Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[yorksrob]

So, as many people have often suggested, change the rules until you get the answer you want. Fix the numbers to ones which the audience / treasury will find acceptable. Blows all of the arguments about objectivity in the scheme development process out of the water (so to speak).

If it comes up with the correct outcome, then yes. The flaws in the existing methodology are well known, particularly around wider economic benefits.

Ultimately benefit cost analysis is only a tool, not the be all and end all. The need of something or not will always be a political decision.

 

[Olaf]

I see Cross Country were there, so presumably SWT and FGW were invited too. Why weren't they represented? Are they not allowed to express a view which could be construed as in any way 'political' i.e. you tell us where to run trains and will us the means and leave the rest to us? If so, it speaks volumes about the crass position we've allowed ourselves to get into with railways, if anything getting crasser.
I know Ben Bradshaw is only the chair, but being MP for the very marginal seat of Exeter might mean that as long as electrification gets to that city then he'll be satisfied, as his last comments may have indicated.

The representative from Cross Country was probably there in the role of the representative of the RDG's Western regional team, and as such was representing all of the rail operators in the region.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure whether anyone's picked up on this:

http://www.benbradshaw.co.uk/all-party-parliamentary-group-on-south-west-rail/

Yes, those paragraphs on the Dawlish alternatives are pretty much the same, word for word, as those that appear in the RTM news item I posted.

The review will be of the BCR analysis, not the report on the alternatives as such, but I doubt that it would make a significant difference to the numbers.

If they modify the scope of the BCR analysis for Dawlish, then that will open up the BCR analysis methodology for all the other on-going and potential projects, and NR would be thrown into a mess while they re-worked the existing figures on those projects. So I do not think anything will come of it in itself, however I think there is a strong case for supplementary funding from other Government regional funds to cover the cost gaps for implementation of one of the C* routes. I would expect we would have to wait until the Western Route Study has been completed to see what other merits can be assigned to a new link that might improve the BCRs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, as many people have often suggested, change the rules until you get the answer you want. Fix the numbers to ones which the audience / treasury will find acceptable. Blows all of the arguments about objectivity in the scheme development process out of the water (so to speak).

I do not think that would happen, as it would potentially bring all NR projects to a halt. It could lead to a review of the BCR analysis going forward, but it would not apply in the current round to this project - it would have to be re-done at a future date on the new BCR methodology if the latter was to be modified.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Standard cost/benefit analysis is not appropriate when discussing rail alternatives to the Dawlish route. The reasons are quite simple: (1) we can be certain that the line will be closed again at some point due to the weather, although the odds are against anything as severe as last winter happening again this coming winter (2) this stretch of line will eventually end up in the sea due to sea level rise. These reasons make the Dawlish situation completely different to an assessment about alternatives or additions to the road or rail network in locations where the current route will definitely remain.

That is not the case for NR funded projects; that approach could only happen if the project was taken out of NR funding.

As it stands, the review has shown that the alternative routes are not affordable, so future interventions will be addressed through maintenance and repair.

P.S.
Significant sea level rises are a very long way off.

 

[HowardGWR]

Significant sea level rises are a very long way off.

What, like they were last winter?:cry:

Seriously, I agree that an LSWR reinstatement is as much a sub-regional project, as it is to act as a fall-back diversionary route and so it would be sensible to promote it so. If we think about the fact that there were already projects in the offing to connect pax services both to Okehampton and Tavistock, then I think it would be reasonable to regard the link between the latter two as mainly the diversion scheme with perhaps a small element of sub-regional justification.

I am sure, if all local authorities combine, a sensible way forward could be found.

 

[yorksrob]

If they modify the scope of the BCR analysis for Dawlish, then that will open up the BCR analysis methodology for all the other on-going and potential projects, and NR would be thrown into a mess while they re-worked the existing figures on those projects. So I do not think anything will come of it in itself, however I think there is a strong case for supplementary funding from other Government regional funds to cover the cost gaps for implementation of one of the C* routes. I would expect we would have to wait until the Western Route Study has been completed to see what other merits can be assigned to a new link that might improve the BCRs.

Presumably if they modified BCR for Dawlish, it would be to include wider economic and social variables. As such, it would affect potential projects that have been rejected, but I don't see how it would affect those projects already going ahead which have already leaped the much higher hurdle of the current methodology.

Or, we could just adopt whatever method the Scots use "off the shelf".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seriously, I agree that an LSWR reinstatement is as much a sub-regional project, as it is to act as a fall-back diversionary route and so it would be sensible to promote it so. If we think about the fact that there were already projects in the offing to connect pax services both to Okehampton and Tavistock, then I think it would be reasonable to regard the link between the latter two as mainly the diversion scheme with perhaps a small element of sub-regional justification.

Absolutely. There are very few railways or roads that are purely used as a diversion or purely used as a commuter route or purely used as a regional through route. Like any railway, the Okehampton route would be used for a number of purposes, so it would make sense to develop a business case that encompasses all of these, including benefits to Tavistock and Okehampton and also benefits to Barnstaple and North Devon, if improvements at the Exeter end are included.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

That is not the case for NR funded projects; that approach could only happen if the project was taken out of NR funding.

As it stands, the review has shown that the alternative routes are not affordable, so future interventions will be addressed through maintenance and repair.

I would agree with at that it should be mainly funded from other sources.
Devon & Cornwall subject to Standard cost/benefit analysis?
Businesses, potential and existing, cannot now see the railway via Dawlish as a reliable form of transport.
The Clay companies for example would have been had major problems if they relied on rail. Business passengers should have a a plan B.
Even the railway will make decisions based on this, eg investing in a major repair depot etc sited the other side of Dawlish?

 

[21C101]

The alternative routes all failed to attain high enough BCRs for any of them to get the go-ahead under normal funding schemes, however the DfT is to review the work around the BCRs to see if their scope can be extended:

Government may review report into alternative routes at Dawlish
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...iew-report-into-alternative-routes-at-dawlish
- 2014-10-17

Extending the scope of the BCR analysis is unlikely to push any of them much closer to a factor of even 1.0, but the exercise may be able to find a case for external funding, in conjunction of the current Western Route Study, and Regional Growth funds etc.

The Okehampton route study seemed to me to be beyond belief in its costings.

The case for reinstating it as a 75mph single track railway with loops at Okehampton and Tavistock along with a refurbishment/strengthening of Meldon Viaduct with a 30mph speed limit (rather than very expensive rebuild), did not appear to have been examined (as a lattice viaduct extra lattices can easily be added - with listed building consent, which would likely be there if done sympathetically)

This is all that would be required for a line that would carry a one every two hour local service and, by exception, diverted passenger and freight trains.

Similarly the passenger levels seemed to be based around a class 165 local shuttle to Exeter which would attract few.

If the line was reinstated then to get significant amount of passengers you would need to extend the Waterloo to Exeter services over it with calls at Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock, Bere Alston and Devonport (plus Lydford for tourist potential).

You would also, importantly, need to build a parkway station at Sourton (A30/A386 junction) from where express buses and private cars could reach North Cornwall (Launceston would be a 20 minute drive, Bodmin just over half an hour and Wadebridge/Padstow/Newquay about an hour). That would only work with regular through trains to London, no one would drive to and park there if they had to change at Exeter. I don't think a Parkway station at Sourton was even considered in the study.

As Devon County Council own pretty well all the trackbed, I reckon they should reopen it themselves as a semi-preserved railway like the Dartmoor line is now and the Swanage line north of Norden will be by next year.

Then they could build it using local contractors for basic civil engineering tasks (and even competent volunteer labour).

Such a privately owned line could have basic mechanical signalling (signalboxes at Okehampton and Bere Alston interfacing to each other and Exeter/Plymouth) with single line token block (and NSKT token machines at Crediton and St Budeaux in a similar way to the Swanage line to Wareham will have). It also wouldn't need GSM-R.

All these things would save an absolute fortune.

A government grant to Devon to do it themselves would I reckon, deliver it for about a tenth of the price of some of those study options.

 

[Bald Rick]

A government grant to Devon to do it themselves would I reckon, deliver it for about a tenth of the price of some of those study options.

Many moons ago it used to be my job to help 'Third Parties' to do projects on the railway. They could do it themselves or ask NR to do it.

If I had a tenner for every local authority / private developer who had come to me saying they could do it for a fraction of the price NR thought, and then found out the hard way that it cost them more than NR quoted, I'd have enough money* to reopen the line myself.

* actually that's not true. I'd have about £300.

 

[21C101]

Many moons ago it used to be my job to help 'Third Parties' to do projects on the railway. They could do it themselves or ask NR to do it.

If I had a tenner for every local authority / private developer who had come to me saying they could do it for a fraction of the price NR thought, and then found out the hard way that it cost them more than NR quoted, I'd have enough money* to reopen the line myself.

* actually that's not true. I'd have about £300.

It can be done though, as Chris White & co aptly demonstrated by clearing an entire 1/4 mile long rubbish tip (something NR has never even done), using local contractors and competent volunteers and getting the Bluebell Northern extension funded, bought, cleared (by rail) and built for only £4 million, with Bluebell as principal contractors.

Rather than the council doing it direct, it would probably be better to get the council to buy the rest of the trackbed and form a local society/company limited by guarantee to take the project forward in much the same way as the Welsh Highland rebuilding was done; with council owning and leasing the infrastructure to the society.

That way you ideally get some experienced, probably recently retired, rail engineers in charge and eliminate council bureacracy and inertia and endless costly consultants reports telling you what any half decent railwayman already knows. There would of course be huge amounts of paperwork and drawings to be done and approved before a sod is turned.

The down side is that it would almost certainly take longer than getting NR to do it, but it is a model that has been incredibly successful in the preservation movement (which is now more and more turning into a community railway movement). Essentially, it has shown that if communities want a railway that badly they will build it themselves.

With funding in place you are probably looking at getting it done in 5-7 years by this model, with partial opening beforehand. (obvious Phase 1 would be one mile of new track from the current bufferstops across a strengthened Meldon Viaduct to a new North Cornwall Parkway station at Sourton)

NR are undoutably fantastic at mega construction projects, but don't seem to me to be geared up procedurally to do smaller low budget projects cheaply, which was something BR excelled in.

 

[Bald Rick]

It can be done though, as Chris White & co aptly demonstrated...

Indeed, Chris being very good at persuading other organisations to do stuff for free. I met him a few times and he persuaded me to arrange for a few things to help out, and I bet that wasn't in the cost quoted.

Also, as an 8 year old I visited the Bluebell, and am pretty sure I saw proposals (and fundraising!) for the extension. 32 years later it opened.

 

[21C101]

Indeed, Chris being very good at persuading other organisations to do stuff for free. I met him a few times and he persuaded me to arrange for a few things to help out, and I bet that wasn't in the cost quoted.

Also, as an 8 year old I visited the Bluebell, and am pretty sure I saw proposals (and fundraising!) for the extension. 32 years later it opened.

The majority of it to Kingscote was done in the 1990s. Then the project leader died and nothing much happened for years. Chris White took it over about 5-6 years ago and organised it. The last two miles thru the tip to Grinstead, funding and all done very fast to meet a tax change deadline which if missed would have resulted in an £80 a tonne tax charge to move the tip. Must have aged him. Can't be many people who led the biggest project of their career after retiring.

Now they are plotting west to Haywards Heath and have recently acquired an old railway bridge over the M50 to replace the missing viaduct just west of Horsted Keynes.

 

[HowardGWR]

The only really big issues I foresee between west of Tavistock and Okehampton are
1) bridge across road at west end of Tavistock (Callington Road, buttress walls look in good nick)
2) CPO and demolition of bungalow built on solum
3)CPO and demolition of about 7 (seven) houses on solum immediately east of viaduct above Taylor Square
4) demolition of council buildings on solum east of old station
5) burrowing out of land under bridge near an old peoples' home

and the rest is a matter of possible CPO of gardens of old stations

6) last but not least, strengthening or replacement of Meldon viaduct.

Tell me if I forgot anything really big -I doubt it as the rest is a maintained cycle path.

I assume NR must have budgeted at least for the above as it did not say it was looking for a new route. I was somewhat surprised not to read complaints from people affected by the above.

 

[Ash Bridge]

The only really big issues I foresee between west of Tavistock and Okehampton are
1) bridge across road at west end of Tavistock (Callington Road, buttress walls look in good nick)
2) CPO and demolition of bungalow built on solum
3)CPO and demolition of about 7 (seven) houses on solum immediately east of viaduct above Taylor Square
4) demolition of council buildings on solum east of old station
5) burrowing out of land under bridge near an old peoples' home

and the rest is a matter of possible CPO of gardens of old stations

6) last but not least, strengthening or replacement of Meldon viaduct.

Tell me if I forgot anything really big -I doubt it as the rest is a maintained cycle path.

I assume NR must have budgeted at least for the above as it did not say it was looking for a new route. I was somewhat surprised not to read complaints from people affected by the above.

Should the former SR mainline be reinstated do you foresee the junction with the North Devon Line being moved back to its former location of Coleford, or remaining as it is at Crediton?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Should the former SR mainline be reinstated do you foresee the junction with the North Devon Line being moved back to its former location of Coleford, or remaining as it is at Crediton?

Moving the junction to Coleford and double track to Exeter would certainly benefit the Barnstaple service.
I believe there are several professional companies that lay track to a high standard. Single track would also reduce cost of embankment reinforcement.
Meldon Viaducts.
The weaker South viaduct was given a concrete deck and used by stone lorries in building Meldon reservoir which opened 1972. (Now cycleway, also access to emergency vehicles) I feel sure the North one can be overhauled, and strengthened. (Planning a new one would not be easy!)
Imo signalling & points should be electric, and operated by NR from Plymouth/ Exeter.

 

[sbatts43]

Moving the junction to Coleford and double track to Exeter would certainly benefit the Barnstaple service.
I believe there are several professional companies that lay track to a high standard. Single track would also reduce cost of embankment reinforcement.
Meldon Viaducts.
The weaker South viaduct was given a concrete deck and used by stone lorries in building Meldon reservoir which opened 1972. (Now cycleway, also access to emergency vehicles) I feel sure the North one can be overhauled, and strengthened. (Planning a new one would not be easy!)
Imo signalling & points should be electric, and operated by NR from Plymouth/ Exeter.

What should happen Is use the other railway lines to be used as a additional route, not alternative route. In other words when the weather Is rough or engineering works are taking place.

 

[21C101]

The only really big issues I foresee between west of Tavistock and Okehampton are
1) bridge across road at west end of Tavistock (Callington Road, buttress walls look in good nick)
2) CPO and demolition of bungalow built on solum
3)CPO and demolition of about 7 (seven) houses on solum immediately east of viaduct above Taylor Square
4) demolition of council buildings on solum east of old station
5) burrowing out of land under bridge near an old peoples' home

and the rest is a matter of possible CPO of gardens of old stations

6) last but not least, strengthening or replacement of Meldon viaduct.

Tell me if I forgot anything really big -I doubt it as the rest is a maintained cycle path.

I assume NR must have budgeted at least for the above as it did not say it was looking for a new route. I was somewhat surprised not to read complaints from people affected by the above.

I think there is a building on the trackbed where it passes through a schools grounds in the north of Tavistock, there is also a minor underbridge missing at Sourton.

Before anyone says "whataboutthecyclists" the trackbed is double formation so there is room for a single track and cycleway just as already is the case between Okehampton and Meldon. Plus the county council owns the trackbed NOT Sustrans.

To answer some of the other points.

I would leave Crediton as it is, two single lines to Coleford, lets do it as cheaply as possible any upgrades can be done later once it is established (if needed).

Signalling. I would have station loops at Okehampton and Bere Alston. Provide mechanical signalboxes or mini panels (with colour light signals) and single line tokens. (with token machines at Crediton and St Budeaux. Cheap and cheerful. Again, upgrades to dynamic loops and centralised signalling can come later once established (if needed). Actually, thinking about it, there is no reason why the Loops at Okehampton and Bere Ferrers could not be No Signalman Key Token like Eggesford, controlled from Exeter, doing away with the signalboxes and having stop boards instead of signals and with a lockin to a bay platform for a Gunnislake Branch service (which I think is much what is currently planned there for the Tavistock reopening.

Residents. Brentor and Tavistock stations are both up for sale (or were recently). The 7 houses at Tavistock are I think Council/Housing association owned.

 

[Olaf]

What, like they were last winter?:cry:

The damage to the line at Dawlish was caused by a storm, not a sea level rise - sounds like nit picking but they are not the same except for those that fly the flag for the Global warming bandwagon.

The damage was caused by a severe storm, poor location of the line, and probably infrastructure not fit for purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Seriously, I agree that an LSWR reinstatement is as much a sub-regional project, as it is to act as a fall-back diversionary route and so it would be sensible to promote it so. If we think about the fact that there were already projects in the offing to connect pax services both to Okehampton and Tavistock, then I think it would be reasonable to regard the link between the latter two as mainly the diversion scheme with perhaps a small element of sub-regional justification.

I am not in favour of the route via Oakhampton/Tavistock based on the findings of the report.

However, I agree that there is merit in the proposal for an alternative route, just that it can not be covered as a normal NR funded project. Changing the BCR analysis process to fit one project is not appropriate and will cause wider problems, though it may set precedent for a review of the process going forward.

The report and the Western Route Studies should be allowed to run their course because they will together find a stronger case for the alternative route.

I do not think the local authorities will be able to find sufficient funds amongst themselves, so that is why I am suggesting that monies should be allocated from the Government's regional development funds to fill the funding gaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably if they modified BCR for Dawlish, it would be to include wider economic and social variables. As such, it would affect potential projects that have been rejected, but I don't see how it would affect those projects already going ahead which have already leaped the much higher hurdle of the current methodology.

The BCR analysis already has a wide scope, but perhaps is not suited for the local considerations in the west country. I'm saying let it run it's course, but handle the funding gaps that will arise outside of the NR analysis - i.e. let NR do it's job within it's remit then address their technical findings.

Modifying a process for one project is not a good idea, though it can be the starting point for a wider process review. A change to the BCR process will affect existing projects that have not reached stage 6 because it will have filtered out options that under the new process might be found to be more appropriate.

If the BCR process is to be changed, it should be based on merit and be handled through a formal process.

I will not comment on the Scottish problem.

Absolutely. There are very few railways or roads that are purely used as a diversion or purely used as a commuter route or purely used as a regional through route. Like any railway, the Okehampton route would be used for a number of purposes, so it would make sense to develop a business case that encompasses all of these, including benefits to Tavistock and Okehampton and also benefits to Barnstaple and North Devon, if improvements at the Exeter end are included.

If you look at the report, it suggests that the optimum solution is one of the C* routes; that not only addresses the immediate issue but also offers a solution to some of the longer-term aspirations of the region that will have a wider impact than opening a route via Oakhampton/Tavistock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would agree with at that it should be mainly funded from other sources.
Devon & Cornwall subject to Standard cost/benefit analysis?
Businesses, potential and existing, cannot now see the railway via Dawlish as a reliable form of transport.
The Clay companies for example would have been had major problems if they relied on rail. Business passengers should have a a plan B.
Even the railway will make decisions based on this, eg investing in a major repair depot etc sited the other side of Dawlish?

I do not disagree with your points; the BCR is a tool for testing which options return the most benefit, but I am saying that in this case, once the optimum technical solution is found by NR, funding gaps should be handled outside of the NR funding.

 

[yorksrob]

To be honest, the only additional benefits offered by the C routes above additional resilience are marginal journey time improvements in the range of ten minutes at most. The potential benefits to Tavistock, mid Devon and even North Devon if we improve resilience at Cowley Bridge are far greater.

 

[Olaf]

The Okehampton route study seemed to me to be beyond belief in its costings.

The case for reinstating it as a 75mph single track railway with loops at Okehampton and Tavistock along with a refurbishment/strengthening of Meldon Viaduct with a 30mph speed limit (rather than very expensive rebuild), did not appear to have been examined (as a lattice viaduct extra lattices can easily be added - with listed building consent, which would likely be there if done sympathetically)

This is all that would be required for a line that would carry a one every two hour local service and, by exception, diverted passenger and freight trains.

Similarly the passenger levels seemed to be based around a class 165 local shuttle to Exeter which would attract few.

If the line was reinstated then to get significant amount of passengers you would need to extend the Waterloo to Exeter services over it with calls at Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock, Bere Alston and Devonport (plus Lydford for tourist potential).

I have more faith in the NR planning team - they have far more experience on these topics and have to take into account the real costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As Devon County Council own pretty well all the trackbed, I reckon they should reopen it themselves as a semi-preserved railway like the Dartmoor line is now and the Swanage line north of Norden will be by next year.

Then they could build it using local contractors for basic civil engineering tasks (and even competent volunteer labour).

Such a privately owned line could have basic mechanical signalling (signalboxes at Okehampton and Bere Alston interfacing to each other and Exeter/Plymouth) with single line token block (and NSKT token machines at Crediton and St Budeaux in a similar way to the Swanage line to Wareham will have). It also wouldn't need GSM-R.

All these things would save an absolute fortune.

A government grant to Devon to do it themselves would I reckon, deliver it for about a tenth of the price of some of those study options.

For Devon County to do that they would have to divert funds from higher priority demands. The line would not be private, nor would it be fit as an alternative route so it would all be wasted effort.

We are living in the 21st Century, can not afford to waste money on these stone-age fantasies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest, the only additional benefits offered by the C routes above additional resilience are marginal journey time improvements in the range of ten minutes at most. The potential benefits to Tavistock, mid Devon and even North Devon if we improve resilience at Cowley Bridge are far greater.

That saving would combine with the other timing improvements arising from the early start on the changes planned to the signalling system so it is not insignificant.

In addition, the route via Oakhampton/Tavistock is not an alternative to those living between Plymouth and Exeter - the alternative route should be as minimal as possible so as to offer the maximum benefit for existing users.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NR are undoutably fantastic at mega construction projects, but don't seem to me to be geared up procedurally to do smaller low budget projects cheaply, which was something BR excelled in.

NR handle many more small projects each year than BR ever did, and many of the problems with the current railway system arose because of the inept work carried out during BR's tenure.

 

[yorksrob]

As you state, the majority of any time saving could mainly be achieved by other much less expensive improvements anyway. The fact remains that the ten minutes shaved off by a diversion will not, in itself provide a step change in public transport provision for the South West, whereas the route through Central Devon will.

By a similar token, the South Western route to Salisbury doesn't particularily benefit residents of Newbury, but that doesn't make it unimportant to the local area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
BR could have provided gold plated infrastructure had it been provided with NR's gold played fundi.g. That it wasn't is largely down to decisions made by inept Goverments voted in by inept members of the public.

 

[HowardGWR]

It would be great if we could all learn to spell Okehampton!

I've just got this feeling that NR are becoming a bit like the HA with a tendency to over-engineer everything. Looking at the Borders works, it seems so disappointing that immense embankment works, etc, have been carried out throughout and yet much has to remain single track. I cannot believe there would have been much extra cost in restoring the double track, within all that upheaval. The web site photos display what I mean.

Still, our engineers on here (much appreciated) tell us otherwise, but I think our colleague 21C101 has a good approach. Keep it simple to begin with. Perhaps a retired engineer could look at the NR plans (are they in the public domain?) and see if costs could be reduced with a more conservative approach. I, as he does, envisage something like the Yeovil to Weymouth line. When these lines were singled, there was not all this upheaval. Do formations degrade so drastically as apparently is the case in the Borders example?

 

[47802]

I have more faith in the NR planning team - they have far more experience on these topics and have to take into account the real costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


For Devon County to do that they would have to divert funds from higher priority demands. The line would not be private, nor would it be fit as an alternative route so it would all be wasted effort.

We are living in the 21st Century, can not afford to waste money on these stone-age fantasies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That saving would combine with the other timing improvements arising from the early start on the changes planned to the signalling system so it is not insignificant.

In addition, the route via Oakhampton/Tavistock is not an alternative to those living between Plymouth and Exeter - the alternative route should be as minimal as possible so as to offer the maximum benefit for existing users.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


NR handle many more small projects each year than BR ever did, and many of the problems with the current railway system arose because of the inept work carried out during BR's tenure.

Well as per usual this whole debate gets hijacked by the use it as an excuse to reopen Okehampton/Tavistock gang, when the debate should be about what's the best option for travellers between Exeter and Torbay/Plymouth/Cornwall, in the long term, while Okehampton/Tavistock should not be relevant to this argument.

 

[yorksrob]

Well as per usual this whole debate gets hijacked by the use it as an excuse to reopen Okehampton/Tavistock gang, when the debate should be about what's the best option for travellers between Exeter and Torbay/Plymouth/Cornwall, in the long term, while Okehampton/Tavistock should not be relevant to this argument.

That is because the best option for the South West in the long term is to have a robust network including alternative routes and not rely on a very long brach spanning two counties.

Given that the Network Rail study itself included an appraisal of the Okehampton route, accusations of thread hijacking don't really bear scrutiny.

 

[47802]

That is because the best option for the South West in the long term is to have a robust network including alternative routes and not rely on a very long brach spanning two counties.

Or alternatively actually have a solution which addresses the problems of the main route rather than a partial diversionary route.

 

[yorksrob]

Or alternatively actually have a solution which addresses the problems of the main route rather than a partial diversionary route.

Well, they're both alternatives and both suitable for discussion in this thread.

 

[21C101]

BR could have provided gold plated infrastructure had it been provided with NR's gold played funding. That it wasn't is largely down to decisions made by inept Goverments voted in by inept members of the public.

Fully agree. I don't know if Olaf was born before BR was abolished but he appears to me to show scant respect for BRs engineers and managers who were acknowledged worldwide for creating the most efficient railway in the world in the 1980s.

There is also the argument that BR wasn't underfunded but had reasonable funding when taken together with all claims on the exchequer, whereas todays railway is grossly over funded & "gold plated", resulting in inefficiency because its easier to be inefficient and ask for more money from the treasury and also resulting in gross overpayment of some staff because its easier to cave into a union demand and ask for more money from the treasury than tough it out.

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

Or alternatively actually have a solution which addresses the problems of the main route rather than a partial diversionary route.

(Re)providing a diversionary route IS addressing the problem of the main route and was the solution provided when the line at Dawlish was closed regularly periodically closed due to weather, prior to some idiot shutting the diversionary route to much local annoyance.

 

[47802]

(Re)providing a diversionary route IS addressing the problem of the main route and was the solution provided when the line at Dawlish was closed regularly periodically closed due to weather, prior to some idiot shutting the diversionary route to much local annoyance.

I disagree I don't see Okehampton as really a valid alternative. Yes other disagree and also see it as a solution to better rail for North Devon which should treated as a separate issue in my view.

Okehampton is an impact mitigate, but only a replacement of the main line can address the current issues that the main line has which will not disappear with the Okehampton route.

 

[yorksrob]

One of the reasons that I prefer the Okehampton solution is precisely because it provides resilience to the network whilst ensuring that the Dawlish route remains the main line. Were this to be diverted away from the coast, I would fear for the long term future of the coastal stations should another major event occur.

 

[21C101]

I disagree I don't see Okehampton as really a valid alternative. Yes other disagree and also see it as a solution to better rail for North Devon which should treated as a separate issue in my view.

Okehampton is an impact mitigate, but only a replacement of the main line can address the current issues that the main line has which will not disappear with the Okehampton route.

I think if there was an alternative route around Dawlish that was in as good condition as the missing 20 miles across Dartmoor it would be a no brainer to do that.

The issue is that reopening via Okehampton as a single track 75mph diversionary route would cost a fraction of the cost of a new line to bypass Dawlish. The benefits in terms of serving North Cornwall make it more palatable to the government to spend the money because there will be a reasonable day to day use of it not just the odd diverted train.

Essentially I think it will happen because it is the right disused infrastructure, in almost the right place, at the right time.


I'm sure however that a lot of "western" railwaymen view the prospect of SWT running to Plymouth via a reopened Dartmoor line with disdain.

And if I go a little further and forsee six car SWT 159s from Waterloo splitting at Crediton with the front half going to Plymouth and the rear half going to Barnstaple, or even a nine car 159 from Waterloo dropping off three cars for Exmouth at Exeter Central then splitting into Plymouth and Barnstaple portions at Crediton, some here are going to start bouncing up and down with outrage

 

[Ash Bridge]

I'm sure however that a lot of "western" railwaymen view the prospect of SWT running to Plymouth via a reopened Dartmoor line with disdain.

And if I go a little further and forsee six car SWT 159s from Waterloo splitting at Crediton with the front half going to Plymouth and the rear half going to Barnstaple, or even a nine car 159 from Waterloo dropping off three cars for Exmouth at Exeter Central then splitting into Plymouth and Barnstaple portions at Crediton, some here are going to start bouncing up and down with outrage

And don't forget to add the green cast name board for the front of the train
"ATLANTIC COAST EXPRESS" to give them a complete cardiac arrest

 

[47802]

One of the reasons that I prefer the Okehampton solution is precisely because it provides resilience to the network whilst ensuring that the Dawlish route remains the main line. Were this to be diverted away from the coast, I would fear for the long term future of the coastal stations should another major event occur.

Well If the coastal stations need to sacrificed with a new replacement route then perhaps that may need to happen in the long term, I imagine that trying to maintain coastal defences would be a damn site easier and cheaper if you didn't have to maintain a mainline railway plonked on the edge of the coastline.

With the Okehampton solution you end up still trying to maintain a coastal route with rising sea levels, unless of course you eventually potentially want to abandon South Devon to Rail Services.