Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[bnm]

Was this kicked into touch with the abandonment of the franchise process? Then again the Melksham and Paignton service increases had similar status at the time the ITT was published, but for Dec 2013, and they still happened OK, so it would perhaps be wrong to write Okehampton off completely. There's always the 'subject to stock availability' caveat of course...

Melksham (TransWilts) received funding from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and Wiltshire County Council. Torbay services increases receive subsidy from Torbay Council. Nothing was forthcoming to subsidise services to Okehampton. That situation may of course change in the future.

 

[Woody]

As is Taunton. A Dawlish bypass isn't going to help with either of these.

I would remind some commentators than the 1930s Dawlish avoiding line was not just a proposed tin pot secondary line scheme but a live ongoing fully funded major main rail project backed by both the government of the day and the then Great Western railway as well as the Prime minister Neville Chamberlain and was going to be built at a time when the former LSWR route via Okehampton and the Teign Valley route through Halden were still open and used for diversions. Most of the negative forum commentators views would have simply been swept aside back then and rightly so. I never been able to work it out why it is today there seems to be an “institutional bias” against improving rail links west of Exeter to Plymouth and Cornwall even within First Great Western itself that would of raised eyebrows at the highest levels of power back then in the 1930s.

 

[The Ham]

Whilst I can understand the romance and nostalgia of reinstating a long-closed route; but is re-opening the Okehampton route the best choice for a Dawlish avoiding line?

What is the Okehampton line meant to be? A secondary diversionary route? Or to take over as the main route, with the Dawlish route being retained for local services and diversions only?

Surely the best thing to do is to look at the long-term strategic needs of the region? Would a completely new and faster inland alignment be better? Allowing for a reduction in journey times, as well as securing the route from further coastal erosion.

Depending on the costs of the various options I could see that the Oakhampton route being reopened in the next 5 years with it being able to be used for diversions as needed. With options being looked at for longer term solutions for the main route.

 

[yorksrob]

It just proves my point that no amount of route reopening would help against what has happened

That's not really the case though. If you have two routes, you'd be particularly unlucky to have both out for a long period of time. Looking at the thread on the Crewkerne landslip, it seems that that will be resolved fairly swiftly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the Okehampton line meant to be? A secondary diversionary route? Or to take over as the main route, with the Dawlish route being retained for local services and diversions only?

I'd see it as a secondary diversionary route serving local needs most of the time. Let's not forget that the Dawlish line is fine 90% of the time.

 

[Gadfly]

A reopened Okehampton route would be of no use to Torbay and the rest of south Devon. The Exeter - Newton Abbot route needs diverting inland, probably roughly parallel with the A380, perhaps with intermediate parkway station(s) to serve Dawlish, Teignmouth etc. The existing sea-wall route should either be abandoned, or run as a seasonal tourist line.

 

[ianhr]

A reopened Okehampton route would be of no use to Torbay and the rest of south Devon. The Exeter - Newton Abbot route needs diverting inland, probably roughly parallel with the A380, perhaps with intermediate parkway station(s) to serve Dawlish, Teignmouth etc. The existing sea-wall route should either be abandoned, or run as a seasonal tourist line.

I think the main case for the Okehampton route is that it would improve access to/from Mid Devon & East Cornwall for trips to/from Plymouth, Exeter and points east. Re-connecting Okehampton & Tavistock directly, and with bus links to Launceston, Bude, Hatherleigh etc.

It cannot be seen as an ALTERNATIVE to the GWR route but would be useful for occasional EMERGENCY diversions as needed now.

 

[yorksrob]

...but if you want to spend £250m on an Okehampton route then you need to prove that its better than spending that £250m on other schemes (and, as I've suggested, there are other competing schemes in the south west - would an Okehampton route benefit more people than redoubling the SWT line to Exeter / reopening Bristol to Portishead/ further electrification?) - which scheme would bring about the biggest increase in passenger numbers/ benefit the most people?

I would suggest that since the L&SWR route via Yeovil already has a good train service and the current diesel service on existing routes is already good, reintroducing Tavistock, Okehampton and the Dartmoor National Park to a meaningful passenger service would offer a considerably greater benefit to more people.

Unfortunately, we have a cost benefit calculation that prioritises measures according to how cheap they are rather than whether they offer a greater benefit.

 

[Trainbuff]

I think the main case for the Okehampton route is that it would improve access to/from Mid Devon & East Cornwall for trips to/from Plymouth, Exeter and points east. Re-connecting Okehampton & Tavistock directly, and with bus links to Launceston, Bude, Hatherleigh etc.

It cannot be seen as an ALTERNATIVE to the GWR route but would be useful for occasional EMERGENCY diversions as needed now.

Thats right. A new line needs to be planned between Exeter and Newton Abbot. This will almost certainly take a long time. The Okehampton route if re-instated could be used as a diversionary route in emergencies.

This would still keep the main rail line serving the Torbay conurbation. The Okehampton route used in emergencies. With rising sea levels and greater energy in the Weather systems that we are seeing this will happen more frequently. At least the South West peninsular will not be cut off then.

Re dualling the line between Exeter and Salisbury would also be worth doing in time.

Despite the relative lack of investment in the South West Rail network passenger numbers here have been booming on the Branches faster then many places in the Country.

Cowley Bridge will have to be remodelled in any case whatever happens ultimately. The idea of a viaduct (for both the main line and Barnstaple/Okehampton Branch) seems logical

 

[MarkyT]

A reopened Okehampton route would be of no use to Torbay and the rest of south Devon.

I don't think any supporters of this would expect the LSWR to become the main line taking the majority of Plymouth and Cornwall expresses under normal circumstances. So the existing coast route would have to be retained as well to serve South Devon en route.

The Exeter - Newton Abbot route needs diverting inland, probably roughly parallel with the A380, perhaps with intermediate parkway station(s) to serve Dawlish, Teignmouth etc. The existing sea-wall route should either be abandoned, or run as a seasonal tourist line.

The railway sea wall through Dawlish in particular also protects the town so would have to be maintained broadly in its existing form whether or not a railway exists on top or not. Both town centres are focussed around the stations on the sea front and local traffic has been very healthy in recent years leading to frequent overcrowding on the 143 and 153 units often used, not only in summer, but year round. Parkway stations miles up the hill would be very unnattractive to such local users and also summer tourists visiting both towns and making local day trips. If any kind of railway has to be maintained along the route, it might as well carry a local public transport service, and if the expresses were rerouted to an inland diversion then the remaining infrastructure could be simplified by singling along the most exposed sections and removing the battered outer platform, associated buildings and footbridge at Dawlish. Although there would still be a risk of severe damage closing the route or limiting operations temporarily, shuttles to Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren could then be implemented from Newton Abbot and Exeter respectively leaving only Dawlish itself isolated on bus links, whilst express trains to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall could continue, unaffected, inland (subject to constraints elsewhere clearly!).

 

[59CosG95]

This just in:

@SW_Trains: The line has re-opened at #Crewkerne and trains can now run between Exeter St Davids and Yeovil Junction

-15 mins previously.

 

[IKBrunel]

Because we've just had the first collapse since 1855?
As a resident of the South West affected by this disruption I'd rather they spent hundreds of millions on something else. It's a kneejerk reaction. Dawlish does not close often.

I agree that decisions shouldn't be kneejerk, that decisions need to be based on some sort of benefit cost analysis & weighed up against other needy schemes.
I also agree with other posters that you cannot attribute individual storms to climate change.
But what is clear is that every year now we have record breaking storms - wettest december, windiest january, etc, etc. So the frequency and severity of major storms affecting rail infrastructure has increased/is increasing.
There is little merit getting into an argument here about whether climate change is man made, etc, etc. What is clear from evidence is that we get more severe storms more often than we used to, and it seems to be getting worse year on year in recent years.

Therefore we cannot make decisions about improving infrastructure resilience based on historic weather data back to 1855 any more than we can plan capacity for passenger data going back to 1855.

Predicting how much worse things are going to get is extremely difficult, but one thing is clear is that we are on a worsening trend for storms and we wont know for a long time if we've seen the worst of it yet.

Whilst there is a certain amount that can be done proactively from surveying, inevitably you don't always know your weak points until break. And to a degree perhaps, asking for cash for storm resilience is always harder than asking for money for other changes with more direct improvements to service, since the benefits of storm resilience work is much harder to quantify. I suspect a lot of improved spec for resilience happens as an add-on to other projects.

We should perhaps expect to see more of this sort of this sort of thing in the years ahead.

Sorry if that sounds a bit doom & gloom, but that's my (limited) understanding of the climate science & impact on infastructure.

 

[ianhr]

I don't think any supporters of this would expect the LSWR to become the main line taking the majority of Plymouth and Cornwall expresses under normal circumstances. So the existing coast route would have to be retained as well to serve South Devon en route.



The railway sea wall through Dawlish in particular also protects the town so would have to be maintained broadly in its existing form whether or not a railway exists on top or not. Both town centres are focussed around the stations on the sea front and local traffic has been very healthy in recent years leading to frequent overcrowding on the 143 and 153 units often used, not only in summer, but year round. Parkway stations miles up the hill would be very unnattractive to such local users and also summer tourists visiting both towns and making local day trips. If any kind of railway has to be maintained along the route, it might as well carry a local public transport service, and if the expresses were rerouted to an inland diversion then the remaining infrastructure could be simplified by singling along the most exposed sections and removing the battered outer platform, associated buildings and footbridge at Dawlish. Although there would still be a risk of severe damage closing the route or limiting operations temporarily, shuttles to Teignmouth and Dawlish Warren could then be implemented from Newton Abbot and Exeter respectively leaving only Dawlish itself isolated on bus links, whilst express trains to Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall could continue, unaffected, inland (subject to constraints elsewhere clearly!).

I feel that what is needed now is a definite programme something like this:

1. Repair the sea wall & reopen the main line. Immediate - this will be done anyway.

2. Re-open Bere Alston-Tavistock. Short term.

3. Upgrade Crediton-Okehampton to 70 mph with a passing loop then all year 7 day service with bus link to Bude. Short term.

4. Reopen Okehampton-Tavistock as single line with a passing loop then a regional Exeter-Plymouth 1 tph this way with bus links. Medium term.

5. A new Exeter-Newton Abbot double track 125 mph cut-off on new alignment. Longer term.

6. Re-engineer the coastal route along the lines you have suggested for a 2 tph or more local service Exeter-Torbay. Once stage 5 is complete.

 

[backontrack]

I'd do this:

1. Reopen sea wall.

2. Reopen Bere Alston-Tavistock-Okehampton.

3. Start building double-track 125mph Teign Valley line. When finished, route all main services that way and keep some stoppers going the coast way.

4. More stoppers going down the Dawlish line. Lengthening to take place of the platforms at Dawlish at the end away from the sea wall. Older stock could be used in the situation of a collapse to ferry people from Dawlish to Exeter and from Teignmouth to Newton Abbot. Maybe also single the line with loops at Starcross, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

5. And one more thing, but maybe a higher percentage of trains could be stored south of the wall as a short-term solution.

 

[DaveHarries]

A new high speed route providing such benefits might partly follow the old Teign Valley route from Newton Abbot with the Heathfield 'corner' cut off though the relatively flat clay workings then passing in tunnel beneath Haldon Forest to re-emerge onto the old branch alignment once again near Alphington.

Nice idea. I think the answer is to have the new route but also to retain the current route through Dawlish for use as a diversion. Perhaps have expresses going normally via. the new route and have a 30-minute local stopper frequency between Exeter St. Davids and Newton Abbot.

Meanwhile I just found this on the BBC News site:

How do you fix the Dawlish problem?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26068375

However it would be a pity to no longer go via. Dawlish: I end up travelling between Bristol and Plymouth when working and the Dawlish section is my favourite part of the trip. I suspect I am not the only person who thinks that way.

Also one other problem. According to a book I have ("British Railways Past & Present No. 8 - Devon", 1994 edition) once the line through Longdown was closed, and I quote, "the station site was offered back to the descendants of the original landowner, in accordance with conditions governing the original sale [...]". It looks to me as if the new route shown on http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf would go through Longdown and, if so, then might those conditions of original sale cause problems?

Dave

 

[455driver]

I'd do this:

1. Reopen sea wall.

2. Reopen Bere Alston-Tavistock-Okehampton.

3. Start building double-track 125mph Teign Valley line. When finished, route all main services that way and keep some stoppers going the coast way.

4. More stoppers going down the Dawlish line. Lengthening to take place of the platforms at Dawlish at the end away from the sea wall. Older stock could be used in the situation of a collapse to ferry people from Dawlish to Exeter and from Teignmouth to Newton Abbot. Maybe also single the line with loops at Starcross, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

5. And one more thing, but maybe a higher percentage of trains could be stored south of the wall as a short-term solution.

Excellent idea, just send your cheque to the DaFT and they will start next week, £250 million should do as a first installment!

 

[moggie]

Admirable that noises are now being made in the heat and glare of public focus on politicians to DO SOMETHING at this incredible time. An alternative route to the South West would be one hell of a generous gesture but maybe the debate has shifted from desirable to essential now the present governments policy of climate change scepticism has literally floundered and sunk beneath the waves this winter. Politicians of any persuasion are going to find this event hard to ignore for sometime to come.

Whichever route is assessed as offering the best option as an alternative to the classic sea wall section remains to be seen but I offer these thoughts;

1. If money is going to be spent, what scheme will offer the best incremental improvement? A new direct route on a new alignment may offer journey time improvements but will serve no new market and is debatable that this would serve the existing custom from coastal towns along the route? Will the locals support closure of the sea wall route?

2. Retention of both the sea wall route as well as an alternative alignment serving the same places is unlikely to be viable.

3. Retention of the sea wall route as a local rail route only will fail at the next significant storm event that causes damage as the economic case for ongoing repair will be weaker once an alternative route (not alignment) is in place. This of course could become a de facto outcome despite assurances to the contrary.

4. A new alternative route for serving both population not currently served AND offering a viable alternative for the major flows provides permanent benefits and insurance against weather events.

Interesting times ahead. Ultimately I suspect in ten years time nothing will have changed.

 

[Tobbes]

Also one other problem. According to a book I have ("British Railways Past & Present No. 8 - Devon", 1994 edition) once the line through Longdown was closed, and I quote, "the station site was offered back to the descendants of the original landowner, in accordance with conditions governing the original sale [...]". It looks to me as if the new route shown on http://www.townend.me/files/southdevon.pdf would go through Longdown and, if so, then might those conditions of original sale cause problems?

Dave

If there's going to be a new route - and in my view it will only come after Okehampton - Tavistock if it happens at all - then there will presumably be compulsory purchase of the route as required.

Tobbes

 

[edwin_m]

To my way of thinking there are three conclusions from this thread:

(1) In the short term the only possible action is to reinstate the sea wall route and do whatever is necessary to keep it open.

(2) Meanwhile, there needs to be some work done to determine whether this is truly a one-off or if the combined effects of any rising sea levels or any increases in frequency/severity of storms mean that it will become much more frequent in the future. If so then there needs to be consideration of building a better sea wall with the railway on it, or diverting the railway to an inland route which will probably make it possible to build the sea wall higher or otherwise better than with the railway still there. Ideally the inland route should serve Dawlish and Teignmouth.

(3) I can't help concluding that the benefit of an Okehampton/Tavistock route for emergency diversions will be very small. If this sort of disruption continues to be rare then the occasional diversion won't justify the costs of maintaining crew knowledge etc on the diversionary route. If disruption becomes more frequent then (2) above is necessary to ensure a reliable rail link which is of some use to the populations of intermediate stations in South Devon as well as Plymouth and Cornwall - in which case diversions via Okehampton are no longer necessary. Any case for reopening needs to stand primarily on the benefits to the communities on the route. There might also be a small benefit for planned diversions, for example for blockades between Newton Abbot and Plymouth.

 

[47802]

I'd do this:

1. Reopen sea wall.

2. Reopen Bere Alston-Tavistock-Okehampton.

3. Start building double-track 125mph Teign Valley line. When finished, route all main services that way and keep some stoppers going the coast way.

4. More stoppers going down the Dawlish line. Lengthening to take place of the platforms at Dawlish at the end away from the sea wall. Older stock could be used in the situation of a collapse to ferry people from Dawlish to Exeter and from Teignmouth to Newton Abbot. Maybe also single the line with loops at Starcross, Dawlish and Teignmouth.

5. And one more thing, but maybe a higher percentage of trains could be stored south of the wall as a short-term solution.

Yeh if you get option 2. then you are not going to get option 3. anytime soon ie the next 20 to 30 years unless you end having to repair the Dawlish line every few months. If you get option 3. instead then the coast route would probably be closed. Of course in reality all you will get is option 1.

Option 2. should only be considered if its massively cheaper than 3.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Network-Rail-chooses-Plymouth-Okehampton-line/story-20595831-detail/story.html

Latest news...

 

[charlee]

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Network-Rail-chooses-Plymouth-Okehampton-line/story-20595831-detail/story.html

Latest news...

Yeah it seems to have come from the BBC. Very interesting news,but like the south west correspondent says it seems very fishy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559

 

[Tobbes]

Yeah it seems to have come from the BBC. Very interesting news,but like the south west correspondent says it seems very fishy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559

It doesn't sound fishy to me: NR have been very clear that Dawlish is one of the most expensive locations to maintain on the entire network, and therefore it is prudent for them to have looked at alternatives. There was nothing fishy in this - the obvious thing would be to look at the LSWR route, especially as the Tavistock extension is likely. And though Aggregate Industries own the line from Coleford Junction, I'd be very surprised if NR didn't have a decent understanding of what the state of the line was.

So it doesn't seem fishy to me at all - the senior NR person was (i) honest that they didn't own the line (ii) that it was the obvious alternative to Plymouth and (implicitly) (iii) that NR is going to have have a sensible answer to the Secretary of State's request for alternatives. Always good to have a proactive answer for the Minister!

In straight political terms, I'd expect over the next 11 months (ie, up to Autumn Statement) commitments to:

- reinstate Dawlish (complete before Easter)
- reinstate LSWR Exeter - Plymouth by the end of CP5, and preferably sooner (capacity will be interesting - single track with lots of loops or double throughout?)
- increase capacity from Exeter - Salisbury (so that GW diversions via Yeovil can be in addition to SWT hourlies)
- Electrify SW from Bristol - Penzance in CP6 (this includes via Okehampton)
- Explore an inland avoiding line in CP7 onwards, depending on actual performance at Dawlish.

This is a big bill for the next couple of Governments but it will help get some votes in 2014 and 2015. That's democracy for you!

Tobbes

 

[K Macdonald]

There's been a good few suggestions on alternative routes, and good natured & sensible suggestions on what the priorities might be. (thumbs-up icon)

Unfortunately there's an elephant in the corner that nobody has mentioned yet. Being the innocent newbie, I'll risk being the first to mention them (please don't shoot the messenger).

Any major infrastructure projects that drift anywhere near "being necessary because of climate change" are immediately hostage to whichever set of "experts" the Government has on tap. Some of us might have noticed the "experts' consensus" being deployed on Countryfile last night (BBC1 TV Sunday 9th Feb). Video of the state of Dawlish Sea Wall were shown in the same breath as videos of Spurn Point near Hull, and East Anglia where "the sea has come three miles inland".

It seemed very noticable (to me) that none of the experts setting environmental policy are engineers who might have the vision to solve problems in a productive or positive way. The experts' policy of choice might best be summed-up as "Environmental Pacifism". That is, fighting the Environment is a war humans can't fight or win, the best thing we can do is manage an orderly retreat. In East Anglia, that meant letting the sea breach existing dunes and sea defences. Same at Spurn Point.

What would that mean in the South West? Emergency repairs in the short term, but then a long-term policy of not investing in coastal defence maintenance, or downgrading the infrastructure. For Dawlish, would that mean reducing the two lines to one?

Short-term: Reopen Bere Alston-Tavistock (single track only)

Medium term: Reopen Tavistock-Okehampton(single track only)

Long term: A strategic plan for a "Dawlish By-pass" could be delayed for years by public enquiries, planning appeals, budget reviews, etc etc.

Meanwhile we would have to be very British and Muddle Through.

New mug and T-shirt required?
"Keep Calm And Carry On Using The Buses"

 

[Zoidberg]

Yeah it seems to have come from the BBC. Very interesting news,but like the south west correspondent says it seems very fishy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26110559

To help those who have difficulty accessing links, from that BBC page:

Network Rail has chosen an alternative railway route to the storm-stricken Dawlish line, BBC News can reveal.

The route would head from Okehampton to Plymouth via Tavistock and go through parts of the Dartmoor National Park.

There is no timescale for the plan which Network Rail concluded in outline proposals last year would cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

The damage at Dawlish means no trains are running between Exeter St Davids and Newton Abbot, said Network Rail.

Three alternatives to the Dawlish route have been discussed locally over the years.

Of the three alternatives, two of them are in south Devon - including the Teign Valley route, via Christow and Heathfield, and the so-called Dawlish Avoiding Line, which was promoted in the 1930s but was never built.

The route would have passed inland behind Teignmouth and Dawlish rather than along the coast like the current line.

However, Network Rail is only considering the Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth route as a likely candidate.

Trains can already run to Meldon, west of Okehampton, on a freight line and there are currently plans to reopen a stretch of line connecting Tavistock southwards to Bere Alston.

The route Network Rail is now openly discussing is the stretch between Meldon and Tavistock.

Patrick Hallgate of Network Rail said at Dawlish: "It's hundreds of millions of pounds to do so and it's on land that has already been built on in terms of the old railway alignment.

 

[47802]

It doesn't sound fishy to me: NR have been very clear that Dawlish is one of the most expensive locations to maintain on the entire network, and therefore it is prudent for them to have looked at alternatives. There was nothing fishy in this - the obvious thing would be to look at the LSWR route, especially as the Tavistock extension is likely. And though Aggregate Industries own the line from Coleford Junction, I'd be very surprised if NR didn't have a decent understanding of what the state of the line was.

So it doesn't seem fishy to me at all - the senior NR person was (i) honest that they didn't own the line (ii) that it was the obvious alternative to Plymouth and (implicitly) (iii) that NR is going to have have a sensible answer to the Secretary of State's request for alternatives. Always good to have a proactive answer for the Minister!

In straight political terms, I'd expect over the next 11 months (ie, up to Autumn Statement) commitments to:

- reinstate Dawlish (complete before Easter)
- reinstate LSWR Exeter - Plymouth by the end of CP5, and preferably sooner (capacity will be interesting - single track with lots of loops or double throughout?)
- increase capacity from Exeter - Salisbury (so that GW diversions via Yeovil can be in addition to SWT hourlies)
- Electrify SW from Bristol - Penzance in CP6 (this includes via Okehampton)
- Explore an inland avoiding line in CP7 onwards, depending on actual performance at Dawlish.

This is a big bill for the next couple of Governments but it will help get some votes in 2014 and 2015. That's democracy for you!

Tobbes

If the Dawlish line is expensive to maintain then opening the Okehampton route doesn't really solve that problem. Of course if the Dawlish route went you would still need sea defences but might be cheaper without the line in which case you could put that cost saving against any additional costs of a new line to Newton Abbot compared to the Okehampton route, so Im a little bit non plused why its suddenly the Okehampton route surely it needs to be properly considered! and the idea that you get Okehampton in the medium term and a Dawlish diversion in the long term I seriously doubt that would happen.

 

[Tobbes]

If the Dawlish line is expensive to maintain then opening the Okehampton route doesn't really solve that problem. Of course if the Dawlish route went you would still need sea defences but might be cheaper without the line in which case you could put that cost saving against any additional costs of a new line to Newton Abbot, so Im a little bit non plused why its suddenly the Okehampton route surely it needs to be properly considered!

All fair points, 47802, but my view is that:

(i) Okehampton - Tavistock is doable quite quickly (<5 years);
(ii) At c. £250m isn't in the grand scheme of things all that expensive (ie, certainly cheaper than an entirely new line);
(iii) It opens up significant new journey opportunities for North Devon;
(iv) It runs along an existing transport corridor, so it is easier to get planning for;
(v) If a new (higher speed) alignment comes in between Exeter and Plymouth, then it will still be useful as a glorified branch line.

NR presumably know all of this. Now to reopen to Halwill Junction and on to Bude!

 

[tbtc]

In straight political terms, I'd expect over the next 11 months (ie, up to Autumn Statement) commitments to:

- reinstate Dawlish (complete before Easter)
- reinstate LSWR Exeter - Plymouth by the end of CP5, and preferably sooner (capacity will be interesting - single track with lots of loops or double throughout?)
- increase capacity from Exeter - Salisbury (so that GW diversions via Yeovil can be in addition to SWT hourlies)
- Electrify SW from Bristol - Penzance in CP6 (this includes via Okehampton)
- Explore an inland avoiding line in CP7 onwards, depending on actual performance at Dawlish.

This is a big bill for the next couple of Governments but it will help get some votes in 2014 and 2015. That's democracy for you!

Tobbes

I think you're going to be disappointed... more likely that in a few months time we'll have had a higher thicker wall built at Dawlish capable of withstanding more waves and this thread will seem as dated as the suggestions on the "Mount Hatfield" thread about upgrading routes from South Yorkshire to Grimsby/ Cleethorpes or building new lines.

And since there are only two non-Coalition seats west of Bristol (Labour have a seat in urban Exeter and a seat in urban Plymouth, but everything else is yellow or blue), there's no real advantage to the Government of spending lots of money to "buy" seats.

Also, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this - interesting to compare the "we must build a new railway through Dartmoor" argument with the "we cannot have HS2 in cuttings and tunnels through the Chilterns" argument - I'd suggest that Devon is a more "outstanding" area of "naturay beauty" but presumably home to fewer NIMBYs?

 

[po8crg]

If the Dawlish line is expensive to maintain then opening the Okehampton route doesn't really solve that problem. Of course if the Dawlish route went you would still need sea defences but might be cheaper without the line in which case you could put that cost saving against any additional costs of a new line

If the Dawlish route went, someone other than NR would have to pay for the sea defences. From an NR point of view, the cost of sea defences that don't have a railway line on top of them is zero.

One of the problems with Dawlish is that there isn't an apportionment of the cost of maintaining the sea wall to whoever (the council, Environment Agency) would have paid for it if there wasn't a railway line on top of it, so - from a purely Network Rail point of view - diverting that line saves them a fortune, by sticking someone else with the bill.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And since there are only two non-Coalition seats west of Bristol (Labour have a seat in urban Exeter and a seat in urban Plymouth, but everything else is yellow or blue), there's no real advantage to the Government of spending lots of money to "buy" seats.

More importantly, there are almost no seats where Labour are second - only Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (the other seat in Plymouth), so there aren't many that the coalition are at risk of losing.

For Governments, it's not "buying" seats, it's paying to keep the ones you already have.

The way the politics could work is if the two halves of the coalition start bidding against each other in the SW.

 

[47245]

Also, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this - interesting to compare the "we must build a new railway through Dartmoor" argument with the "we cannot have HS2 in cuttings and tunnels through the Chilterns" argument - I'd suggest that Devon is a more "outstanding" area of "naturay beauty" but presumably home to fewer NIMBYs?

On BBC Radio Devon this morning Dartmoor's Head Ranger was quoted as saying he'd support reopening the line as it could potentially bring more tourists to the area.

 

[yorksrob]

It's certainly good news if NR are coming out in favour of Okehampton, as this, together with a maintained Dawlish route would be my preferred solution. I would be surprised if they'd be in a position to confirm before official consideration of all options.

One thing to consider is that the coalition is unlikely to be fighting the next general election as a coalition. I understand that in the South west Lib Dem and Conservative are very much the main rivals to eachother.