Suggestions for Dawlish avoiding route(s)

[Ash Bridge]

What planning inquiry? I mean by that that it will be interesting to discover what legal situation applies to a closed line.

Would I be right in thinking that the Dartmoor National Park Authority supports the lines reopening?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I would have thought that they'd be in favour of the line, as it'll help reduce the number of cars in the immediate area, which can only be a good thing.

 

[yorksrob]

What planning inquiry? I mean by that that it will be interesting to discover what legal situation applies to a closed line.

Theres bound to be some sort of planning inquiry into a reopening, although I'm not an expert so wouldn't be able to give any detail.

 

[Bald Rick]

What planning inquiry? I mean by that that it will be interesting to discover what legal situation applies to a closed line.

The fact that the closed part was a railway has no bearing on the need for a planning inquiry. It is now not a railway and therefore the standard planning process has to be followed as if it was a new build.

 

[yorksrob]

I would have thought that they'd be in favour of the line, as it'll help reduce the number of cars in the immediate area, which can only be a good thing.

They'd be fools working against the interest of their own organisation and community if they weren't.

 

[HowardGWR]

The fact that the closed part was a railway has no bearing on the need for a planning inquiry. It is now not a railway and therefore the standard planning process has to be followed as if it was a new build.

I knew that but I was interested to see if others had realised it (didn't mean to troll though, should have had a smiley). There are a fair number of other reasons of course, not least what has to be done in Tavistock (demolition of houses and offices, to start with). Then there is the cycle path. I am not convinced there is an easy ride for the railway reinstaters there. I am sure the line will end up double eventually, so that possibility should be dealt with from the beginning; even if the line was single through Sourton, it would not be very safe - it's not going to be an heritage line like Bitton is it?

 

[yorksrob]

I knew that but I was interested to see if others had realised it (didn't mean to troll though, should have had a smiley). There are a fair number of other reasons of course, not least what has to be done in Tavistock (demolition of houses and offices, to start with). Then there is the cycle path. I am not convinced there is an easy ride for the railway reinstaters there. I am sure the line will end up double eventually, so that possibility should be dealt with from the beginning; even if the line was single through Sourton, it would not be very safe - it's not going to be an heritage line like Bitton is it?

If the cycle path becomes the final obstacle that blocks the route, they should be refused the use of any track beds in future.

 

[jmc100]

Just been having a look at live video from the Dawlish Beach webcam and things are getting very rough along the sea wall. If any members can access this live stream it's well worth a visit although you will have to subscribe.

Looking at the video shows that an alternative route is necessary just in case there is a repeat of what happened last February. I think an alternative route is the only answer to keeping the south-west railway infrastructure intact all year especially during the winter months.

 

[PHILIPE]

XC given up this morning.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Facebook - Dawlish Beach Cam
http://www.dawlishbeach.com/wp/
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1515466905377622

 

[LateThanNever]

I knew that but I was interested to see if others had realised it (didn't mean to troll though, should have had a smiley). There are a fair number of other reasons of course, not least what has to be done in Tavistock (demolition of houses and offices, to start with). Then there is the cycle path. I am not convinced there is an easy ride for the railway reinstaters there. I am sure the line will end up double eventually, so that possibility should be dealt with from the beginning; even if the line was single through Sourton, it would not be very safe - it's not going to be an heritage line like Bitton is it?

My threepenn'orth is that Dartmoor National Park have certainly said they think it would be good idea to reopen the Okehampton route (though unfortunately I cannot find the report reference). I think it is 2 houses in Tavistock which may face demolition. The other buildings are local council offices and the same council is in favour of the railway. If I remember correctly isn't the cycle path in fact Devon County Council owned? If so could the council not say we've decided to use the path for trains again and not bikes?

 

[infobleep]

Western Morning News 11/11/14
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...221-5bn-rail/story-24514558-detail/story.html

South West peninsula “united” behind £5bn rail plan as Dawlish disrupted again
Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...tory-24514558-detail/story.html#ixzz3IsqZhIYB
Follow us: @WMNNews on Twitter | westernmorningnews on Facebook

The South West Peninsular is way behind on spending per head on rail infrastructure.
I have been through Dawlish with the thuds of water on the carriage roof - spectacular!
As soon as possible Voyagers need to be replaced with more suitable stock.

Like that's going to happen as in Voyagers replace. It's cheaper to cancel trains.

 

[MarkyT]

If the cycle path becomes the final obstacle that blocks the route, they should be refused the use of any track beds in future.

So you would not support use of any former lines of route for any new foot, cycle or leisure path. What would you prefer instead on the track bed as the route otherwise inevitably gets broken up into smaller development plots under mixed ownership? An office block, a road, a cozy little close of expensive housing, a care home? At least a path under control of a single organisation is easier to move physically if necessary one day, even if building the replacement in some areas might be quite complex and expensive in it's own right.

 

[Ash Bridge]

So you would not support use of any former lines of route for any new foot, cycle or leisure path. What would you prefer instead on the track bed as the route otherwise inevitably gets broken up into smaller development plots under mixed ownership? An office block, a road, a cozy little close of expensive housing, a care home? At least a path under control of a single organisation is easier to move physically if necessary one day, even if building the replacement in some areas might be quite complex and expensive in it's own right.

I wouldn't have any problem with former track beds being converted into cycle ways, linear footpath etc. so long as there is a condition in place that states it could be claimed back for railway use if ever required again in the future.

 

[21C101]

The foot/ cycle path and trackbed it is on is operated by Sustrans but owned by Devon CC

The footpath /cycletrack already shares the trackbed with the 50mph railway between Okehampton Stn and Meldon viaduct.

There is no reason why a single line cannot share with the path. Indeed the cycle path will bring significant revenue to the line.

To chuck the cyclepath off on the grounds the railway might be doubled one day is absurd. A half hourly service could easily be accomodated with dynamic loops from crediton to Yeoford, Sampford to Okehampton, Bere Alson to Bere Ferrers and Lydford to north of Tavistock. All are clear of the cyclepath as it is now. If the lydford tavistock bit is built that would not stop a dynamic loop there as the cyclepath could use the GW trackbed.

No need to invent problems. What we need is a feasability study into bringing Meldon Viaduct up to scratch to avoid rebuild costs
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Facebook - Dawlish Beach Cam
http://www.dawlishbeach.com/wp/
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1515466905377622

A railway that dosent work at High Tide when its a bit windy is not much use

 

[yorksrob]

So you would not support use of any former lines of route for any new foot, cycle or leisure path. What would you prefer instead on the track bed as the route otherwise inevitably gets broken up into smaller development plots under mixed ownership? An office block, a road, a cozy little close of expensive housing, a care home? At least a path under control of a single organisation is easier to move physically if necessary one day, even if building the replacement in some areas might be quite complex and expensive in it's own right.

Only if they become an obstacle to future reopenings. Afterall, if you can't reopen the railway, you can't reopen the railway, whether it's because it's got a housing estate on ot or a path.

An alternative would be to include a clause in all future such disposals that the land must be returned to the railway should it be required for reopening.

On the subject of the cycle route, a large length of the route is parallelled by the old Great Western branch to Launceston. Would it not be better to just relocate the cycle way to that ?

 

[Bald Rick]

A train that dosent work at High Tide when its a bit windy is not much use

Corrected that for you. Railway has been open all day. 8 trains cancelled, all bar one being voyager-esque.

 

[HSTEd]

Probably n to the power of 0!

But I think that, having bailed out the wunch of bankers, we should not have such a poverty of aspiration for the world in the south west!

n to the power zero is not zero.

It is one.

So they are spending money :P

 

[Busaholic]

Does the Penzance 'washover' impair the operation of the station signalling? Which could be all the more fun when it is run from Didcot?

It certainly did earlier in the year - it may have not got much publicity because of the concurrent Dawlish problems, but the section from Penzance to St Erth was closed for more than a week and a level crossing was closed to all traffic for the same period. It does require exceptional waves combined with high tide to impact the station itself, but in time the section from Chyandour Cliff (just outside Penzance station) to Long Rock and even Marazion may well come under prolonged strain. Something to consider, I would have thought, in any plans to expand Long Rock depot.

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned the breach in the 'impregnable' new sea wall at Dawlish yesterday. Maybe only one coping stone for now but the sea doesn't give up that easily.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned the breach in the 'impregnable' new sea wall at Dawlish yesterday. Maybe only one coping stone for now but the sea doesn't give up that easily.

And considering we are only in November, winter has barely begun yet!

 

[HowardGWR]

So you would not support use of any former lines of route for any new foot, cycle or leisure path. What would you prefer instead on the track bed as the route otherwise inevitably gets broken up into smaller development plots under mixed ownership? An office block, a road, a cozy little close of expensive housing, a care home? At least a path under control of a single organisation is easier to move physically if necessary one day, even if building the replacement in some areas might be quite complex and expensive in it's own right.

I agree totally with that. The history of the disposals by the BRPB and successors is painful to witness, now that routes are being proposed for reopening, only to incur extra cost and need for CPO Inquiry, because someone was allowed to redevelop with a poxy little bungalow or potting shed on the trajectory.

Not blaming those owners by the way; it's not their fault the bits of solum were sold. Even worse were the fine stone bridges and viaducts destroyed to save county councils maintenance costs.

It looks pretty good for Tavistock (7 houses and two bungalows by the way).

Indeed there is plenty of space for another cycle path but I still think the moaning about that will drown out the baa-ing of the sheep on Dartmoor.

 

[LateThanNever]

n to the power zero is not zero.

It is one.

So they are spending money :P

You are quite right of course. My mistake is even more indicative of something of a poverty of aspiration though!

Mind you

It looks pretty good for Tavistock (7 houses and two bungalows by the way).

They'll be requiring a railway underpass then (well perhaps not the bungalows)

What about the council offices - or are they history?

 

[yorksrob]

You are quite right of course. My mistake is even more indicative of something of a poverty of aspiration though!

Mind you


They'll be requiring a railway underpass then (well perhaps not the bungalows)

What about the council offices - or are they history?

Most local authorities are either selling or planning to sell many of their buildings and downsizing. It wouldn't surprise me if Tavistock was already considering the same.

 

[34104]

Only if they become an obstacle to future reopenings. Afterall, if you can't reopen the railway, you can't reopen the railway, whether it's because it's got a housing estate on ot or a path.

An alternative would be to include a clause in all future such disposals that the land must be returned to the railway should it be required for reopening.

On the subject of the cycle route, a large length of the route is parallelled by the old Great Western branch to Launceston. Would it not be better to just relocate the cycle way to that ?

Not much of the current Granite Way is paralleled by the old Launceston line, which ran alongside the SR line from Tavistock to Lydford, a stretch which only has a short [and much interrupted] length of footpath/cyclepath from Tavistock North station to Wilminstone viaduct. I believe there were serious issues,not yet resolved, with landowners which precluded the extension of the facility beyond the current point. But should the government decide that the Okehampton-Tavistock section is needed as part of the National network, then presumably CPO action would take place as was the case with the Borders Railway, which also had a footpath/cyclepath within it-not sure if the path will be reopened bearing in mind the Borders Railway is only single track. It would be a shame to lose the Granite Way, i've walked it many times, but needs must and so be it should the powers that be decide that rail rather than cycle is the preferred method.

 

[LWB]

Nobody on here seems to have mentioned the breach in the 'impregnable' new sea wall at Dawlish yesterday. Maybe only one coping stone for now but the sea doesn't give up that easily.

Sea walls are failed technology. Their use on British coasts date from Victorian times but even then the physics behind their fundamental flaw was well known. Indeed the Pelton wheel of that era was a conspicuously successful application of the same effect. Rock armour is not pretty but is a far better solution.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So you lose the beach instead. Won't happen.

 

[Class83]

So you lose the beach instead. Won't happen.

When someone at the DfT compares the quotes for re-routing the line and for lobbing a lot of metre cubed aggregate on the beach I suspect it will.

 

[21C101]

Not much of the current Granite Way is paralleled by the old Launceston line, which ran alongside the SR line from Tavistock to Lydford, a stretch which only has a short [and much interrupted] length of footpath/cyclepath from Tavistock North station to Wilminstone viaduct. I believe there were serious issues,not yet resolved, with landowners which precluded the extension of the facility beyond the current point.

Is/was there any actual plan to extend the Granite way from Lydford to Tavistock?

Similarly is there a plan to reopen the whole of the Bude Branch and the Halwill to Meeth stretch as a cyclepath (which various bits of cycleway on the trackbed suggest?)

 

[yorksrob]

Not much of the current Granite Way is paralleled by the old Launceston line, which ran alongside the SR line from Tavistock to Lydford, a stretch which only has a short [and much interrupted] length of footpath/cyclepath from Tavistock North station to Wilminstone viaduct. I believe there were serious issues,not yet resolved, with landowners which precluded the extension of the facility beyond the current point. But should the government decide that the Okehampton-Tavistock section is needed as part of the National network, then presumably CPO action would take place as was the case with the Borders Railway, which also had a footpath/cyclepath within it-not sure if the path will be reopened bearing in mind the Borders Railway is only single track. It would be a shame to lose the Granite Way, i've walked it many times, but needs must and so be it should the powers that be decide that rail rather than cycle is the preferred method.

Nevermind. To be fair, it would represent a relatively short section of the overall route that would have to be single to share with the Granite way.

 

[34104]

Is/was there any actual plan to extend the Granite way from Lydford to Tavistock?

Similarly is there a plan to reopen the whole of the Bude Branch and the Halwill to Meeth stretch as a cyclepath (which various bits of cycleway on the trackbed suggest?)

As far as Tavistock-Lydford is concerned, as I remember some of the landowners were vehemently opposed to any cycle path invading their territory and made their views very clear to DCC when approached-there doesn't seem to have been any movement from that stance in recent years. Shame actually, because the stretch between Brentor and Mary Tavy would provide spectacularly beautiful scenery.

As for Bude-no idea! Bit of info here;

http://www.atlantictrail.co.uk/

The Railway Ramblers site can be quite useful too;

http://www.railwayramblers.org.uk/