towns. Also, if there is an alternative to that route, does it have any towns such as Tavistock and Okehampton likely to generate trafficalong its way ? You can pretend to yourself that Dawlish is exactly the same as any other stretch of line in terms of exposure to severe weather, but I can't see many people being taken in

Maybe bad weather will close the Dundee - Aberdeen line for some periods in the future - the cliffs by Stonehaven may be susceptible to problems.

I've already mentioned the North Wales coast line. Plenty of other coastal lines have no diversionary route.

Towns such as Tavistock and Okehampton? Small towns. With a combined population of around 20,000, there are much bigger places without connections to the national rail network.

With the exception of Gunnislake all of the branches end on the coast, so there aren't that many travel opportunities beyond the various termini (except perhaps for fishermen ). However, it seems patently obvious that a fully integrated through route is likely to generate more usage and establish itself as an important transport node than a series of branch lines

You're going to have to try harder than "we can't just open from Plymouth to Okehampton because branchlines can't work". Of course a through route would carry more passengers, it would also cost a lot more money - money that could be invested in other things.

And how is that a stronger case exactly.

• Faster and more frequent services for those that already have them, but how much greater is that need for towns that already have a relatively fast and frequent service than for towns that have no service.

• Increased resilience for a route that already has, and uses a diversionary route, or resilience for a route that currently has none and will be out of action for six weeks at the moment.

Your suggestion fails miserably in comparison to the Okehampton route in all respects, except possibly one. It might be cheaper. That is the entire basis of your argument.

We can always find something cheaper that could be worth doing at some stage, but unless someone has the vision to instigate something that may be more expensive but will provide a vast improvement to travel opportunities we will be left with a network designed for the 1970's that doesn't meet the aspirations of today's travellers

Cost benefit analysis.

If the two schemes cost the same (I have no idea, but for argument's sake...) then you'd have to look at which one benefits the most people. Would an upgraded line through Yeovil Junction benefit more people than a reopened line through Okehampton (pop 5,756)?

You're falling into the trap of coming up with the answer that you want ("reopen something that was closed down fifty years ago") and working backwards to find justifications rather than trying to find something that gives the most benefit for the money available.

 

[Tobbes]

Latest 'news'. The price seems to have gone £700m now - no idea where that has come from. I do not think Dawlish has received as much attention from a British PM in its whole history - it couldn't possibly be anything to do with the number of Con / Lib Dem marginals in the South West could it? Lots of 'floating' voters if you pardon the pun.

£700m must be for a bigger scheme than Tavistock - Okehampton. (I mean I guess I could get it to cost that much if I tried - £5bn is the reported cost of all of the GWML electrification programme!) Does anyone have a breakdown of it? (ie, is this dualling and electrifying Basingstoke - Plymouth and a new Meldon Viaduct?)

What started off as a simple diversionary route has now electrified from Basingstoke to Plymouth and converted the while Southern Region to 25KV overhead electrification!

Fair enough, but Southern conversion to 25kV AC OHLE is going to start with the electric spine, so it makes sense to do any fill in electrification to this standard, and stick pantographs on the 444/450s. After all, then you could run them at full power....!

Tobbes

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe bad weather will close the Dundee - Aberdeen line for some periods in the future - the cliffs by Stonehaven may be susceptible to problems.

I've already mentioned the North Wales coast line. Plenty of other coastal lines have no diversionary route.

Yes, but they don't all have Plymouth at the end of them. How many times on a regular basis, have the cliffs at Stonehaven caused these sort of problems ? What happens if a comet lands on Croydon, or if Blackburn falls into a sinkhole. No doubt we'll have to respond to these things as they arise, but as you are well aware (and choose to ignore), Dawlish has been breached on a number of occasions, including the very first year in which it was built, and the reason we were able to get around these issues in the past was that there were alternative routes.

Towns such as Tavistock and Okehampton? Small towns. With a combined population of around 20,000, there are much bigger places without connections to the national rail network.

As has been pointed out on many occasions, Tavistock already has a well advanced reopening case and Okehampton are looking to increase their existing services. Whether it be from the towns themselves or the local hinterland, there is a demand for a decent rail service in this area.

You're going to have to try harder than "we can't just open from Plymouth to Okehampton because branchlines can't work". Of course a through route would carry more passengers, it would also cost a lot more money - money that could be invested in other things.

It would cost more money, help more people in the local area and be of greater use to the area and the country as a whole.

Cost benefit analysis.

If the two schemes cost the same (I have no idea, but for argument's sake...) then you'd have to look at which one benefits the most people. Would an upgraded line through Yeovil Junction benefit more people than a reopened line through Okehampton (pop 5,756)?

You're falling into the trap of coming up with the answer that you want ("reopen something that was closed down fifty years ago") and working backwards to find justifications rather than trying to find something that gives the most benefit for the money available.

If the cost benefit analysis works so well, why did the case for HS2 have to be rewritten with a new version.

It's not just a simple case of what assists the most people, it's about how much help can be provided. Say upgrading a line assists 400 people to get where they would have been travelling anyway five minutes earlier. What if building a new line costs the same but helps 200 people. By your methodology, the upgrade should be the greatest benefit. But what if the new line provides those 200 people with better job and educational opportunities and increased business. The opportunities afforded to the 200 are going to be much more valuable in terms of generating economic activity than the five minute journey improvement for the 400. This is why there needs to be more of an emphasis on serving new communities in the railway.

 

[The Ham]

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Cameron-promises-high-profile-HS2-rail-built/story-20614543-detail/story.html

Latest 'news'. The price seems to have gone £700m now - no idea where that has come from. I do not think Dawlish has received as much attention from a British PM in its whole history - it couldn't possibly be anything to do with the number of Con / Lib Dem marginals in the South West could it? Lots of 'floating' voters if you pardon the pun.

Network Rail has said reinstating the most expensive cross-country Westcountry rail line would cost £700 million – a fraction of the £42 billion to be sunk into HS2.

It reads as though the £700 million is for a new line and one which is at the upper end of what is needed, and not just the reopening of the line through Okehampton.

 

[Waverley125]

Tavistock - Okehampton is a patch. While undoubtedly a good idea, it simply doesn't work as a 125mph+ alignment unless you intend to go all-out on it, with electrification, tilt and replacing a couple of viaducts.

Once we've got HS2 built there does need to be a look at delivering High Speed rail to South Wales, the South West, Devon & Cornwall.

 

[Woody]

I thought in the interest of a proper balanced debate about the future of Devons rail links the following factual information would help. This quote by Neil Gallacher BBC South West Business Correspondent http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25813924 regarding Ikeas decision to build a new store in Exeter will help you understand how the economies of Devons two main cities are so basically different.
Quote
“Exeter's economy has grown up around shops and offices. Ever since the cathedral was built, Exeter has been the dominant administrative centre.”
“Where Exeter can't match Plymouth is manufacturing and engineering.”
Plymouth 2011 census pop 256k does remarkably well considering it has no airport, no motorway and poor rail links compared to Exeter pop 118k. Beyond their municipal boundaries both cities draw on a much wider extended population for work, higher education and leisure. Arguably then the only big difference between them now is the historic superiority of Exeter’s transport links which brings us back to the thorny question of rail links in Devon and Cornwall. One wonders therefore how much better Plymouth could do with decent a decent rail link to Exeter and beyond for a city of its size and importance. And yes it is still important. It is still Europe’s largest naval dockyard, has two universities and is a world class marine research centre but you would never think so from some of the uninformed comments I have read on this thread.

 

[Bald Rick]

As has been pointed out on many occasions, Tavistock already has a well advanced reopening case and Okehampton are looking to increase their existing services. Whether it be from the towns themselves or the local hinterland, there is a demand for a decent rail service in this area.

Let us not forget that the case (and most likely funding source) for this has been made largely by the development gain a house builder is expecting from being able to market his 750 new houses as having a direct rail link to Plymouth. At least it was last time I looked. Other reopening campaigns take note. (As an aside, I'm willing to bet the reopening cost for Tavistock has been significantly underestimated).

Now if there are similar development proposals elsewhere on the rest of the closed route, then I can see the case improving from no hope to possibility.

 

[tbtc]

http://www.theplymouthdaily.co.uk/news/local-news/£311-million-rail-resilience-will-be-found

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has today confirmed that the £31.1m promised to improve the resilience of the South West’s rail network will be found.

Ten projects to improve the rail networks resilience against flooding will be funded with the money including for work in Honiton, Cowley Bridge Junction, Crewkerne and several other areas of rail vulnerable to potential flooding.

...sounds like "money is no object" but there's no £700m for an Okehampton route. Basically, there will be no Dawlish avoiding route - thread closed?

Yes, but they don't all have Plymouth at the end of them

Not many railways do, you've got me there, I accept...

as you are well aware (and choose to ignore), Dawlish has been breached on a number of occasions, including the very first year in which it was built

The fact that it was breached when it was built around 150 years ago is irrelevant.

Goatboy quoted figures which showed that the Dawlish route has had few closures over the years - some, but nothing like enough to be used as justification for an alternative route avoiding any large places of population.

As has been pointed out on many occasions, Tavistock already has a well advanced reopening case and Okehampton are looking to increase their existing services

Good luck to them, but lets assess these two separate schemes on their own merits (and compare to Portishead and other re-openings), rather than trying to bundle them together to claim a "solution" to the Dawlish section.

This is why there needs to be more of an emphasis on serving new communities in the railway

The answer is always to reopen something, eh?

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not just a simple case of what assists the most people, it's about how much help can be provided. Say upgrading a line assists 400 people to get where they would have been travelling anyway five minutes earlier. What if building a new line costs the same but helps 200 people. By your methodology, the upgrade should be the greatest benefit. But what if the new line provides those 200 people with better job and educational opportunities and increased business. The opportunities afforded to the 200 are going to be much more valuable in terms of generating economic activity than the five minute journey improvement for the 400. This is why there needs to be more of an emphasis on serving new communities in the railway.

Playing Devil's advocate, say upgrading a line benefits 400,000 recorded users of that line to get somewhere 5 mins earlier, all those 5 mins do add up. Then compare to improved economic opportunities available to 20,000 people through building a new line, who may or may not benefit from it (as a proportion of the population won't notice any difference).

Obvious to state, but the key thing is the numbers who benefit, and the amount they benefit by, per pound spent. Benefit cost analysis.

 

[poshfan]

Obviously the sea wall section was built to withstand a certain amount of hammering from the sea, but as it turns out, certain sections were not up to the job. But surely the obvious solution is simply to strengthen it? I understand the current construction is mostly retaining wall in filled with rubble or even sand. Obviously a thicker retaining wall will be stronger. A retaining wall in filled with concrete, with sufficiently deep foundations will be virtually indestructible. If you have slab track as well, you will then only have closures during the actual storms, with virtually nothing to repair afterwards. Possibly expensive but got to be much cheaper than building an alternative inland line.

If the Okehampton route stacks up on its own merits as a local transport route, I would go ahead with it, and use it for diversions if and when needed, but I can't see the a high speed inland route being justified on the grounds of being a diversionary route. I think you will have to wait for it to be built as part of an HSL to Plymouth, if that ever happens. If it does there will no doubt be a spur onto the classic lines somewhere to allow through running to Torbay.

 

[IanXC]

http://www.theplymouthdaily.co.uk/news/local-news/£311-million-rail-resilience-will-be-found

...sounds like "money is no object" but there's no £700m for an Okehampton route. Basically, there will be no Dawlish avoiding route - thread closed?

With respect that link does not say that at all, what it does say is (quoting the Prime Minister):

Second point, while we are working as fast as we can to restore the Dawlish link, we do need to look at longer term alternatives – and I have discussed this with Network Rail and First Great Western – to see what more can be done.

The Western Morning News says:

Network Rail has said reinstating the most expensive cross-country Westcountry rail line would cost £700 million – a fraction of the £42 billion to be sunk into HS2.

So not only does your source not state anything like your claim, but your claim that an Okehampton route would cost £700m is patently not true either.

Given that reinstating 5 miles of this closed route will cost £26m, the other 16 miles cannot possibly cost £700m. Its just not plausible. £700m has got to be the cost of the construction of a branch new bypass line.