Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[HSTEd]

On the continent they put in the service first and then the demand follows. Your timings are perhaps a little optimistic but if Plymouth could come down well under three hours then I am sure demand would go up.

The timings are a little hazy but I make my proposed route from Old Oak Common to Plymouth at roughly 335km.
In Japan an N700 Shinkansen set running on a 270km/h line (and that using tilt) manages a journey time of 84 minutes non-stop on the 337km between Shin-Yokahama and Nagoya.
With a top speed of 320-360km/h+ you might be able to get 65 minutes. Certainly under 75.

 

[SWTH]

People commute those sort of times into Central London from stations like Grantham and NOttingham all the time.

The economic effect of this would be rather profound - watch as the tens of thousands of second homes, holiday cottages and so on all convert into first homes as people decamp to the south west.
Why commute an hour from the north into London when you can do it from Cornwall and avoid having to maintain a holiday cottage as you can live there full time?
The mild climate would turn it into a highly desirable location once the reason for its relative poverty - its isolation, was erased.

And as to the frequency of trains - with 18tph between London and Reading you could probably dedicate 7-8tph to the South West with the rest shared between South Wales and some minor destinations.

Cornwall is the ultimate potential Metroland.

Property in Cornwall is already overpriced and well out of reach of locals on Cornish wages. What you suggest would ruin any chance for local workers to be able to afford to live down here.

Cornwall is already 'desirable' as a place to live, commanding average house prices that do not square with its reputation as one of the poorest regions in the UK. Wages won't automatically rise to match either - they haven't followed the upward trend in living costs and housing for the last 20 years so why would they start now?

 

[HSTEd]

Property in Cornwall is already overpriced and well out of reach of locals on Cornish wages. What you suggest would ruin any chance for local workers to be able to afford to live down here.
Cornwall is already 'desirable' as a place to live, commanding average house prices that do not square with its reputation as one of the poorest regions in the UK.

You can have overpriced empty housing where people spend no money in the area for 48 weeks a year, or you can have overpriced full housing where people spend money year round.

Which is better for the wider Cornish economy?
The end of second homes in Cornwall would reduce house prices on average across the UK, improving the situation at a national scale.
We do not have a recognised automatic right for people to live near their parents - and I certainly won't be able to (at least until they die).
If house prices are too high for locals the fault for that lies in the hands of Cornwall Council for clearly not granting planning permissions for enough houses or taking steps to encourage such construction.

Wages won't automatically rise to match either - they haven't followed the upward trend in living costs and housing for the last 20 years so why would they start now?

Well if they don't rise - they can use very cheap (thanks to mass capacity) season tickets to go elsewhere in the UK?
What are wages like in Bristol or London?

 

[SWTH]

So if all the local population sod off and work elsewhere, who is going to work in Cornwall? Who is going to work as a shelf stacker, labourer, farm hand, bus driver, etc etc when they can't afford to live there thanks to being priced out of the market and not being on high enough wages to cover the cost of travel?

What's wrong with the idea of Londoners actually living near London? Surely the councils of the Home Counties are just as at fault for not allowing huge housing developments to keep supply high and demand low, thereby reducing prices?

Your idea of holiday homes being lived in year-round isn't an automatic guarantee of money going into the local economy either - they're still spending the majority of their waking hours (5 days out of 7, if they have a typical 9-5 in London then they can expect to be out of the house at 0700 and home by 1900 with your Shinkansen idea - that's 60hrs a week) outside of the county. If they're not there, they won't spend their money there.

Cornwall is fine as it is - it could do with a winter industry to balance the summer tourist trade (i.e people who live and work in Cornwall), but the very last thing it needs is more people from out of the county buying or renting the property that is already in short supply.

 

[HowardGWR]

Are national parks immune from any development ? Is road and house building not allowed in national parks ?

1. No
2. Yes to no road building,
'it depends' on housing, but mostly probably no, unless within a defined already built up area (infill, we are talking only a few here and there).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To the point about 'sticking to A30', indeed no problem there, as A30 is not in the Dartmoor NP. At least, not after they shaved off a bit to the south of Okehampton for the bypass.

I am informed that the (then) decision would no longer be allowed; the A30 bypass would now go north of Okehampton, but we can't rewrite history.

 

[Tomnick]

A little bit late to the party, perhaps, but I'm puzzled by the references to 'line of sight' operation over the Up ("inner") line at Dawlish. That's not a recognised method of operation on running lines anywhere other than permissive platforms and a handful of longer goods lines - and certainly not suitable for this situation! The Up line is already reversibly signalled through the area, avoiding the need for it anyway - whilst obviously reducing the capacity of the line, it's still going to be better than the single track basic railway that some are suggesting as a suitable option for a diversionary route. That said, it's no use if both lines are blocked!

 

[LateThanNever]

A little bit late to the party, perhaps, but I'm puzzled by the references to 'line of sight' operation over the Up ("inner") line at Dawlish. That's not a recognised method of operation on running lines anywhere other than permissive platforms and a handful of longer goods lines - and certainly not suitable for this situation! The Up line is already reversibly signalled through the area, avoiding the need for it anyway - whilst obviously reducing the capacity of the line, it's still going to be better than the single track basic railway that some are suggesting as a suitable option for a diversionary route. That said, it's no use if both lines are blocked!

'line of sight' operation is how trams operate - useful if you've got flotsam and jetsam being washed up, so eminently appropriate I'd suggest!

 

[Tomnick]

So effectively signalled normally (essential to maintain the integrity of the single/reversible line) but cautioning if necessary? That makes a bit more sense!

 

[HowardGWR]

I see Rail magazine is promoting the Okehampton route and suggesting a campaign. Will it have legs?

 

[LateThanNever]

I see Rail magazine is promoting the Okehampton route and suggesting a campaign. Will it have legs?

As I've written to the MP to similar effect, and knowing Rail magazine - probably not! Let's hope it succeeds in spite of these handicaps...

 

[Busaholic]

On the continent they put in the service first and then the demand follows. Your timings are perhaps a little optimistic but if Plymouth could come down well under three hours then I am sure demand would go up.

There was a report out earlier this year (sorry can't find a link now) showing one possible line built from around Tiverton directly to Bodmin and re joining the main line there which would cut around an hour of the Truro journey time. It had a branch down to Plymouth which was about 40 minutes faster to London.

Sorry, I may be literate but not computer-literate. A photographic memory ( so=called) masqueraded as intelligence ai school and university but withers with age. Sometimes it can still come up trumps, but whether it will in this case I don't know, but would it be a company/consultancy called JRC (?) based in Bath (?) that produced such a report: I've not seen it but kept it in the back of my mind.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

As I've written to the MP to similar effect, and knowing Rail magazine - probably not! Let's hope it succeeds in spite of these handicaps...

Writing to your MP is an good move, about the best anyone can do.

(Imo the LSWR route is the only one that could possibly be entertained cost wise, but would like surprises! Anything is better than doing nothing)

 

[HSTEd]

So if all the local population sod off and work elsewhere, who is going to work in Cornwall? Who is going to work as a shelf stacker, labourer, farm hand, bus driver, etc etc when they can't afford to live there thanks to being priced out of the market and not being on high enough wages to cover the cost of travel?

Well presumably the market will correct and wages in Cornwall would rise.
You can't have it both ways.
Either people will be able to survive on minimum wage in Cornwall or they would not.
Supermarkets will pay staff more before they go without the staff they need to function.
People are paid more in Kent than they are paid in places like East Anglia - there is no reason to believe Cornwall would be different.

And if worst comes to worst then they could live elsewhere and reverse commute along the newly available corridor.
And high speed rail cost of travel is essentially zero, especially on the bristol-penzance section which will not be capacity limited and thus the tickets must only cover the marginal cost of running (which with electric traction is rather low).

What's wrong with the idea of Londoners actually living near London? Surely the councils of the Home Counties are just as at fault for not allowing huge housing developments to keep supply high and demand low, thereby reducing prices?

You could indeed make that argument - but it is rather simplistic.
Demand in the home counties would be significantly harder to meet - for example there are not tens of thousands of perfectly serviceable housing units just lying around.
Additionally the land is already far more developed - just look at aerial photography of the area between Birmingham and London for example.
Then compare it to the area around Cornwall and Devon.

Your idea of holiday homes being lived in year-round isn't an automatic guarantee of money going into the local economy either - they're still spending the majority of their waking hours (5 days out of 7, if they have a typical 9-5 in London then they can expect to be out of the house at 0700 and home by 1900 with your Shinkansen idea - that's 60hrs a week) outside of the county. If they're not there, they won't spend their money there.

They are unlikely to drag shopping home on the train - also whhy would they have their after work drink in London when in an hour's time they could be having the drink next to the sea in a beachfront cafe - normally in a place with more pleasant weather?

Cornwall is fine as it is - it could do with a winter industry to balance the summer tourist trade (i.e people who live and work in Cornwall), but the very last thing it needs is more people from out of the county buying or renting the property that is already in short supply.

Then why it is the poorest county in England and one of the most deprived areas of the country?
We don't live in a command economy and thus can't force industry to locate to Cornwall and noone wants to be five hours from London when you can obtain cheap land far closer (in travel time terms) in the North East.
Its extractive industries have been obliterated by the collapsing demand for British China Clay and the constantly reducing fishing quotas.
It has even been eclipsed as the source of tin (that new mine is in Devon and not Cornwall).

While it remains so isolated all you are going to get are holiday homes - that is an undeniable fact.
You can either remain in an impoverished county where the young have no prospects whatsoever or you can accept the life of the home counties which I can guarantee will overall be far less bleak.

 

[snowball]

Are national parks immune from any development ? Is road and house building not allowed in national parks ?

1. No
2. Yes to no road building,

There's no absolute ban. For example in the Lake District, the M6 enters the edge of the park for a short distance south of Penrith; on the A591 the Staveley bypass and part of the Kendal western bypass are inside the park; the A66 was substantially realigned including building the Keswick bypass. These are 20-35 years old, but the A590 High and Low Newton bypass was built less than 10 years ago.

 

[class26]

Sorry, I may be literate but not computer-literate. A photographic memory ( so=called) masqueraded as intelligence ai school and university but withers with age. Sometimes it can still come up trumps, but whether it will in this case I don't know, but would it be a company/consultancy called JRC (?) based in Bath (?) that produced such a report: I've not seen it but kept it in the back of my mind.

Yes, here is the link. It is interesting

http://www.jrc.org.uk/Investment-in...mic-development-West-Country-rail-network.pdf

 

[HowardGWR]

There's no absolute ban. For example in the Lake District, the M6 enters the edge of the park for a short distance south of Penrith; on the A591 the Staveley bypass and part of the Kendal western bypass are inside the park; the A66 was substantially realigned including building the Keswick bypass. These are 20-35 years old, but the A590 High and Low Newton bypass was built less than 10 years ago.

True, but the Inquiry for the last was held 15 years ago and the policy for NPs and AsONB was strengthened. It has been loosened somewhat in the latest NPPF. It will be interesting to see if a new Government in 2015 will strengthen it again. I don't trust politicians. If Mr Balls wants to cancel HS2, I have no doubt that a re-strengthening of NP and AONB protection would very nicely scupper HS2 through the Chilterns, unless all of it were put under tunnel, instead of most of it as presently envisaged, and then it becomes too dear perhaps?

But forget anything across the Dartmoor NP. A non-starter.

 

[snowball]

and the policy for NPs and AsONB was strengthened.

I didn't know that. Interesting in relation to the fact that the DfT/HA are looking again at the Sheffield-Manchester corridor.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To the point about 'sticking to A30', indeed no problem there, as A30 is not in the Dartmoor NP. At least, not after they shaved off a bit to the south of Okehampton for the bypass.

Are you sure about that? They may have made a minor adjustment to the park boundary inspired by the line of the bypass, but all the maps I've checked show about 3km of the bypass inside the park, from about the castle westward.

 

[HowardGWR]

I didn't know that. Interesting in relation to the fact that the DfT/HA are looking again at the Sheffield-Manchester corridor.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



Are you sure about that? They may have made a minor adjustment to the park boundary inspired by the line of the bypass, but all the maps I've checked show about 3km of the bypass inside the park, from about the castle westward.

You are quite right my apologies.

See http://www.dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/visiting/vi-enjoyingdartmoor/camping/camping-map

You can blow this map up to see the exact boundary in yellow. Interestingly, the boundary encloses much of the LSWR line (now mostly) cycle path from Okehampton to Tavistock. I believe the NP is sympathetic to reopening but I suspect they would not be so to electrification using OLE, not that this is likely (???).

I remember being told by the planning office that they are reluctant to alter Park boundaries, even when a development has essentially ruined the landscape (as the A30 certainly did).

 

[Trainbuff]

As I've written to the MP to similar effect, and knowing Rail magazine - probably not! Let's hope it succeeds in spite of these handicaps...

There are already 2 major campaigning bodies at least involved with pushing for the Okehampton route. After all if you accept that the Teign Valley line is NOT resilient to flooding then Okehampton is the cheapest route by some margin. Over £0.5billion. And that is if the track is doubled all the way and a New Meldon built. The groups I know about are 'Destination Okehampton' which is a consortium of councils and the Peninsular Rail Group. The latter NOT to be confused with the Peninsular Rail Officers Group! Also Railfuture South West supports the reopening on balance out of all the options.

Anyone interested should contact PRG at:-

prg.2day.ws

Railfuture can be reached through their own site, but I am not quite sure exactly what they are doing at the moment

 

[Busaholic]

There are already 2 major campaigning bodies at least involved with pushing for the Okehampton route. After all if you accept that the Teign Valley line is NOT resilient to flooding then Okehampton is the cheapest route by some margin. Over £0.5billion. And that is if the track is doubled all the way and a New Meldon built. The groups I know about are 'Destination Okehampton' which is a consortium of councils and the Peninsular Rail Group. The latter NOT to be confused with the Peninsular Rail Officers Group! Also Railfuture South West supports the reopening on balance out of all the options.

Anyone interested should contact PRG at:-

prg.2day.ws

Railfuture can be reached through their own site, but I am not quite sure exactly what they are doing at the moment

I could envisage posters going up in the area, and. ideally, outside it too well into Cornwall, on the lines of 'OKEHAMPTON O.K.'. A question mark after it would probably provoke too many negative comments. The impetus will never be better so those who believe in it should badger anyone with influence (plus M.P.s, with a General Election on the horizon). If only Gwyneth Dunwoody were still chairman of the Transport Select Committee - her great friend Sir Peter Shore M.P. had a second home in St Ives and later, I believe, retired to it. Both are now, sadly, deceased.

 

[HowardGWR]

I could envisage posters going up in the area, and. ideally, outside it too well into Cornwall, on the lines of 'OKEHAMPTON O.K.'. A question mark after it would probably provoke too many negative comments. The impetus will never be better so those who believe in it should badger anyone with influence (plus M.P.s, with a General Election on the horizon). If only Gwyneth Dunwoody were still chairman of the Transport Select Committee - her great friend Sir Peter Shore M.P. had a second home in St Ives and later, I believe, retired to it. Both are now, sadly, deceased.

We should remember that reintroducing pax services from Tavistock to Plymouth and Okehampton to Exeter is already very much 'in progress'. So the element of better local transport is already being progressed. The issue of the missing link between Okehampton and Tavistock is almost certainly best championed by Cornwall Council and Plymouth Council on the strategic arguments. If they combine their lobbying efforts with the Devon authorities and do not allow themselves to be diverted by "River Teign' area schemes, they will have a far better chance of getting the strategic solution implemented much sooner.

The South Devon politicians would be well-served (supported by the aforementioned authorities) to demand a strategic reserve of quality coach resources to connect to Exeter when and if Dawlish falls out and promote the further safeguarding of the Dawlish coastal route.

They should work together.

 

[Busaholic]

We should remember that reintroducing pax services from Tavistock to Plymouth and Okehampton to Exeter is already very much 'in progress'. So the element of better local transport is already being progressed. The issue of the missing link between Okehampton and Tavistock is almost certainly best championed by Cornwall Council and Plymouth Council on the strategic arguments. If they combine their lobbying efforts with the Devon authorities and do not allow themselves to be diverted by "River Teign' area schemes, they will have a far better chance of getting the strategic solution implemented much sooner.

The South Devon politicians would be well-served (supported by the aforementioned authorities) to demand a strategic reserve of quality coach resources to connect to Exeter when and if Dawlish falls out and promote the further safeguarding of the Dawlish coastal route.

They should work together.

Problem is always not only getting politicians of different parties to work together but with getting different local authorities to speak with one voice, complicated in this case by having unitary authorities (Cornwall, Plymouth and Torbay) and the non-unitary Devon County Council which has to take account of the District Councils in Tavistock, South Hams etc. I think it has to be accepted that Torbay will not like whatever is proposed but Devon C.C. not having any responsibility to reflect their viewpoint should help.

 

[yorksrob]

Problem is always not only getting politicians of different parties to work together but with getting different local authorities to speak with one voice, complicated in this case by having unitary authorities (Cornwall, Plymouth and Torbay) and the non-unitary Devon County Council which has to take account of the District Councils in Tavistock, South Hams etc. I think it has to be accepted that Torbay will not like whatever is proposed but Devon C.C. not having any responsibility to reflect their viewpoint should help.

It has to be said, Plymouth hasn't exactly covered itself in glory on the issue either.

 

[Busaholic]

It has to be said, Plymouth hasn't exactly covered itself in glory on the issue either.

Am I allowed to say Plymouth's a funny place!?

 

[yorksrob]

Am I allowed to say Plymouth's a funny place!?

Yes, I think so

 

[bnm]

The South Devon politicians would be well-served (supported by the aforementioned authorities) to demand a strategic reserve of quality coach resources to connect to Exeter when and if Dawlish falls out and promote the further safeguarding of the Dawlish coastal route.

I've seen some hair-brained suggestions in this thread, but this is one of the worst. :roll:

A strategic reserve of quality coaches? Who's going to pay for this idle fleet? Oh, and who's paying for the strategic reserve of coach drivers that would also be needed? Along with the strategic reserve of maintenance staff, storage space, DVSA vehicle registration costs...

If you really think this is a goer then the cost of providing this fleet of quality coaches and the drivers needed for them should rightly be tacked onto that for the Okehampton route. Should make the the BCR for Okehampton even worse. Which, rather perversely, leaves me supporting the hair-brained idea, as it would make Okehampton-Tavistock even less likely.


C1-C5 for me.

 

[SWTH]

You could indeed make that argument - but it is rather simplistic.
Demand in the home counties would be significantly harder to meet - for example there are not tens of thousands of perfectly serviceable housing units just lying around.
Additionally the land is already far more developed - just look at aerial photography of the area between Birmingham and London for example.
Then compare it to the area around Cornwall and Devon.



They are unlikely to drag shopping home on the train - also whhy would they have their after work drink in London when in an hour's time they could be having the drink next to the sea in a beachfront cafe - normally in a place with more pleasant weather?



Then why it is the poorest county in England and one of the most deprived areas of the country?
We don't live in a command economy and thus can't force industry to locate to Cornwall and noone wants to be five hours from London when you can obtain cheap land far closer (in travel time terms) in the North East.
Its extractive industries have been obliterated by the collapsing demand for British China Clay and the constantly reducing fishing quotas.
It has even been eclipsed as the source of tin (that new mine is in Devon and not Cornwall).

While it remains so isolated all you are going to get are holiday homes - that is an undeniable fact.
You can either remain in an impoverished county where the young have no prospects whatsoever or you can accept the life of the home counties which I can guarantee will overall be far less bleak.

Cornwall already has some of the highest living costs outside of London (some reports put it as the most expensive after London), and wages/average income is still very poor (again, it has been reported that Cornwall is the poorest region in Europe). The county cannot afford any more rises in living costs, most families are already living beyond their means. Jobs are hard to come by down here for unskilled/semi-skilled roles, and whilst vacancies are easy to fill, wages won't rise. I repeat: Cornwall does not need an influx of commuters pushing up prices.

Cornwall DOES need more indigenous industry. Tax breaks, relocation/start up grants etc could all be used to persuade companies to invest in Cornwall. That way, more money would stay in the local economy.

Let's look at it this way:
Family A exists in your planned future. 2.4 kids, nice coastal property, well paid jobs in the smoke. Where do they spend their money?

• House: payments go to a lender. Money doesn't stay in Cornwall
• Electricity/Gas/Water: Money goes to energy firms, some owned by other countries. Doesn't stay in Cornwall.
• Education: Chances are, children would be in paid-for education, rather than state. Some very good public schools in Cornwall, but by no means certain the kids would be sent there. Money could go either way.
• Consumables: food, petrol, etc - all goes to places like Sainsburys, Tescos etc. Supports a few local jobs, but money ultimately leaves Cornwall.
• Disposable Income: May get spent in beachside cafés, but may just as easily be spent in other attractions anywhere along or near the route of the cheap, quick rail link. Money probably wouldn't stay in Cornwall.

Family B lives in Cornwall as it should (not necessarily will) develop, with companies coming in and providing semiskilled jobs/training:

• House: Same as family A - money goes back to a lender.
• Elec/Gas/Water: Same as family A.
• Education: Far more likely to be in local education because of parents being semi-skilled workers. Local education supports local jobs.
• Consumables: Same as family A.
• Disposable Income: Far more likely to be spent in Cornwall.

Your High Speed link will therefore do almost nothing to change where people spend their money, and do so at great cost. Enticing businesses to move closer to Cornwall would be far cheaper and a better method for stimulating the local economy.

Also, travel costs will not be 'essentially zero'. Look at every major infrastructure project of the last 40-50 years and there has been a premium paid by users (Tamar Road Bridge, Severn Crossing, M6 Toll, etc). What are HS1 & the Channel Tunnel if not a high-speed transit system similar to what you propose? I don't hear of any cheap commuter tickets for sale from Paris to London.

As for the 'simplistic' argument about living in the Home Counties, there aren't 'tens of thousands of perfectly serviceable housing units' here either. Cornwall has a chronic housing shortage.

In short, Cornwall is Cornwall. It is not the Home Counties. There is no local will to change things (which, believe me, as a non-local beggars belief at times), and your plan would cause huge amounts of grief within the indigenous population. There is already a minority of lunatics who would prefer Cornwall to have full Independence, with all the issues that would cause.

Get the Cornish economy supported by industry again, and things will improve. A HS rail link to use Cornwall as a commuter belt suburb is daft.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's look at it this way:
Family A exists in your planned future. 2.4 kids, nice coastal property, well paid jobs in the smoke. Where do they spend their money?

• House: payments go to a lender. Money doesn't stay in Cornwall
• Electricity/Gas/Water: Money goes to energy firms, some owned by other countries. Doesn't stay in Cornwall.
• Education: Chances are, children would be in paid-for education, rather than state. Some very good public schools in Cornwall, but by no means certain the kids would be sent there. Money could go either way.
• Consumables: food, petrol, etc - all goes to places like Sainsburys, Tescos etc. Supports a few local jobs, but money ultimately leaves Cornwall.
• Disposable Income: May get spent in beachside cafés, but may just as easily be spent in other attractions anywhere along or near the route of the cheap, quick rail link. Money probably wouldn't stay in Cornwall.

I won't argue with the general thrust of your post, but the above logic is surely flawed. If this was so, it would apply to the whole of the South East commuter belt, eg just substitute 'Cornwall' for 'Surrey' and 'beachside cafe' for 'village pub'. And thus Surrey would be in dire straits. Which I don't think it is.

 

[SWTH]

The point I was trying to make is that a HS link would make very little difference to how Joe Bloggs and family spend their money.

 

[Busaholic]

If Cornwall is to get both the jobs and new (affordable) housing it needs, most of this development is going to have to come north of the A30 and an even greater proportion north of the main line railway, which basically runs through the south of the county, which is of no account to the western peninsula but becomes an issue the further east you go. The only truly northern branch is also the worst served with an unloved reputation stretching back to B.R. days (Newquay). The Okehampton to Exeter railway line could act as a catalyst to this, if properly doubletracked with provision for (later) electrification. Exeter will soon be getting up a head of steam (to mix metaphors) for electrification once it reaches Bristol as will all the Newbury/Westbury commuters. The Dawlish experience, although unfortunate, could and should not only act as a wake-up call but a call to arms to fight for some proper infrastructure to entice firms to create employment.