Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Ash Bridge]

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.

So now it seems you are suggesting Teignmouth and Dawlish should also be abandoned? also why would it be a damn site cheaper to maintain the sea defences without the railway being there?

 

[HSTEd]

Or we could just properly resource flood defences rather than being penny-pinching on such things.

 

[21C101]

So now it seems you are suggesting Teignmouth and Dawlish should also be abandoned? also why would it be a damn site cheaper to maintain the sea defences without the railway being there?

Network Rail would still have to maintain the seawall if the line closed, to protect the houses and land behind as the sea wall is their land and no one would be silly enough to buy it off them.

BR had similar maintenance costs for structures on all sorts of closed lines until privatisation when the closed bits were split into BRB residuary and I think are now owned by the Highways Agency.

 

[MarkyT]

Just to put my oar back in the seawater again briefly:

The long term retention of the coast line through Dawlish and Teignmouth relies primarily on the desire, commitment, and ability to maintain it. Just because there exists a parallel pair of tracks, no matter how close they are to the existing route does not alter this significantly, and it would be politically very difficult to attempt to close it in the future under any scenario as it is the only way for trains to continue to serve the towns of Dawlish and Teignmouth effectively. The existing route has hugged the coast for just over a century and a half. With recent decades' work to strengthen the wall at many sites including the heroic efforts of the Orange Army at the February 2014 breach, the defences are probably stronger than they have been at any time in their history, and even with the most pessimistic forecast sea level and storm force changes another century and a half seems reasonable to expect the alignment to last. Beyond that, it is impossible to plan for realistically, and nobody can know when the thousand year storm may appear nor foresee it's magnitude.

In it's recent Western Route Study Draft, Network Rail identified the Exeter - Newton route as particularly capacity constrained, partly due to the density of local stations and mix of stopping patterns. Whilst there are timetable options that could squeeze in some small growth, one possibility identified for future more significant capacity enhancement is the creation of a four track railway on this section, probably not the entire route but a significant length encompassing a few stations, so that limited stop express trains can overtake local Devon Metro services without the locals having to pull in to shorter loops such as Dawlish Warren and wait, which typically adds five to ten minutes to the local service journey time.

Whilst it might be possible to achieve three or four tracks fairly economically on parts of the existing route, along the Exe and Teign estuary segments perhaps, it seems unlikely this would also be true along the sea wall proper through Dawlish, so a four-tracking through that section would almost certainly involve an inland tunneled diversion. The purpose of such a 'diversion' would now be to strengthen the existing route rather than replace it, providing more tracks and hence allowing a lot more express AND more local trains to run, allowing more flexibility in scheduling whilst also improving reliability as fasts would no longer be routinely 'catching up' the locals. A more intensive and popular local service along the sea wall would be commensurately even more difficult politically to abandon completely in the future than today.

The other major benefit of course would be to allow the longer distance trains to continue to run with no disruption whatsoever in the event that weather conditions or resultant damage forced the coastal route, now the local pair, to be suspended temporarily. Planned engineering access for intensified maintenance of the sea wall would also be rather easier to arrange at quiet times with the new line being able to accommodate the longer distance services, again without disruption.

 

[tbtc]

That has been kicked into the long grass then. Pray for good winters between now and 2043:roll:

The line at Dawlish was closed by the worst winter in 250 years- if that becomes the "norm" over the next decade then that changes things significantly, but we can't base everything on "freak" results

I'm beginning to wonder whether we are going to get an announcement of a major upgrade of what will be the Waterloo to Plymouth/Barnstaple main line, ie reopening Okehampton to Bere Alston and major redoubling east of Exeter

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

Why are you so obsessed with dragging the "Waterloo to Barnstaple" stuff onto every thread?

Does it matter whether a service in the 21st century runs on tracks that "belonged" to the GWR or LSWR generations ago?

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).

Yup - if you don't like a BCR (which doesn't agree with the fantasy of re-opening some scenic line closed fifty years ago) then just keep moving the goalposts until you get the answer that you want!

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.

Why can't we use the same BCR that other schemes are assessed against?

As I've said on this thread a few times, the money that could be used on a scenic route via Okehampton could be used on many other railway schemes (redoubling parts of Exeter - Salisbury, electrifying the B&H etc) - if the evidence about sea level rises is used in the calculation and the Okehampton route still has a poor BCR then that's the facts.

(and if the sea is going to rise sufficiently to close the line at Dawlish, then the Okehampton-supporters seem happy enough to abandon Torbay - how come Cornwall deserves a "resilient" service to Exeter/ Bristol/ London etc but Torbay doesn't?)

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.

The same mumbo jumbo could be said of any project though (don't like the BCR? just find some random numbers to throw into the equation to give the answer you want)

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

...


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

True - if we have to add in all of these other factors in the Okehampton BCR then it's only fair that we use them to assess other projects too - no point in having BCRs if we aren't going to use them sensibly.

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've no problem with reopening Bere Alston to Tavistock, that looks to have a good case.

Despite FGW's big increase in DMU numbers (ex LM/LO 150s) they don't seem very interested in running Exeter to Okehampton other than Sundays - which suggests it's more of a "tourist" market than anything they think is a priority all week round.

But these individual bits should be treated individually - not lumped all together to suit the nostalgia for bringing back a line closed fifty years ago

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"

Social variables? Whatever next...

Not sure I share your enthusiasm for Scotland having things so much differently btw. They couldn't get the Glasgow Airport link built, they couldn't get the Edinburgh Airport link built...

...A2B had a decent enough case for reopening, so the only oddity was the Tweedbank line which was a purely political decision (to keep the LibDems in coalition at Holyrood) - but that's a one-off.

Plenty reasonable sized places in Scotland remain without a train station (Grangemouth, Levenmouth etc) - so it's not like they get everything they want.

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

The idea of building a 30mph single track line sounds realistic for the kind of marginal market you are going to get on the Okehampton line - it's hard to argue against something this modest...

...but we can't pretend that a 30mph single track line (built to accommodate a bi-hourly service taking over an hour and a half from Exeter to Plymouth) is going to be any use as a diversionary line if the route at Dawlish closed - people would be dumped on replacement coach services rather than trying to run HSTs this way.

Can't have it both ways.

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.

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 ---


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 ---


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.

Not nitpicking at all - an accurate and sober analysis.

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.

The benefits of a faster route from Cornwall/ Plymouth/ Torbay to Exeter/ Bristol/ London would benefit large numbers of passengers day in day out.

A route via Okehampton would only benefit some of those people (i.e. not the Torbay ones) and would only be a benefit to them a few days a year.

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

True

I trust that Network Rail know what they are doing (rather than just blindly accepting the case for reopening old branchlines)

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.

Yup - trying to conflate the two (so that one can be seen as a "solution" to the other) is disingenuous.

An Okehampton route would only benefit the Cornwall/ Plymouth/ Torbay to Exeter/ Bristol/ London passengers a few days a year (and even then, it may be easier to put them on a faster coach on the A38 rather than a slower train inland)

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.

So now it seems you are suggesting Teignmouth and Dawlish should also be abandoned? also why would it be a damn site cheaper to maintain the sea defences without the railway being there?

Some people seem quite happy to abandon South Devon entirely (until, no doubt, the moment that the line is closed and then we'll see enthusiasts desperate to re-open it because of... y'know, the "social costs" and all that...)

Or we could just properly resource flood defences rather than being penny-pinching on such things.

Yes - but far less romantic to spend money on soberly tackling the problem - apparently much more fun to fantasise about the LSWR and all that...

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

By happy coincidence, the chap who led the recent study happens to be a very well respected ex BR engineer and manager.

 

[21C101]

The idea of building a 30mph single track line sounds realistic for the kind of marginal market you are going to get on the Okehampton line - it's hard to argue against something this modest...

...but we can't pretend that a 30mph single track line (built to accommodate a bi-hourly service taking over an hour and a half from Exeter to Plymouth) is going to be any use as a diversionary line if the route at Dawlish closed - people would be dumped on replacement coach services rather than trying to run HSTs this way.

Can't have it both ways.

I quite clearly stated a 75mph single line with a 30mph speed restriction over Meldon Viaduct. The Okehampton line is already running at 50mph.

Such a line with loops at Okehampton and Bere Alston would be able to accomodate an hourly service of Diverted HSTs when Dawlish was blocked, but would only need a two hourly "normal" service.

Journey time would be about an hour and a half, 20-30 minutes longer than the Dawlish route, which would be quite acceptable for a diversionary route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By happy coincidence, the chap who led the recent study happens to be a very well respected ex BR engineer and manager.

And I'm sure he did what he (and his firm of consultants if its the report I think you mean) were asked to do.

Its what they were asked to do that was the problem.

 

[Busaholic]

6/10/14 - not the best day for passengers travelling between Cornwall and London. Apart from the well-covered (on here) severance of cables overnight by electrification contractors there was also the HST from Paddington stranded for hours outside St Austell with adhesion problems which, of course, meant everything behind it in the same boat. But an unreported (on here, as far as I know) incident also occurred at Dawlish that morning to a Cross-Country Voyager, the 06.34 from Bristol to Plymouth, which was swamped by a wave and unable to proceed for about 35 minutes.This has occurred many times in the past, of course, but now Cross Country has an arrangement with the Met Office in nearby Exeter to warn them in advance of bad weather conditions allied to a high tide so they can suspend their services in advance. No such warning was given because the wave in question 'came out of the blue'. Now, to an avowed sceptic like myself, and given that it is only a Voyager getting a direct hit that is affected i.e. not water on the track, what are the odds on that, given the paucity of Cross Country trains on this route? In other words, how many more times that day, and perhaps other days, do unexpected huge waves come over at Dawlish when a Voyager doesn't happen to be passing?

It really is time we gave the bumsrush to the Nigel Lawson clones.The once in 250 years scenario could be closer to once in 250 days, not even months. I hope I am wrong, but rational thought processes tell me I'm not. Get on and build an alternative in the almost-certain knowledge that, by the time it's built, it'll be the only show in town.

In September, two houses in different parts of Dawlish collapsed unexpectedly, but the Lawsonites will, with their superior intellects, be able to explain that too.

 

[21C101]

The line at Dawlish was closed by the worst winter in 250 years- if that becomes the "norm" over the next decade then that changes things significantly, but we can't base everything on "freak" results


Why are you so obsessed with dragging the "Waterloo to Barnstaple" stuff onto every thread?

Does it matter whether a service in the 21st century runs on tracks that "belonged" to the GWR or LSWR generations ago?

In this case, mainly to tease those who took such great exception to me suggesting Waterloo - Barnstaple services on previous threads.

However, never underestimate the PFLWA*

* (Popular Front for the Liberation of the Withered Arm).

 

[Xavi]

The need for a 4-track railway between Exeter and Newton Abbot as recently reported by Network Rail is a Whitehall manoeuvre to make the new inland Exminster to Bishopsteignton line the preferred option, but it will remain just that until Dawlish is washed away.... Personally I'd reinstate Okehampton to Bere Alston as a 50 mph mainly single route capable of providing 1 train per hour (journey time not important) in the event of last year's severe weather reoccurring. At other times it would be an hourly Exeter Central to Plymouth service serving all local stations by 2-car DMU. With Tavistock reinstatement probably going ahead in any case it would be a relatively small extra investment for an acceptable solution.

 

[HSTEd]

The sort of pricetags these projects have would buy you a seawall at Dawlish that looks like something out of the Delta Works.......

 

[21C101]

The need for a 4-track railway between Exeter and Newton Abbot as recently reported by Network Rail is a Whitehall manoeuvre to make the new inland Exminster to Bishopsteignton line the preferred option, but it will remain just that until Dawlish is washed away.... Personally I'd reinstate Okehampton to Bere Alston as a 50 mph mainly single route capable of providing 1 train per hour (journey time not important) in the event of last year's severe weather reoccurring. At other times it would be an hourly Exeter Central to Plymouth service serving all local stations by 2-car DMU. With Tavistock reinstatement probably going ahead in any case it would be a relatively small extra investment for an acceptable solution.

Why have a shuttle to Exeter with 2 car DMUs? Few would use it if they had to change at Exeter, they would just continue to drive up the A30.

Extend the Waterloo - Exeter service to Plymouth (with a North Cornwall Parkway station at the A30/A386 junction at Sourton near Okehampton (using 2 or 3 car class 158/9 DMUs) and you will get plenty of use.

This will no doubt attract the same derison from some quarters that my previous suggestions to extend the Waterloo - Exeter service to Barnstaple have acquired (in fact extension to both would be quite easy, with 2x3 car class 159 sets splitting/joining at Crediton).

I'm coming to the conclusion though that a lot of the derision is from Great Western enthusiasts who don't want to see a Southern rival re-emerge (after its rapid rundown and closure at the hands of former GWR employees within a couple of years of their getting their grubby hands on it on 1st January 1963);

and from (F)Great Western enthusiasts who don't want the competition, given how many of the Exeter/Taunton - London service users SWT have already taken since Waterloo - Exeter went hourly, giving regular clockface times 7 days a week (with no two hour gaps, cough..Taunton.. cough), with consistent journey times (rather than journey times that vary by the best part of an hour depending which train you get) and comfortable seats that line up with the windows (and lots of facing seats with tables)

Then there is much cheaper fares eg:

05:14 Exeter Central to Waterloo, arrive 08.46 Anytime Return £69 (3h 36m)

05:46 Exeter St Davids to Paddington, arrive 08.38 Anytime Return £118 (2h 52m)

Despite the 40 minute longer journey time to Waterloo, from City Centre (Exeter) to City Centre (City of London) it is faster via Waterloo and only with the Waterloo service is is possible to be in the City by 9AM. (via the drain)

Yes, my posts are about as welcome as Posts about Chilterns Evergreen 3 plans were at Euston a few years back in some quarters.

 

[47802]

The need for a 4-track railway between Exeter and Newton Abbot as recently reported by Network Rail is a Whitehall manoeuvre to make the new inland Exminster to Bishopsteignton line the preferred option, but it will remain just that until Dawlish is washed away.... Personally I'd reinstate Okehampton to Bere Alston as a 50 mph mainly single route capable of providing 1 train per hour (journey time not important) in the event of last year's severe weather reoccurring. At other times it would be an hourly Exeter Central to Plymouth service serving all local stations by 2-car DMU. With Tavistock reinstatement probably going ahead in any case it would be a relatively small extra investment for an acceptable solution.

While I think the Okehampton route is the wrong solution, if it were to be rebuilt then it needs to be rebuilt as substancial mainline route, the idea of building it as some kind of cheapo glorified preserved railway is ridiculous, paying what would still be hundreds of millions for 1 train an hour and a slow ramble around Dartmoor is crazy you may well just catch the bus on the A38, and in any scenario the investment required to reinstate Tavistock to Okehampton will be massive relative to current proposals to reinstate Bere Alston to Tavistock

If your going to build any kind of diversionary route then it needs to have capacity to deal with it without major disruption to the timetable, not lets build this line as cheaply as possible so it gets our main objective of reinstating the Okehampton service, oh and by the way there might just be capacity to send the odd diverted mailine train this way, ridiculous.

 

[Xavi]

While I think the Okehampton route is the wrong solution, if it were to be rebuilt then it needs to be rebuilt as substancial mainline route, the idea of building it as some kind of cheapo glorified preserved railway is ridiculous, paying what would still be hundreds of millions for 1 train an hour and a slow ramble around Dartmoor is crazy you may well just catch the bus on the A38, and in any scenario the investment required to reinstate Tavistock to Okehampton will be massive relative to current proposals to reinstate Bere Alston to Tavistock

If your going to build any kind of diversionary route then it needs to have capacity to deal with it without major disruption to the timetable, not lets build this line as cheaply as possible so it gets our main objective of reinstating the Okehampton service, oh and by the way there might just be capacity to send the odd diverted mailine train this way, ridiculous.

You really aren't worth responding to, so I'll keep it short. Capacity would be 2 trains per hour at times of disruption. It's the minimum cost and quickest interim solution. Inland cut offs may come later at much greater cost.

 

[21C101]

While I think the Okehampton route is the wrong solution, if it were to be rebuilt then it needs to be rebuilt as substancial mainline route, the idea of building it as some kind of cheapo glorified preserved railway is ridiculous, paying what would still be hundreds of millions for 1 train an hour and a slow ramble around Dartmoor is crazy you may well just catch the bus on the A38, and in any scenario the investment required to reinstate Tavistock to Okehampton will be massive relative to current proposals to reinstate Bere Alston to Tavistock

If your going to build any kind of diversionary route then it needs to have capacity to deal with it without major disruption to the timetable, not lets build this line as cheaply as possible so it gets our main objective of reinstating the Okehampton service, oh and by the way there might just be capacity to send the odd diverted mailine train this way, ridiculous.

The whole point is that you would not be paying hundreds of millions if you built it as some sort of "cheapo preserved railway"

Roughly (and I think I've over estimated this a little)

• Land purchase and compensations £10 million. (with assumption Devon CC retain ownership of most of the trackbed (they already own most of it) and lease it)
  
• Demolition of property and diversion of cycleway to one side of the formation £5 million
  
• Strengthen Meldon viaduct to allow 30mph operation over it including Listed building consent. £25 million
  
• New bridge over A386 at Tavistock £5 million
  
• New underbridge at Prewley Moor £2 million
  
• Refurbish other structures (most are granite and in good condition) £10 million
  
• Prepare trackbed/fencing/repair culverts £15 million
  
• 20 miles of plain track suitable for 75 mph running £20 million
  
• Loop at Okehampton £2 million
  
• Loop and Bay at Bere Alston £5 million
  
• Signalling: No signalman key token with stop boards throughout. Token Machines at St Budeaux, Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton £15 million. No radio unless funded by others.
  
• Upgrade existing route between Okehampton and Crediton from 50mph to 75mph £5 million.

Total £119 million.

Below £100 million if the Tavistock - Bere Alston reopening has already taken place.

Leasing costs for trains and track access payments to NR and Iowa Pacific excluded as ongoing revenue cost.

Thats roughly 10% of the alternative of a new main line railway bypassing Dawlish which came out at about £1 billion if I recall.



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

Capacity would be 2 trains per hour at times of disruption. It's the minimum cost and quickest interim solution. Inland cut offs may come later at much greater cost.

I agree with you with one exception. I think a capacity of one train per hour would suffice. This would only need passing loops at Okehampton and Bere Alston.

To provide for capacity of 2 per hour would need several extra loops and upgrades of the existing Barnstaple line which would increase the costs significantly

With an hourly capacity, when the Dawlish line is closed the Padd Plymouth/Penzance hourly would be diverted this way with the normal service (which I doubt would be more than 8 trains a day each way north of Tavistock, at least at first) suspended and any freight/stock movements carried out overnight.

 

[47802]

The whole point is that you would not be paying hundreds of millions if you built it as some sort of "cheapo preserved railway"

Roughly (and I think I've over estimated this a little)

• Land purchase and compensations £10 million. (with assumption Devon CC retain ownership of most of the trackbed (they already own most of it) and lease it)
  
• Demolition of property and diversion of cycleway to one side of the formation £5 million
  
• Strengthen Meldon viaduct to allow 30mph operation over it including Listed building consent. £25 million
  
• New bridge over A386 at Tavistock £5 million
  
• New underbridge at Prewley Moor £2 million
  
• Refurbish other structures (most are granite and in good condition) £10 million
  
• Prepare trackbed/fencing/repair culverts £15 million
  
• 20 miles of plain track suitable for 75 mph running £20 million
  
• Loop at Okehampton £2 million
  
• Loop and Bay at Bere Alston £5 million
  
• Signalling: No signalman key token with stop boards throughout. Token Machines at St Budeaux, Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton £15 million. No radio unless funded by others.
  
• Upgrade existing route between Okehampton and Crediton from 50mph to 75mph £5 million.

Total £119 million.

Below £100 million if the Tavistock - Bere Alston reopening has already taken place.

Leasing costs for trains and track access payments to NR and Iowa Pacific excluded as ongoing revenue cost.

Thats roughly 10% of the alternative of a new main line railway bypassing Dawlish which came out at about £1 billion if I recall.



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


I agree with you with one exception. I think a capacity of one train per hour would suffice. This would only need passing loops at Okehampton and Bere Alston.

To provide for capacity of 2 per hour would need several extra loops and upgrades of the existing Barnstaple line which would increase the costs significantly

With an hourly capacity, when the Dawlish line is closed the Padd Plymouth/Penzance hourly would be diverted this way with the normal service (which I doubt would be more than 8 trains a day each way north of Tavistock, at least at first) suspended and any freight/stock movements carried out overnight.

deluded nonsense

1, I doubt it can be done for the money you suggest.

2. Ok for a local service, next to useless as a diversionary route, most of the passengers will still end up going via the A38.

 

[MarkyT]

• Land purchase and compensations £10 million. (with assumption Devon CC retain ownership of most of the trackbed (they already own most of it) and lease it)
  
• Demolition of property and diversion of cycleway to one side of the formation £5 million
  
• Strengthen Meldon viaduct to allow 30mph operation over it including Listed building consent. £25 million
  
• New bridge over A386 at Tavistock £5 million
  
• New underbridge at Prewley Moor £2 million
  
• Refurbish other structures (most are granite and in good condition) £10 million
  
• Prepare trackbed/fencing/repair culverts £15 million
  
• 20 miles of plain track suitable for 75 mph running £20 million
  
• Loop at Okehampton £2 million
  
• Loop and Bay at Bere Alston £5 million
  
• Signalling: No signalman key token with stop boards throughout. Token Machines at St Budeaux, Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton £15 million. No radio unless funded by others.
  
• Upgrade existing route between Okehampton and Crediton from 50mph to 75mph £5 million.

Total £119 million.

Below £100 million if the Tavistock - Bere Alston reopening has already taken place.

Leasing costs for trains and track access payments to NR and Iowa Pacific excluded as ongoing revenue cost.

Broadly agree with your headings and specs for an affordable railway (single line/75MPH/hourly) although I don't think I can comment knowledgeably on your price estimates for civils work. Would need some proper timetabling and performance analysis to confirm position and number of loops required. Signalling should be modular colour lights with axle counters, definitely NOT tokens of any flavour, which would be time consuming in operation (requiring mandatory stops at all crossing points even for non-stop diversions) and difficult to reconcile with long trains and long loops anyway, assuming you could even get the parts. For flexibility and capacity in conjunction with Barnstaple service the two single lines between Crediton and Yeoford could become a double track once again fairly easily with a new junction at the divergence, and the double track could also be extended from Crediton part of the way at least back towards Exeter (that had remained double until the 1980s resignalling).Back of the envelope Crediton - Yeoford area resignalling probably about £5m, each crossing loop on Okehampton line about £2m (note that's signalling alone, additional point connections, plain track and earthworks/civils would be on top).

 

[21C101]

deluded nonsense

1, I doubt it can be done for the money you suggest.

2. Ok for a local service, next to useless as a diversionary route, most of the passengers will still end up going via the A38.

Theres no need for that. Its only a web forum not a railway company board meeting.

The choice is a railway that can be reinstated for about £100-150 million or no railway and continuation of the sea wall only as is.

No government will ever pay £300-£400 million for reopening in the south west, let alone the near £1 billion figures being touted about for a wholly new route to bypass the coastal section.

As to passengers preferring to change to coach up the A38. Just about every piece of passenger research shows that what passengers hate most of all is

• to have to change trains or change from train to bus
• Inconsistent journey times - which is guaranteed with replacement coach services that are liable to get caught in traffic congestion at certain times of the day.

Many will put up with a much slower journey for a through service. Otherwise FGW wouldn't bother diverting Penzance services via Yeovil Pen Mill & Yeovil Junction then reversing at Exeter (when the GW line is shut) with a time penalty of about an extra hour. That is also why the very slow in comparison SWT service to Bristol works. It gives the only direct service to London from places like Trowbridge.

Capacity for an hourly service with a 30-40 minutes longer journey time to Plymouth would be quite acceptable for a diversionary route that has occasional use by diverted HSTs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Broadly agree with your headings and specs for an affordable railway (single line/75MPH/hourly) although I don't think I can comment knowledgeably on your price estimates for civils work. Would need some proper timetabling and performance analysis to confirm position and number of loops required. Signalling should be modular colour lights with axle counters, definitely NOT tokens of any flavour, which would be time consuming in operation (requiring mandatory stops at all crossing points even for non-stop diversions) and difficult to reconcile with long trains and long loops anyway, assuming you could even get the parts. For flexibility and capacity in conjunction with Barnstaple service the two single lines between Crediton and Yeoford could become a double track once again fairly easily with a new junction at the divergence, and the double track could also be extended from Crediton part of the way at least back towards Exeter (that had remained double until the 1980s resignalling).Back of the envelope Crediton - Yeoford area resignalling probably about £5m, each crossing loop on Okehampton line about £2m (note that's signalling alone, additional point connections, plain track and earthworks/civils would be on top).

Not going to argue with that too much but just to say my aim was to keep costs really low. A token system is/has? being installed by NR at Wareham for the new link to Norden and cost £3 million extra on the signalling when the resignalling was done at Wareham, according to the Swanage Railway website.

I was working on a premise that token stops at loops with stop boards would make little difference to journey time, as diverted HSTs would stop at Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton anyway; because when diversions were in operation the "local" service from Plymouth to Exeter would be suspended to make way for them (as used to happen on Waterloo - Exeter west of Yeovil - prior to the Axminster loop going in - when GW HST diversions took place).

Yes it would be better to have things like more loops, three mile dynamic loops rather than basic loops at the station, full signalling without tokens and redoubling east and west of Crediton, but I fear that this would make it too expensive to ever get reopened.

 

[47802]

Theres no need for that. Its only a web forum not a railway company board meeting.

The choice is a railway that can be reinstated for about £100-150 million or no railway and continuation of the sea wall only as is.

No government will ever pay £300-£400 million for reopening in the south west, let alone the near £1 billion figures being touted about for a wholly new route to bypass the coastal section.

As to passengers preferring to change to coach up the A38. Just about every piece of passenger research shows that what passengers hate most of all is

• to have to change trains or change from train to bus
• Inconsistent journey times - which is guaranteed with replacement coach services that are liable to get caught in traffic congestion at certain times of the day.

Many will put up with a much slower journey for a through service. Otherwise FGW wouldn't bother diverting Penzance services via Yeovil Pen Mill & Yeovil Junction then reversing at Exeter (when the GW line is shut) with a time penalty of about an extra hour. That is also why the very slow in comparison SWT service to Bristol works. It gives the only direct service to London from places like Trowbridge.

Capacity for an hourly service with a 30-40 minutes longer journey time to Plymouth would be quite acceptable for a diversionary route that has occasional use by diverted HSTs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not going to argue with that too much but just to say my aim was to keep costs really low. A token system is/has? being installed by NR at Wareham for the new link to Norden and cost £3 million extra on the signalling when the resignalling was done at Wareham, according to the Swanage Railway website.

I was working on a premise that token stops at loops with stop boards would make little difference to journey time, as diverted HSTs would stop at Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton anyway; because when diversions were in operation the "local" service from Plymouth to Exeter would be suspended to make way for them (as used to happen on Waterloo - Exeter west of Yeovil - prior to the Axminster loop going in - when GW HST diversions took place).

Yes it would be better to have things like more loops, three mile dynamic loops rather than basic loops at the station, full signalling without tokens and redoubling east and west of Crediton, but I fear that this would make it too expensive to ever get reopened.

Are there enough paths in there for the steam trains

If the diversion has limited capacity, takes all day, when there is a fast road link then the TOC's may opt to Bus the majority of passenger instead.

Fundamently it doesn't solve any of the problems of the main line and still causes considerable disruption to the timetable, which comes back to a proper solution of diverted mainline between Exeter and Newton Abbot, which has Zero impact on Intercity services, in the event of a Coastal Route closure, either Temporary or eventually Permanent.

Will the Government pay for this maybe not but neither should thdey pay for your preserved railway solution either.

 

[MarkyT]

A token system is/has? being installed by NR at Wareham for the new link to Norden and cost £3 million extra on the signalling when the resignalling was done at Wareham, according to the Swanage Railway website.

Well its a complete standard colour light junction with the main line at Worgret, that's where the main incremental costs for NR were. The token section is for the single line beyond the junction and for ease of interface to the Swanage signalling at the other end, withdrawal of a key from the new hut at Wareham will have a simple release interface for the NR route from the main line towards the branch. NR and Swanage only have to cooperate on making the token system work safely and reliably between the two administrations, simple technology for an interface with a preserved railway. Swanage Railway will be responsible for everything else at their end at Norden and Corfe Castle. Makes it a lot easier otherwise NR might have had to install colour lights, axle counters etc at Norden as well at considerable extra full commercial expense. Where the railway is all NR, the same considerations don't apply.

I was working on a premise that token stops at loops with stop boards would make little difference to journey time, as diverted HSTs would stop at Bere Alston, Okehampton and Crediton anyway . . . Yes it would be better to have things like more loops, three mile dynamic loops rather than basic loops at the station . . .

Loops would have to be long enough to accomodate HSTs at least and then positions of token machines on short 4-car platforms for the normal service would be inconvenient for crew of the diverted expresses. The other problem with NSKT is token balancing where a local ops manager or technician has to go out periodically and move tokens from the drop-off machine for a particular section (on one platform of a particular station) to the pick up machine (on the other platform), onerous enough on the sparsely trafficked Central Wales line but with an hourly service all day probabaly being a daily requirement on the Okehampton route. Taken together with the token hut positioning issues, diversions might force the crossing points to be manned all day by NR operating staff during diversions.

 

[Olaf]

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.

The route you suggest would provide access to the communities along the route, but the greater benefits are achieved by addressing the wider market and that is along the current route. A short alternative route meets the first requirement and helps re-enforce the existing route.

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.

BR was never up to the job, no matter how much money you might throw at it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Sorry, I was using the English spelling.

I think the scale of the engineering is due to the regime that NR must operate in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Agreed.

Tavistock is already being addressed as a separate project and the rest of the argument for Oakhampton/Tavistock is based on weekend hobbyists fantasies.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Are there enough paths in there for the steam trains

If the diversion has limited capacity, takes all day, when there is a fast road link then the TOC's may opt to Bus the majority of passenger instead.

Fundamently it doesn't solve any of the problems of the main line and still causes considerable disruption to the timetable, which comes back to a proper solution of diverted mainline between Exeter and Newton Abbot, which has Zero impact on Intercity services, in the event of a Coastal Route closure, either Temporary or eventually Permanent.

Will the Government pay for this maybe not but neither should thdey pay for your preserved railway solution either.

For long distance passengers travelling with luggage, is trying to get on a RR Bus at Plymouth or Exeter an option to savour? And how long does this exercise cost in time? From getting off a HST/Voyager at Plymouth Being herded to the bus, then the same thing in reverse at the other end plus at the mercy of traffic congestion in both cities that is surely going to take longer (plus adding a lot of unnecessary stress to the journey) than a quick reversal and your on your way again still with the comfort of the train costing no more than an additional 30mins,and not all day as you claim.

 

[Olaf]

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.

All of which the NR report has demonstrated is of insufficient value to justify it going ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

As they stand, none of the options have sufficient merit, and thus the argument that the alternative route should be covered in connection with the other options being investigated in the Exeter to Plymouth line as part of the Route Study. Q.E.D.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I have no regard for what was BR at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

The route C options would likely be used as the main line with Dawlish operated as a branch which is fine given given the nature and level of teh traffic compared with Plymouth and Exeter.

 

[mr_jrt]

The other problem with NSKT is token balancing where a local ops manager or technician has to go out periodically and move tokens from the drop-off machine for a particular section (on one platform of a particular station) to the pick up machine (on the other platform), onerous enough on the sparsely trafficked Central Wales line but with an hourly service all day probabaly being a daily requirement on the Okehampton route. Taken together with the token hut positioning issues, diversions might force the crossing points to be manned all day by NR operating staff during diversions.

Sure it is not beyond the wit of man in this day and age to have an electronic system. Swipe your device over a pad to acquire the token, and swipe it again at another to release it. Big obvious display on the device to show you that you have (or do not have) a valid token. The pads would just need a power supply and a GSM modem, and all the transactions are handled back at HQ.

 

[21C101]

Sure it is not beyond the wit of man in this day and age to have an electronic system. Swipe your device over a pad to acquire the token, and swipe it again at another to release it. Big obvious display on the device to show you that you have (or do not have) a valid token. The pads would just need a power supply and a GSM modem, and all the transactions are handled back at HQ.

Been around for nearly 30 years. Radio Electronic Token Block

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

Designed and implemented, incredibly cheaply, by the BR Radio Engineers.

The sort of ingenuity and thinking that developed RETB so incredibly cheaply, saving vast amounts of money on what were previously mechanically signalling lines (because no signals or inter station cabling was needed, just stop boards) is something that needs to be regained if railways in the UK are ever to get a grip on costs. Unfortunately some of the best engineers and managers in BR got p*ssed off and retired or went elsewhere after Railtrack & the TOCS took over in 1995, and a load of construction and bus industry numpties came in from outside and made clear that they had no regard for them. Once the chain of knowledge is broken it is very difficult to relearn the art. Subsidies are still twice as high in real terms as they were under BR.

I hope no one in their careers here ever has to go through what many experienced and very able BR engineers and managers went through in the immediate aftermath of privatisation. Basically being told that they were incompent dinosaurs and knew nothing, and treated as such, by people from outside the rail industry who came in and thought they knew it all. The ultimate result of all this was Hatfield, since when the rail industry has never recovered, efficiency wise.

 

[Xavi]

The likes I Olaf and 47802 are really clueless. I am not some weekend fantasy hobbyist and I'm sure other contributors aren't either. I've recently been involved in tendering for the Wessex Capacity enhancements for Waterloo (10-car mainline suburban and full reinstatement of International platforms).

For a tiny fraction of the cost of that project Plymouth and Cornwall can reliably be connected to the rest of the rail network at all times pending longer term Dawlish solutions.

A few facts:

- nobody cares at all about journey times if there is major disruption and you can get home by rail rather than bus

- a minimum cost solution with just 16 miles of reinstated infrastructure between Tavistock and Meldon will do fine providing loops allow 2tph

- Current London centric UK economy is an implosion waiting to happen and yet Crossrail 2 comes next (I'm involved with that project too) with more investment thrown at what is essentially a service economy with no real wealth creation. Why do you think all the commentators (deputy Head of BofE this week) are suddenly wakening up to the fact that zero is the new norm base rate? It's because London and alike have sucked the life out of the real economy for 20 years now without any real added value - the western world is broke. Yet cost benefit analysis still reckons more of the same will work. It won't. It's time for smaller investments that can make a start on rebalancing our country.

 

[LateThanNever]

Originally Posted by yorksrob
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 branch 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.

All of which the NR report has demonstrated is of insufficient value to justify it going ahead.

Actually I think you'll find that there was not enough 'value' (so called) in it going ahead as a stand alone route. It was just a conclusion within a study within a tight remit. Neither diversions nor strategy were considered. Nor were the vast sums spent and still being spent for emergency repairs to the Dawlish route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The likes I Olaf and 47802 are really clueless. I am not some weekend fantasy hobbyist and I'm sure other contributors aren't either. I've recently been involved in tendering for the Wessex Capacity enhancements for Waterloo (10-car mainline suburban and full reinstatement of International platforms).

For a tiny fraction of the cost of that project Plymouth and Cornwall can reliably be connected to the rest of the rail network at all times pending longer term Dawlish solutions.

A few facts:

- nobody cares at all about journey times if there is major disruption and you can get home by rail rather than bus

- a minimum cost solution with just 16 miles of reinstated infrastructure between Tavistock and Meldon will do fine providing loops allow 2tph

- Current London centric UK economy is an implosion waiting to happen and yet Crossrail 2 comes next (I'm involved with that project too) with more investment thrown at what is essentially a service economy with no real wealth creation. Why do you think all the commentators (deputy Head of BofE this week) are suddenly wakening up to the fact that zero is the new norm base rate? It's because London and alike have sucked the life out of the real economy for 20 years now without any real added value - the western world is broke. Yet cost benefit analysis still reckons more of the same will work. It won't. It's time for smaller investments that can make a start on rebalancing our country.

Hear, hear!

 

[21C101]

The likes I Olaf and 47802 are really clueless. I am not some weekend fantasy hobbyist and I'm sure other contributors aren't either. I've recently been involved in tendering for the Wessex Capacity enhancements for Waterloo (10-car mainline suburban and full reinstatement of International platforms).

For a tiny fraction of the cost of that project Plymouth and Cornwall can reliably be connected to the rest of the rail network at all times pending longer term Dawlish solutions.

A few facts:

- nobody cares at all about journey times if there is major disruption and you can get home by rail rather than bus

- a minimum cost solution with just 16 miles of reinstated infrastructure between Tavistock and Meldon will do fine providing loops allow 2tph

- Current London centric UK economy is an implosion waiting to happen and yet Crossrail 2 comes next (I'm involved with that project too) with more investment thrown at what is essentially a service economy with no real wealth creation. Why do you think all the commentators (deputy Head of BofE this week) are suddenly wakening up to the fact that zero is the new norm base rate? It's because London and alike have sucked the life out of the real economy for 20 years now without any real added value - the western world is broke. Yet cost benefit analysis still reckons more of the same will work. It won't. It's time for smaller investments that can make a start on rebalancing our country.

Well said.

Unfortunately one of the sad things about the way the country has gone in the last 30 years is a growing unthinking intolerance of anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy in all walks of life. People prefer to keep their heads down and just follow the group. They then attempt to deride and shout down anyone who challenges them.

It has always happened to some extent, but has got far worse over the last thirty years. Often those challenging orthodoxy have overlooked something, but not inoften they are right, and unless they are just troublemakers with an axe to grind, society is the poorer for not giving them a hearing.

 

[MarkyT]

A little more information to add on NSKT remote loops. When these were first introduced in the 1980s they were a cheap way of eliminating intermediate crossing loop boxes on rural routes. The installations of that time have been much modified since however and even assuming they were permitted today would not be so economical to replicate elsewhere, with costs now likely to approach those for a modern 'modular' colour light loop. The reasons for the cost escalation are primarily:

1. The lack of a suitable modern replacement for the hydro-pneumatic self acting point mechanism, no longer manufactured.

2. The modern requirement for fitting TPWS at the stop boards.

At many, possibly all by now, of the original remote loop installation, including similar RETB crossing loops, the point mechanisms have had to be replaced by conventional electrical point machines or clamp locks, controlled by mini interlockings with local track circuit locking etc and with suitably improved local power supplies, much more complex than the original installations. TPWS train stop loops have also had to be installed at the stop boards, interfaced to the token circuits and are supplemented by a drivers indication light to inform when it is safe to pass.

With all that complexity required today there's probably no saving over full standard colour light signalling, implemented using the latest budget modular systems and avoiding all the obsolete technology.

In the 1980s, the Central Wales NSKT used leased BT private wires between remote passing places and that turned out to be a significant ongoing operational expense, as there was no realistic competition at the time nor any other alternative, unless the railway was going to continue to maintain it's own decrepit overhead telegraph routes or replace them with new buried cables throughout. Today if the railway was to lease modern digital communications in a rural area, or provide it's own, it is perfectly feasible to use those channels safely for axle counters, interlocking functions and route setting control rather than the simplistic token synchronisation circuits employed before under NSKT which communicated over analogue voice band frequency division multiplex systems using reed filters.

 

[yorksrob]

The route you suggest would provide access to the communities along the route, but the greater benefits are achieved by addressing the wider market and that is along the current route. A short alternative route meets the first requirement and helps re-enforce the existing route.

You forget that not only do Tavistock and Okehampton benefit from greater connectivity with the rest of the South West, but other communities on the network also stand to gain from greater connectivity to Tavistock, Okehampton and the hinterland of Devon.

Still, as the Quo once said, "you pays yer money, you takes your choice. I just think a ten minute saving isn't a lot to spend billions of pounds on.

BR was never up to the job, no matter how much money you might throw at it.

Assuming you're basing that on a position of knowledge (rather than ideological guff), perhaps you could provide us with a technical and engineering critique of the Selby diversion. This was a major engineering project undertaken by BR during the early 1980's which was similar to some of the options proposed for Dawlish.

Tavistock is already being addressed as a separate project and the rest of the argument for Oakhampton/Tavistock is based on weekend hobbyists fantasies.

At present, Tavistock passengers will simply be loaded on an already crowded South Devon main line and subject to the same resilience issues of everything west of Exeter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The route C options would likely be used as the main line with Dawlish operated as a branch which is fine given given the nature and level of teh traffic compared with Plymouth and Exeter.

Well, they say that, but if the cost becomes too much, I could well forsee circumstances in which that branch might be closed. The fact that those stations have a main line running through them make it a lot less likely that they will be sacrificed in the future.