Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Harpers Tate]

It's not like the intention of the Okehampton suggestion is to permanently replace the Dawlish route. If it were then one might see why such an argument against it would be valid. Sure - it's not perfect as a primary mainline. But that's not the suggestion being made here - not that I can see.

As it is, it's intended as two things:

1: (and in the context of this thread) as a diversonary route for use in those rare cases of need. That's all. Not a mainline. Not a replacement. Much like sending Newcastle <> Edinburgh trains via Carlisle when the mainline is shut. Takes longer but works as a stopgap. It doesn't NEED to be perfect in this context; it merely needs to work; to provide an alternative way (however awkward) of getting trains in and out of the penninsula.
2: as a route in its own right to serve the area in which it runs. There is the suggestion of some degree of "need" for this, however great (or small in fact).

It seems to me that it "kills two birds with one stone". It seems to me we don't really need a second primary mainline route or inland diversion and that constructing one, however short, would be overkill. The existing route is good for purpose for the vast majority of the time. So offering something far from perfect for use only in cases of need, which also serves its own purpose, is the most logical approach.

 

[47802]

It's not like the intention of the Okehampton suggestion is to permanently replace the Dawlish route. If it were then one might see why such an argument against it would be valid. Sure - it's not perfect as a primary mainline. But that's not the suggestion being made here - not that I can see.

As it is, it's intended as two things:

1: (and in the context of this thread) as a diversonary route for use in those rare cases of need. That's all. Not a mainline. Not a replacement. Much like sending Newcastle <> Edinburgh trains via Carlisle when the mainline is shut. Takes longer but works as a stopgap. It doesn't NEED to be perfect in this context; it merely needs to work; to provide an alternative way (however awkward) of getting trains in and out of the penninsula.
2: as a route in its own right to serve the area in which it runs. There is the suggestion of some degree of "need" for this, however great (or small in fact).

It seems to me that it "kills two birds with one stone". It seems to me we don't really need a second primary mainline route or inland diversion and that constructing one, however short, would be overkill. The existing route is good for purpose for the vast majority of the time. So offering something far from perfect for use only in cases of need, which also serves its own purpose, is the most logical approach.

And as I have said time and time again that's totally the wrong premise for the argument, you need to be looking at what's best for the mainline not whats best for such as Okehampton, if it justifies a train service then it should do so on its own merit, and as far the mainline goes if we are spending large sums of money then that should be on a permanent solution for the mainline whatever route that is, not on a diversion.

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't nessearly say its problematic however there will be a time penalty possibility of more congestion in such as Exeter station, and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the approach to Plymouth station from the west single track as well?

You also have the advantage that many trains which don't need to stop in the stations such a Reading, Birmingham etc. such as Freight, Charters, Holiday Expresses can take an avoiding line without the need to reverse.

I'm not aware of the approach being single - except for the bit over the Tamar bridge of course, but that is West of the Junction with the Okehampton route anyway.

Also for the vast majority of the time, most trains will not have to reverse at Exeter or Plymouth anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And as I have said time and time again that's totally the wrong premise for the argument, you need to be looking at what's best for the mainline not whats best for such as Okehampton, if it justifies a train service then it should do so on its own merit, and as far the mainline goes if we are spending large sums of money then that should be on a permanent solution for the mainline whatever route that is, not on a diversion.

I think that's completely wrong.

We should be looking at the most cost effective way of ensuring that the West Country is not cut-off for long periods of time. That clearly seems to be a combination of reopening a long secondary route that goes all the way to Plymouth, which is mostly built anyway and which will be available for diversions and maintaining the main line at Dawlish to a higher standard.

Plymouth might well want a faster main line, and there is nothing wrong with that aspiration, but it is completely wrong of them to try and hijack the discussion about the best way to keep the West Country connected.

Considerations about a faster main line, newer trains etc should not take precedence over the key aim of keeping the region connected.

 

[47802]

I'm not aware of the approach being single - except for the bit over the Tamar bridge of course, but that is West of the Junction with the Okehampton route anyway.

Also for the vast majority of the time, most trains will not have to reverse at Exeter or Plymouth anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think that's completely wrong.

We should be looking at the most cost effective way of ensuring that the West Country is not cut-off for long periods of time. That clearly seems to be a combination of reopening a long secondary route that goes all the way to Plymouth, which is mostly built anyway and which will be available for diversions and maintaining the main line at Dawlish to a higher standard.

Plymouth might well want a faster main line, and there is nothing wrong with that aspiration, but it is completely wrong of them to try and hijack the discussion about the best way to keep the West Country connected.

Considerations about a faster main line, newer trains etc should not take precedence over the key aim of keeping the region connected.

Ok I have looked on google maps and it isn't a single line approach into Plymouth Station from the west although I'm fairly sure it used to be.

I also think your argument is wrong, yes it should be about the best way to keep the region connected, but if we are spending large sums of money then it should be on a perm solution for the mainline, that addresses the issues of Dawlish.

As for a faster mainline not taking precedence no I agree the priority to should be to fix the Dawlish issue (not the Okehampton issue) however if there is an opportunity to improve the journey time then all well and good.

As for the most cost effective solution, I suspect that will be to spend a bit of money on improving sea defences and the sea wall at Dawlish which will probably get spent anyway, and bring the buses out when its shut.

 

[The Ham]

And as I have said time and time again that's totally the wrong premise for the argument, you need to be looking at what's best for the mainline not whats best for such as Okehampton, if it justifies a train service then it should do so on its own merit, and as far the mainline goes if we are spending large sums of money then that should be on a permanent solution for the mainline whatever route that is, not on a diversion.

... and as I've said before is the DAL what is best of the Mainline? Would it not be better to build a fast route from Exeter more directly to Plymouth with a spur to Torbay as that would cut many more minutes off the journey time than the DAL. Yes it would cost more, but then the journey time savings could a significantly more than the DAL.

However such a scheme would probably not be justifiable because of the numbers of passengers at present, whilst if we waited for 30-40 years for passenger numbers to grow there maybe enough justification (especially with the possibility of faster traction in the future, however the longer it take the more justification there could be) to build a 140-200mph railway rather than building a short length of 100-120mph railway today which links to a 60mph railway at each end.

In the meantime spend the same amount of money as you would on reopening the route through Okehampton as a single track railway plus some of the cost of the DAL (which is how much?) to improve it with more double track and faster line speeds (even maybe a chord so one or two expresses a day could miss out Exeter) and you could still see journey time savings comparable to the DAL (if not better, as I've explained before London to Plymouth could be cut to about 2.5 hours, whilst the DAL could only just get it a little below 3 hours) and better rail connections for north Devon.

 

[47802]

... and as I've said before is the DAL what is best of the Mainline? Would it not be better to build a fast route from Exeter more directly to Plymouth with a spur to Torbay as that would cut many more minutes off the journey time than the DAL. Yes it would cost more, but then the journey time savings could a significantly more than the DAL.

However such a scheme would probably not be justifiable because of the numbers of passengers at present, whilst if we waited for 30-40 years for passenger numbers to grow there maybe enough justification (especially with the possibility of faster traction in the future, however the longer it take the more justification there could be) to build a 140-200mph railway rather than building a short length of 100-120mph railway today which links to a 60mph railway at each end.

In the meantime spend the same amount of money as you would on reopening the route through Okehampton as a single track railway plus some of the cost of the DAL (which is how much?) to improve it with more double track and faster line speeds (even maybe a chord so one or two expresses a day could miss out Exeter) and you could still see journey time savings comparable to the DAL (if not better, as I've explained before London to Plymouth could be cut to about 2.5 hours, whilst the DAL could only just get it a little below 3 hours) and better rail connections for north Devon.

I agree the best solution would be a new fast line from Exeter to Plymouth with a spur to Newton Abbot with significant journey time reduction, I suspect that it could also built to HS2 loading gauge for little extra cost so that potentially it could be used by HS2 type trains at some future date.

However that would be expensive and it not even being considered by Network Rail as far as we know.

I'm not totally against the idea of Okehampton being the main route if it was the best overall option for the mainline, however that clearly wouldn't be popular with Torbay and misses out a significant population area of Devon, and the journey time on that route would need to be at least at fast as the current Exeter to Plymouth route including reversal at Exeter. I also think that making the Okehampton route a fast route with the reduction in Journey time you are suggesting could be more expensive than a DAL.

 

[The Ham]

I agree the best solution would be a new fast line from Exeter to Plymouth with a spur to Newton Abbot with significant journey time reduction, I suspect that it could also built to HS2 loading gauge for little extra cost so that potentially it could be used by HS2 type trains at some future date.

However that would be expensive and it not even being considered by Network Rail as far as we know.

I'm not totally against the idea of Okehampton being the main route if it was the best overall option for the mainline, however that clearly wouldn't be popular with Torbay and misses out a significant population area of Devon, and the journey time on that route would need to be at least at fast as the current Exeter to Plymouth route including reversal at Exeter. I also think that making the Okehampton route a fast route with the reduction in Journey time you are suggesting could be more expensive than a DAL.

The one possible advantage for diverting the majority of services via Okehampton for the residents of South Devon is that it could mean that they see more dedicated services to ensure that there is still a reasonable service all day, as such Torbay could see several direct services to London a day compared with the one at present. It would also mean that they would be much more likely to be able to have a seat on the new service as it wouldn't be full of people from Cornwall/Plymouth.

Such a service could run London to Toraby (with whatever calling pattern is required between the two), then back to Newton Abbot (reverse) and on to Plymouth, with the journey the other way following the reverse pattern. In doing so there is then no need to change at Newton Abbot to get to Plymouth and even for people travelling to Plymouth from east of Newton Abbot it could be attractive depending on how long they would otherwise have to wait for a train.

I would expect that XC could be keen to carry on using the existing route as they often stop at some of the less major stations as it is.

 

[po8crg]

In terms of time savings on the mainline, investments East of Exeter benefit more people than ones West of Exeter, so it only makes sense to spend money between Plymouth and Exeter at all if Exeter-London is more expensive to improve, or in relation to the regional traffic between the two Devon cities.

There's plenty of scope for improvements East of Exeter for about the same cost per minute as anything West of Exeter. If Exeter-London was electrified, operated with ERTMS-2 in-cab signalling, and had track-upgrades and straightening to run at 140mph all the way, then, of course the Plymouth-Exeter section would be a priority for improvement - the only option to improve Exeter then would be HS3. But it's nothing like that good a service, so you can gain time much more effectively in Dorset, Somerset, etc than in Devon.

My view is that Okehampton-Tavistock has to stand or fall on its own merits; if it's rebuilt as single-track without many additional passing loops and with basic signalling, then it should be a relatively cheap connection for a bunch of places in North Devon, and a useful route to provide a nominal service to Plymouth and Cornwall when there are problems at Dawlish. Whether that justifies the cost is a matter for a proper BCR. A full mainline rebuild doesn't make sense, because (a) none of the intermediate stations have demand to justify a mainline service, (b) it's not the best route for an Exeter-Plymouth mainline, and (c) the upgrades needed on the existing track would mean that a mainline on this route would cost nearly as much as an entirely new line.

I think that - regardless of Dawlish - there is a very good case for a major investment in rail to the SW, which would include a proper mainline to Exeter, and a new Exeter-Plymouth route.

There's no reason that Plymouth-London couldn't come down to two hours - it's only just over 200 miles; 125mph would be enough with minimal stops, or the ICP's 140mph would be perfect.

I'd be seriously tempted to bypass both Totnes and Newton Abbot, taking a route similar to the A38, and retain Plymouth-Totnes-Newton Abbot-Dawlish-Exeter local trains. The mainline and the locals probably share track as far as South Brent, though not necessarily the exact current route. You could convert the freight line to Heathfield to passenger service to allow trains to run from Totnes, Newton Abbot and the Torquay branch onto the new mainline in the event of a Dawlish closure without having to back up all the way to South Brent, which also means no need to build a chord there.

 

[The Ham]

In terms of time savings on the mainline, investments East of Exeter benefit more people than ones West of Exeter, so it only makes sense to spend money between Plymouth and Exeter at all if Exeter-London is more expensive to improve, or in relation to the regional traffic between the two Devon cities.

There's plenty of scope for improvements East of Exeter for about the same cost per minute as anything West of Exeter. If Exeter-London was electrified, operated with ERTMS-2 in-cab signalling, and had track-upgrades and straightening to run at 140mph all the way, then, of course the Plymouth-Exeter section would be a priority for improvement - the only option to improve Exeter then would be HS3. But it's nothing like that good a service, so you can gain time much more effectively in Dorset, Somerset, etc than in Devon.

My view is that Okehampton-Tavistock has to stand or fall on its own merits; if it's rebuilt as single-track without many additional passing loops and with basic signalling, then it should be a relatively cheap connection for a bunch of places in North Devon, and a useful route to provide a nominal service to Plymouth and Cornwall when there are problems at Dawlish. Whether that justifies the cost is a matter for a proper BCR. A full mainline rebuild doesn't make sense, because (a) none of the intermediate stations have demand to justify a mainline service, (b) it's not the best route for an Exeter-Plymouth mainline, and (c) the upgrades needed on the existing track would mean that a mainline on this route would cost nearly as much as an entirely new line.

I think that - regardless of Dawlish - there is a very good case for a major investment in rail to the SW, which would include a proper mainline to Exeter, and a new Exeter-Plymouth route.

There's no reason that Plymouth-London couldn't come down to two hours - it's only just over 200 miles; 125mph would be enough with minimal stops, or the ICP's 140mph would be perfect.

I'd be seriously tempted to bypass both Totnes and Newton Abbot, taking a route similar to the A38, and retain Plymouth-Totnes-Newton Abbot-Dawlish-Exeter local trains. The mainline and the locals probably share track as far as South Brent, though not necessarily the exact current route. You could convert the freight line to Heathfield to passenger service to allow trains to run from Totnes, Newton Abbot and the Torquay branch onto the new mainline in the event of a Dawlish closure without having to back up all the way to South Brent, which also means no need to build a chord there.

The problem with speeding up an already fairly fast route is that you see diminishing returns. As every time you double the speed you halve the journey time, which makes a bigger difference the smaller the starting speed.

Double from 30mph to 60mph on a 60 mile length and it reduces the time from two hours to one hour. Double from 60mph to 120mph and it reduces the time from 1 hour to half an hour.

Increase from an average line speed of 100mph to 150mph on a 140 mile length (i.e. Reading to Exeter) and it cuts it from 84 minutes to 56 minutes (or a reduction of 28 minutes), whilst to achieve the same on a 60 mile length (i.e. Exeter to Plymouth) the average line speed needs rise from 60mph to about 120mph.

Given those are average speeds depending on how many stations the train stops at, stations and level crossings it passes through, junctions it crosses and any other reason that the train may need to slow from the maximum line speed will depend on how fast the maximum line speed would need to be. In which case to achieve an average speed of 150mph the line speed may need to be 200mph.

Yes if there are more people who benefit then that adds another level of complexity to it, but given most services to Exeter also run to Plymouth I would suggest that it probably wouldn't make a very big difference.

If the DAL cuts 10 minutes of the journey time, to have that saving via Okehampton would mean an average journey speed of 75mph, whilst to save 10 minutes between Exeter and Reading would mean rising from 100mph to 115mph. Even with 140mph rolling stock that would mean a LOT of work to achieve enough sections of higher speed to offset the lower speed sections left. Yes electrification and automatic doors would save some time, but then the more stops there are (i.e. west of Exeter rather than between London and Exeter) the more time that saves.

 

[yorksrob]

if it's rebuilt as single-track without many additional passing loops and with basic signalling, then it should be a relatively cheap connection for a bunch of places in North Devon, and a useful route to provide a nominal service to Plymouth and Cornwall when there are problems at Dawlish. Whether that justifies the cost is a matter for a proper BCR.

I'm inclined to agree with this viewpoint, however, IMO the BCR must

• give a full acount of the increased economic and educational opportunities for communities along the route and

• take full account of the diversionary benefits of not having Cornwall and the West Country. The work done by Plymouth Chamber of Commerce around loses from the recent route closure should inform this*

*And takes into account that of all avoiding options, this one is the most likely to ensure that the West Country is not cut off by rail for long periods of time in as wide a range of adverse circumstances as possible.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced the current methodology is up to the job on the first point, and we know it's not for the second.

 

[MarkyT]

I'd be seriously tempted to bypass both Totnes and Newton Abbot, taking a route similar to the A38, and retain Plymouth-Totnes-Newton Abbot-Dawlish-Exeter local trains. The mainline and the locals probably share track as far as South Brent, though not necessarily the exact current route. You could convert the freight line to Heathfield to passenger service to allow trains to run from Totnes, Newton Abbot and the Torquay branch onto the new mainline in the event of a Dawlish closure without having to back up all the way to South Brent, which also means no need to build a chord there.

In which case my Exeter - Chudleigh - Newton Abbot idea could be seen as the first phase of that more ambitious project. With the full scheme, Totnes and Newton abbot could lose their some of their range of destinations and frequency although demand increase might justify an extra tier of express high speed service to use the new line with fewer stops.

 

[po8crg]

*And takes into account that of all avoiding options, this one is the most likely to ensure that the West Country is not cut off by rail for long periods of time in as wide a range of adverse circumstances as possible.

True, but is also likely to be a relatively slow, relatively low-capacity alternative - albeit also relatively cheap.

 

[jmc100]

I'm not totally against the idea of Okehampton being the main route if it was the best overall option for the mainline, however that clearly wouldn't be popular with Torbay and misses out a significant population area of Devon, and the journey time on that route would need to be at least at fast as the current Exeter to Plymouth route including reversal at Exeter. I also think that making the Okehampton route a fast route with the reduction in Journey time you are suggesting could be more expensive than a DAL.

I think you are forgetting why we are discussing an alternative route. Whilst the main line through Dawlish will be up and running soon, the problem still remains as to what will happen to rail continuity if there are severe storms with wash-over or a couple of violent storms in the future like we witnessed in the early part of this year? Will the Dawlish sea wall hold up against the forces of nature?

I somehow think you are a Torbay fan and if anything you would prefer to see any project monies spent on a direct connection between Exeter and Newton Abbot. There's nothing wrong with thinking this way, the only problem is that it will take years to come to fruition, but unfortunately the elements are beginning to dictate whether or not service continuity can be maintained along the sea wall route. Much better to re-instate an old route that is practically intact so that a reasonable through service can be maintained as well as providing new local services. Just think of the possibilities for North and Central Devon as well as North Cornwall. I think there may be be many families that would like to make a trip to Torbay area without having to drive miles at their destination in order to find a space
to park the car.

 

[yorksrob]

True, but is also likely to be a relatively slow, relatively low-capacity alternative - albeit also relatively cheap.

There's always a balance to be struck between a gold plated railway that can exactly mimic the main line at any time and a single track with no flexibility whatsoever.

I still feel that with the right number of loops of the right length, you could still build in a reasonable amount of spare capacity, albeit maybe slower than the main line. However, the West Country wouldn't be cut off.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think you are forgetting why we are discussing an alternative route. Whilst the main line through Dawlish will be up and running soon, the problem still remains as to what will happen to rail continuity if there are severe storms with wash-over or a couple of violent storms in the future like we witnessed in the early part of this year? Will the Dawlish sea wall hold up against the forces of nature?

I somehow think you are a Torbay fan and if anything you would prefer to see any project monies spent on a direct connection between Exeter and Newton Abbot. There's nothing wrong with thinking this way, the only problem is that it will take years to come to fruition, but unfortunately the elements are beginning to dictate whether or not service continuity can be maintained along the sea wall route. Much better to re-instate an old route that is practically intact so that a reasonable through service can be maintained as well as providing new local services. Just think of the possibilities for North and Central Devon as well as North Cornwall. I think there may be be many families that would like to make a trip to Torbay area without having to drive miles at their destination in order to find a space
to park the car.

The service part of the Dawlish problem is that not only do cliff falls on to the railway seem to becoming increasingly frequent but also that during storms lots of debris gets thrown up on to the track which means services either get cancelled or run very slowly. This is perhaps passably acceptable on local services but on a mainline to an important city is disastrously unreliable. So Okehampton would provide resilience at least, and if intelligently rebuilt might even provide better journey times.

 

[Western Lord]

I have been reading the posts on this thread almost since the start and with varying degrees of bemusement and amusement. So having recently joined the forum, here is my thruppence (thats a pound from 2017) worth.

What a load of pie in the sky fantasies from so many posters. The truth is that the existing line will be reinstated behind a rebuilt and stronger sea wall, services will resume and everybody will forget about diversionary routes. There may be a report in a few months time (buried on a busy news day) that states that the cost of an alternative route is prohibitive.

Some of the ideas on here are beyond belief, like reopening the Southern route and building a curve to avoid Exeter. No train to the south west can afford to avoid Exeter, if it were otherwise there would be trains passing Exeter non stop now (it's a very long time since The Cornish Riviera Express ran non stop from Paddington to Plymouth). Talk of Dawlish avoiding lines engineered for 140mph is ludicrous. The idea that Exeter to Newton Abbot can support two separate lines is absurd. The cost of maintaining the Dawlish route makes this stretch one of the most uneconomic lines in the country, it would have no chance if you took more than half the trains from it.

Much nonsense is spoken of the importance of Torbay due to it's large population. Well at present it is important enough for three trains a day from London (one via Bristol). There is virtually no business traffic to and from Torbay and that is what drives service provision on inter city routes. There is simply not enough demand for a high speed line to the south west. You would need to fill four trains an hour to even begin making a financial case. Currently Plymouth warrants an hourly service with many intermediate stops.

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have been reading the posts on this thread almost since the start and with varying degrees of bemusement and amusement. So having recently joined the forum, here is my thruppence (thats a pound from 2017) worth.

What a load of pie in the sky fantasies from so many posters. The truth is that the existing line will be reinstated behind a rebuilt and stronger sea wall, services will resume and everybody will forget about diversionary routes. There may be a report in a few months time (buried on a busy news day) that states that the cost of an alternative route is prohibitive.

Some of the ideas on here are beyond belief, like reopening the Southern route and building a curve to avoid Exeter. No train to the south west can afford to avoid Exeter, if it were otherwise there would be trains passing Exeter non stop now (it's a very long time since The Cornish Riviera Express ran non stop from Paddington to Plymouth). Talk of Dawlish avoiding lines engineered for 140mph is ludicrous. The idea that Exeter to Newton Abbot can support two separate lines is absurd. The cost of maintaining the Dawlish route makes this stretch one of the most uneconomic lines in the country, it would have no chance if you took more than half the trains from it.

Much nonsense is spoken of the importance of Torbay due to it's large population. Well at present it is important enough for three trains a day from London (one via Bristol). There is virtually no business traffic to and from Torbay and that is what drives service provision on inter city routes. There is simply not enough demand for a high speed line to the south west. You would need to fill four trains an hour to even begin making a financial case. Currently Plymouth warrants an hourly service with many intermediate stops.

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

I think you may be confusing realism with pessimism, if I'm honest...

 

[Rapidash]

I'd just like to point out that for most people travelling from Torbay, London is an irrelevance, as the traffic is all Exeter bound.

It would be wonderful if the 'High Speed' services would use an alternate line, as they cause the metro services significant delays as it is. Its utterly tedious waiting at Newton Abbot and the Warren for 10 minutes each for a HST to go through that is usually running late.

More people would use the line if the stock used wasn't so old, or so crowded. Never try and get a service from EXC between 1600 and 1800, as you aint gonna get a seat. I know its irrelevant to this particular thread, but its a significant factor in more people using the the route.

 

[47802]

I have been reading the posts on this thread almost since the start and with varying degrees of bemusement and amusement. So having recently joined the forum, here is my thruppence (thats a pound from 2017) worth.

What a load of pie in the sky fantasies from so many posters. The truth is that the existing line will be reinstated behind a rebuilt and stronger sea wall, services will resume and everybody will forget about diversionary routes. There may be a report in a few months time (buried on a busy news day) that states that the cost of an alternative route is prohibitive.

Some of the ideas on here are beyond belief, like reopening the Southern route and building a curve to avoid Exeter. No train to the south west can afford to avoid Exeter, if it were otherwise there would be trains passing Exeter non stop now (it's a very long time since The Cornish Riviera Express ran non stop from Paddington to Plymouth). Talk of Dawlish avoiding lines engineered for 140mph is ludicrous. The idea that Exeter to Newton Abbot can support two separate lines is absurd. The cost of maintaining the Dawlish route makes this stretch one of the most uneconomic lines in the country, it would have no chance if you took more than half the trains from it.

Much nonsense is spoken of the importance of Torbay due to it's large population. Well at present it is important enough for three trains a day from London (one via Bristol). There is virtually no business traffic to and from Torbay and that is what drives service provision on inter city routes. There is simply not enough demand for a high speed line to the south west. You would need to fill four trains an hour to even begin making a financial case. Currently Plymouth warrants an hourly service with many intermediate stops.

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

I wouldn't entirely agree with your comments, firstly Torbay in the grand scheme of things, no the population isn't massive but its quite significant in terms of the population of Devon, and it also generate a fair amount of Rail borne holiday traffic unless those summer holiday trains are just an illusion.

Plymouth may have only an hourly service to London but it generally has at least 2 fast trains per hour between Plymouth and Exeter with XC services.

I agree the likely outcome is that no alternate route will be built and in pure financial terms none of the options will generate a good case.

However if the government were to offer a one off sum on a mainly political basis which I think is the only way it will happen then it should be for a replacement of the main line rather than a diversion ideally, but of course that would be dependent on how much is offered and how much each route costs.

 

[yorksrob]

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

Which presumably translates as doing nothing at all.

We hear a lot about Meldon viaduct, but the reality is that a lot has happenned to it since the main line trains left, and as far as I‘m aware, no one has conducted a conclusive study of what work needs to be done to support regular trains, let alone one that has concluded that it needs to be replaced.

The situation of the past few weeks has highlighted major strategic problems with the "network" in the South West, and I hope it starts a concerted campaign to get things improved.

 

[LateThanNever]

I have been reading the posts on this thread almost since the start and with varying degrees of bemusement and amusement. So having recently joined the forum, here is my thruppence (thats a pound from 2017) worth.

What a load of pie in the sky fantasies from so many posters. The truth is that the existing line will be reinstated behind a rebuilt and stronger sea wall, services will resume and everybody will forget about diversionary routes. There may be a report in a few months time (buried on a busy news day) that states that the cost of an alternative route is prohibitive.

Some of the ideas on here are beyond belief, like reopening the Southern route and building a curve to avoid Exeter. No train to the south west can afford to avoid Exeter, if it were otherwise there would be trains passing Exeter non stop now (it's a very long time since The Cornish Riviera Express ran non stop from Paddington to Plymouth).

I suggest their wouldn't be because the time saved would now be negligible. With splitting trains at Taunton/Tiverton Plymouth should be faster!

Talk of Dawlish avoiding lines engineered for 140mph is ludicrous. The idea that Exeter to Newton Abbot can support two separate lines is absurd.

Why?

The cost of maintaining the Dawlish route makes this stretch one of the most uneconomic lines in the country, it would have no chance if you took more than half the trains from it.

The railway is the sea defence for Dawlish so taking away some or indeed all of the services that run on it doesn't destroy the need to maintain it!

Much nonsense is spoken of the importance of Torbay due to it's large population. Well at present it is important enough for three trains a day from London (one via Bristol). There is virtually no business traffic to and from Torbay and that is what drives service provision on inter city routes. There is simply not enough demand for a high speed line to the south west. You would need to fill four trains an hour to even begin making a financial case. Currently Plymouth warrants an hourly service with many intermediate stops.

The high speed bit would undoubtedly need to be from the east towards the west. It has cropped up because if you're building new railway speed needs to be maximised.

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

It has already engaged the interest of politicians and their interest needs to be maintained by their electorates. The financial loss is nebulous and difficult but there is proven damage to inward investment. And of course the remaining goods traffic has been obliged to go via road - as have many railway carriages and power cars!

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

All of which do not discount the Okehampton route.

 

[simon.exd]

I have been reading the posts on this thread almost since the start and with varying degrees of bemusement and amusement. So having recently joined the forum, here is my thruppence (thats a pound from 2017) worth.

What a load of pie in the sky fantasies from so many posters. The truth is that the existing line will be reinstated behind a rebuilt and stronger sea wall, services will resume and everybody will forget about diversionary routes. There may be a report in a few months time (buried on a busy news day) that states that the cost of an alternative route is prohibitive.

Some of the ideas on here are beyond belief, like reopening the Southern route and building a curve to avoid Exeter. No train to the south west can afford to avoid Exeter, if it were otherwise there would be trains passing Exeter non stop now (it's a very long time since The Cornish Riviera Express ran non stop from Paddington to Plymouth). Talk of Dawlish avoiding lines engineered for 140mph is ludicrous. The idea that Exeter to Newton Abbot can support two separate lines is absurd. The cost of maintaining the Dawlish route makes this stretch one of the most uneconomic lines in the country, it would have no chance if you took more than half the trains from it.

Much nonsense is spoken of the importance of Torbay due to it's large population. Well at present it is important enough for three trains a day from London (one via Bristol). There is virtually no business traffic to and from Torbay and that is what drives service provision on inter city routes. There is simply not enough demand for a high speed line to the south west. You would need to fill four trains an hour to even begin making a financial case. Currently Plymouth warrants an hourly service with many intermediate stops.

The question of provision of a diversionary route is unlikely to engage the interest of politicians beyond the immediate aftermath of the storms. If it did, the reopening of the Southern route would be the only game in town, but would be ruled out by the cost of rebuilding Meldon viaduct and the breach of the trackbed at Tavistock. I simply do not believe the figures being bandied around regarding how much the financial loss to Devon and Cornwall is as a result of the suspension of through rail services. The fact is that most passenger traffic and all goods traffic goes by road.

As reopening of the Dawlish route approaches it is time everybody took a reality check and realised what is actually affordable, achievable and necessary in the real world.

what a legend.. well said..

The only bit of that i would question is the true cost to our region.. you have to remember its not just about ticket sales.. the knock on for local business is huge.. and hard to put into a true figure... you have to take into account everything from the lost ticket sales right down to the newstand at the station not selling newspapers, and then take into account the effect that has on the company that delivers the newspapers to the newstand, then the effect that has on the newspaper company etc etc etc.. the financial links to the railway line are endless, and the more that is linked, the more the true cost to this region spirals..

 

[yorksrob]

The only bit of that i would question is the true cost to our region.. you have to remember its not just about ticket sales.. the knock on for local business is huge.. and hard to put into a true figure... you have to take into account everything from the lost ticket sales right down to the newstand at the station not selling newspapers, and then take into account the effect that has on the company that delivers the newspapers to the newstand, then the effect that has on the newspaper company etc etc etc.. the financial links to the railway line are endless, and the more that is linked, the more the true cost to this region spirals..

And yet, our calculations are seemingly incapable of factoring such benefits into the business case for reinstated routes to towns not already on the network.

 

[tbtc]

What are we trying to solve here?

As ever, it depends on how you ask the original question. If the question is “how do you deal with the problems at Dawlish, so that you resolve this weakspot” then the answer(s) seem to be:

• Spend money on repairing the existing line (with a thicker/ longer/ higher wall)
• Build a breakwater to lessen the waves
• Build a diversion that avoids the weakest part of the line (in which case you might as well build a faster one, directly inland)

...that’s what the thread was started up to “solve”, that’s the solution(s) that seem to solve that problem to me (you probably couldn’t justify all three of these bullet points, of course).

Just like the problems at Selby a generation ago (a slow bit of main line caused by a large “kink”, a section of unstable track – although in Selby’s case it was caused by mining underneath) – you build a faster alternative that avoids the problem spot. We didn’t “solve” the Selby issue by reinstating some long scrapped railway several miles away (cue posts arguing for the re-opening of the Hull/Beverley - York line...)!

If, however, you want to move the goalposts and introduce lots of other issues (like “the increased educational opportunities for communities along the route”) then that’s another story. But you're finding "problems" to fit the "solution" that you are going to argue for regardless.

Those in favour of a line via Okehampton were saying that this second route was needed to increase “resilience” and complaining about the number of times that the sea wall has been breached at Dawlish. Well, if this section of line is such a problem then a direct route from Exeter to Newton Abbott would avoid all of that, with the bonus that it’d provide a faster service for InterCity trains – a year round benefit. Year round benefits clearly being better than the option for a rare diversion.

I appreciate that a “DAL” does nothing to help people in Okehampton (one of the criticisms), but the original question was nothing to do with Okehampton.

Now, if the Okehampton supporters say that (despite a “DAL” solving the particular Dawlish problem) we can’t have only one line from Exeter to Penzance (due to other general disruptions) then I’d ask why their Okehampton route would mean that Plymouth – Penzance have still have only one route?

Surely, if it’s so imperative that Cornwall has a “resilient” diversionary line then why would 99% of Cornwall’s passengers still be reliant upon a single track bridge over the Tamar? Should we insist on a chord from Bere Alston to Saltash in case Plymouth Station is closed?

Where do you draw the line at “resilience”? It seems to be an excuse to provide duplicate lines wherever you want (but without the need to provide duplicate lines elsewhere) – a means of justifying the end that you want.

And the great thing about “resilience” is that its handily unquantifiable (like “regeneration”) – it sounds A Good Thing but not something that you can trade off against quantifiable improvements (like raising passenger numbers, better reliability, speed increases).

Yes, there are parallel lines in many parts of the UK, but that doesn’t mean that they could accommodate all of the services from a closed line (e.g. good luck running all Glasgow – Carlisle services via Kilmarnock, if the Lockerbie line is blocked).

An Okehampton route would do nothing for Torbay – where the people are more reliant upon a direct service to Exeter every day than the people of Cornwall are. So do the Okehampton faction want to spend money on a more “resilient” line from Newton Abbott to Exeter (to maintain a year round Torbay service) or do they abandon Torbay when the Dawlish line is closed?

Because, if we are spending money to secure the wall at Dawlish so that its good enough for Torbay services then surely that solves the problem for Penzance services? If we build an avoiding line for Torbay services then that functions as an avoiding line for Penzance services. What’s good enough for the goose...

So, in light of the above, whilst I can see justification for a single track Bere Alston – Tavistock branch (and a lower justification for daily trains from Exeter to Okehampton), the merits of any Tavistock/Okehampton reopening are nothing to do with Dawlish. They stand/fall of their own merits.

People have tried to cloud the issue, but none of the other details (average infrastructure spend per head of population in south west England, the size of the HS2 budget, party politics, some post-flooding bribe from Westminster, cups of tea in Tavistock) affect what the problem is and what the solution is.

 

[simon.exd]

And yet, our calculations are seemingly incapable of factoring such benefits into the business case for reinstated routes to towns not already on the network.

Very true..

 

[The Ham]

What are we trying to solve here?

As ever, it depends on how you ask the original question. If the question is “how do you deal with the problems at Dawlish, so that you resolve this weakspot” then the answer(s) seem to be:

• Spend money on repairing the existing line (with a thicker/ longer/ higher wall)
• Build a breakwater to lessen the waves
• Build a diversion that avoids the weakest part of the line (in which case you might as well build a faster one, directly inland)

Under point 3 it doesn't matter where you build the line inland if you can build it so that it is faster (if you are wanting a faster journey time, as that is a known advantage).

As I've said before the DAL, even if it takes the shortest fastest route, is only likely to save up to 10 minutes. Therefore any other alternative route, even if it wanders around the countryside a bit, manages to match or even beat that time saving then the benefits will be the same or more.

If however it provides other benefits (such as more places connected to the rail network, any additional journey time saving, etc.) then as long as the benefits in money terms is greater than the extra cost then that would then become the more favourable option.

Which ever option is chosen (and others have said there is a risk that no new track is built) then there will be advantages and disadvantages.

However as I have also said before, if the mainline is diverted away from Torbay then there could be a good case for more direct services to places beyond Devon. Which although may mean that when Dawlish is closed that they have to rely on buses (maybe up to 8 days a year, formed of a mixture of storms, rockfalls, engineering works, etc.), they feel that the rest of the time (300+ days more a year, depending on if Sundays see much of an improvement) they end up with a better rail service maybe seen as an advantage overall.

This is likely to be especially true if to have an alternative so that they do not have to rely on buses could mean that they have to rely on buses for (say) 16 days whilst it is built.

The other advantage is that there would be a lot less people wanting to use a rail replacement bus, which could cause reduce the delays and congestion. Imagine you want to get a bus home from Exeter and just as you get to the station you see 400 people who have just got off an HST crowding around 5 buses (which maybe able to seat 70 people each), that is still 50 people (assuming every seat is occupied) waiting for the next bus, which maybe half an hour away by which time a whole load more people for the next local train have turned up.

The fact that the route through Okehampton provides advantages beyond the base requirement does not lessen the benefits which it provides. They may not be the key benefits, but they are benefits which are looked at when making the choice as to which option is progressed.

With regards to resilience to services beyond Plymouth, that is another matter. However briefly:
- the numbers of passengers are less
- the route is less prone to blockages
- any alternative would cost a lot and provide very little in the way of advantages

Yes, at some point extra capacity into Cornwall would be an advantage. However it is likely to be some way off.

Although parallel lines may not be able to cope with all the traffic from a close line (even the ECML wouldn't be able to cope with all the traffic if the WCML were to close for a prolonged period of time), they can cope with some of the traffic.

That traffic which it does need to cope with does not need to be all of it. As some people will divert away further away (i.e. London to Glasgow, chances are you'd go up the ECML rather than up the WCML to the blockage and then trundle around on local lines to get past it). Some more people will opt to travel on another day (I won't see my Aunt this weekend when there's engineering works, I'll go next weekend when there isn't). Leaving potentially a fraction of the services which would otherwise need to pass that way.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

What are we trying to solve here?
Surely, if it’s so imperative that Cornwall has a “resilient” diversionary line then why would 99% of Cornwall’s passengers still be reliant upon a single track bridge over the Tamar? Should we insist on a chord from Bere Alston to Saltash in case Plymouth Station is closed?

There is no indication that there is a problem with the Royal Albert Bridge.
(There has been talk of a new bridge in the past, but not on the cards at the moment)

Dawlish, with the sea, Devonian cliffs, and tunnels is a known problem.

 

[yorksrob]

Just like the problems at Selby a generation ago (a slow bit of main line caused by a large “kink”, a section of unstable track – although in Selby’s case it was caused by mining underneath) – you build a faster alternative that avoids the problem spot. We didn’t “solve” the Selby issue by reinstating some long scrapped railway several miles away (cue posts arguing for the re-opening of the Hull/Beverley - York line...)!

An intriguing comparison.

But sadly, one that doesn't bear any scrutiny.

• Mining had the potential to permanently undermine the York - Selby route. In those circumstances, diverting the main line was the only sensible option. Problems at Dawlish are periodical, but only temporary. Unlike York - Selby, there's no prospect of the Dawlish line being closed so no need for a permanent diversion.

• Also, even if there were a disruption Between York and Donny, there are lots of diversionary routes then and now. No prospect of millions of people being cut off from the network, unlike what is happening now at Dawlish

Bit of a silly point about reopening the York - Hull - Beverley line. It doesn't even run in the right direction, but those of us who would like to see it reopened do so because of its value as a regional link.

If, however, you want to move the goalposts and introduce lots of other issues (like “the increased educational opportunities for communities along the route”) then that’s another story. But you're finding "problems" to fit the "solution" that you are going to argue for regardless.

We've seen plenty of that in spades.

Here's me thinking the main point is about keeping the West Country connected to the network, yet this aim seems to have been confused with everything else.

Trains aren't fast enough (what's that got to do with keeping Cornwall connected?), trains are forty years old (everyone has forty year old trains at some time - usually around forty years after the last time they had forty year old trains. Completely irrelevant to the subject in hand).

Those in favour of a line via Okehampton were saying that this second route was needed to increase “resilience” and complaining about the number of times that the sea wall has been breached at Dawlish. Well, if this section of line is such a problem then a direct route from Exeter to Newton Abbott would avoid all of that, with the bonus that it’d provide a faster service for InterCity trains – a year round benefit. Year round benefits clearly being better than the option for a rare diversion.

I appreciate that a “DAL” does nothing to help people in Okehampton (one of the criticisms), but the original question was nothing to do with Okehampton.

Now, if the Okehampton supporters say that (despite a “DAL” solving the particular Dawlish problem) we can’t have only one line from Exeter to Penzance (due to other general disruptions) then I’d ask why their Okehampton route would mean that Plymouth – Penzance have still have only one route?

Surely, if it’s so imperative that Cornwall has a “resilient” diversionary line then why would 99% of Cornwall’s passengers still be reliant upon a single track bridge over the Tamar? Should we insist on a chord from Bere Alston to Saltash in case Plymouth Station is closed?

Where do you draw the line at “resilience”? It seems to be an excuse to provide duplicate lines wherever you want (but without the need to provide duplicate lines elsewhere) – a means of justifying the end that you want.

Well it comes down to cost and benefit. There isn't a ready built route duplicating the mainline west of Tamar and fewer people would be served. We have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like to be (trying to take a leaf out of your book and stifle any innate romanticism about reopening that I might be accused of ). There is a handy, (mainly) ready built route between Exeter and Plymouth and a large population to the west of it.

And the great thing about “resilience” is that its handily unquantifiable (like “regeneration”) – it sounds A Good Thing but not something that you can trade off against quantifiable improvements (like raising passenger numbers, better reliability, speed increases).

Well, you say that, but Plymouth Chamber of Commerce have had a go. People are putting figures to the longer closure.

Frankly, I find the idea that a catastrophic upheaval such as a long term closure will cause considerable losses rather more credible than the claim that shaving the time of an on-train toilet break off of everyone's journey to Paddington will somehow accrue millions of pounds of valuable economic activity. Yet some on here seem to hold that theory as a gospel.

Yes, there are parallel lines in many parts of the UK, but that doesn’t mean that they could accommodate all of the services from a closed line (e.g. good luck running all Glasgow – Carlisle services via Kilmarnock, if the Lockerbie line is blocked).

Well, if Paddington to Exeter is disrupted, you probably won't divert every train over the Yeovil route. You will some, but don't forget, Waterloo to Exeter trains will also have spare capacity to get people to Exeter. Net result, trains are a bit busier. Some may take a bit longer, but nothing cut off - let alone for months on end.

People have tried to cloud the issue, but none of the other details (average infrastructure spend per head of population in south west England, the size of the HS2 budget, party politics, some post-flooding bribe from Westminster, cups of tea in Tavistock) affect what the problem is and what the solution is.

The speed faction have tried very hard to cloud the issue. But the issue is still resolutely how to ensure the West Country remains connected to the rest of the network in as many circumstances for as reasonable a price as possible.

 

[LateThanNever]

An intriguing comparison.

But sadly, one that doesn't bear any scrutiny.

• Mining had the potential to permanently undermine the York - Selby route. In those circumstances, diverting the main line was the only sensible option. Problems at Dawlish are periodical, but only temporary. Unlike York - Selby, there's no prospect of the Dawlish line being closed so no need for a permanent diversion.

• Also, even if there were a disruption Between York and Donny, there are lots of diversionary routes then and now. No prospect of millions of people being cut off from the network, unlike what is happening now at Dawlish

Bit of a silly point about reopening the York - Hull - Beverley line. It doesn't even run in the right direction, but those of us who would like to see it reopened do so because of its value as a regional link.



We've seen plenty of that in spades.

Here's me thinking the main point is about keeping the West Country connected to the network, yet this aim seems to have been confused with everything else.

Trains aren't fast enough (what's that got to do with keeping Cornwall connected?), trains are forty years old (everyone has forty year old trains at some time - usually around forty years after the last time they had forty year old trains. Completely irrelevant to the subject in hand).



Well it comes down to cost and benefit. There isn't a ready built route duplicating the mainline west of Tamar and fewer people would be served. We have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like to be (trying to take a leaf out of your book and stifle any innate romanticism about reopening that I might be accused of ). There is a handy, (mainly) ready built route between Exeter and Plymouth and a large population to the west of it.



Well, you say that, but Plymouth Chamber of Commerce have had a go. People are putting figures to the longer closure.

Frankly, I find the idea that a catastrophic upheaval such as a long term closure will cause considerable losses rather more credible than the claim that shaving the time of an on-train toilet break off of everyone's journey to Paddington will somehow accrue millions of pounds of valuable economic activity. Yet some on here seem to hold that theory as a gospel.



Well, if Paddington to Exeter is disrupted, you probably won't divert every train over the Yeovil route. You will some, but don't forget, Waterloo to Exeter trains will also have spare capacity to get people to Exeter. Net result, trains are a bit busier. Some may take a bit longer, but nothing cut off - let alone for months on end.



The speed faction have tried very hard to cloud the issue. But the issue is still resolutely how to ensure the West Country remains connected to the rest of the network in as many circumstances for as reasonable a price as possible.

Have to say I agree in every particular.
Have now heard that the Okehampton route could be complete inside two years. That again must make it the only show in town.. (Must also be better than putting all the coaches/power cars on low loaders or/and moving staff!)

 

[yorksrob]

Have to say I agree in every particular.
Have now heard that the Okehampton route could be complete inside two years. That again must make it the only show in town.. (Must also be better than putting all the coaches/power cars on low loaders or/and moving staff!)

It certainly should be.

Hopefully the powers that be will see sense.