Tavistock to Bere Alston possible reopening: what infrastructure could be required and what service provision might operate?

[paul1609]

I've said before that by extending the SWT's service to Exeter to Plymouth via the Okehampton route (once fully opened) would provide a faster route (or at least only marginally different) to Plymouth from many places in the central area of the South. This includes places like Woking through to Hook (except Farnborough) , places like Portsmouth Weymouth, Bournemouth & Southampton (possibly even Brighton), Overton to Pinhoe, and the like.

Ive spent many years commuting from West Sussex and Portsmouth to Plymouth. The fastest way by far is to get the Cardiff service from Portsmouth to Westbury and change there for Plymouth.
For Brighton its sometimes marginally quicker to travel via London. Even in the current circumstances it takes longer to change at Salisbury and Exeter, adding another 20 mins at least to go via Oakhampton would not be competitive if the route were re-built. Unfortunately the Southcoast to Plymouth is one of those journeys where rail is not competitive with road in journeytime or cost.
I dont see a rebuilt line attracting much if any custom from these areas.

 

[yorksrob]

Apologies - misread the post.

 

[34104]

Ive spent many years commuting from West Sussex and Portsmouth to Plymouth. The fastest way by far is to get the Cardiff service from Portsmouth to Westbury and change there for Plymouth.
For Brighton its sometimes marginally quicker to travel via London. Even in the current circumstances it takes longer to change at Salisbury and Exeter, adding another 20 mins at least to go via Oakhampton would not be competitive if the route were re-built. Unfortunately the Southcoast to Plymouth is one of those journeys where rail is not competitive with road in journeytime or cost.
I dont see a rebuilt line attracting much if any custom from these areas.

Not sure about some of that.Surely one of the points of a complete through service from Plymouth to Brighton would be that you wouldn't have to change at Salisbury? That was certainly the case in days of yore when the Plymouth-Brighton service was a prestige daily service which outlasted all the others of its ilk and in fact was still operating at the time of closure of the BA-Okehampton section in 1968.The Westbury route may be the quickest at the moment but looking at any map would seem to indicate that you need to travel north west to get to Westbury from Salisbury then travel west again to get to a similar latitudinal point on the direct Salisbury-Exeter route-with an equal playing field as far as traction is concerned,then the Southern line has to be quicker.The Exeter -Plymouth section would not necessarily be 20 minutes longer either- i have timetables which demonstrate that the section was covered in 75 minutes in the 1950's,darned sure that with modern traction and engineering techniques that figure could be reduced substantially to bring it line with current times on the Dawlish route.

 

[The Ham]

Ive spent many years commuting from West Sussex and Portsmouth to Plymouth. The fastest way by far is to get the Cardiff service from Portsmouth to Westbury and change there for Plymouth.
For Brighton its sometimes marginally quicker to travel via London. Even in the current circumstances it takes longer to change at Salisbury and Exeter, adding another 20 mins at least to go via Oakhampton would not be competitive if the route were re-built. Unfortunately the Southcoast to Plymouth is one of those journeys where rail is not competitive with road in journeytime or cost.
I dont see a rebuilt line attracting much if any custom from these areas.

Yet, the journey planners show the preference for Portsmouth to Exeter is using the WofE services. Yes there is one or two that are faster than the 3:20 but most going via Westbury are about 3:50, mostly due to a near hour wait at Westbury or going via Bristol!

Therefore, even if it took a further 20 minutes fit most time slots there would be no difference in journey time. Even if the journey was 10-15 minutes longer depending on price people would still use it. Even for the same price there could be people who take the longer journey in exchange for the increased likelihood of getting a seat (or even a pair of seats).

 

[HowardGWR]

Even in the current circumstances it takes longer to change at Salisbury and Exeter, adding another 20 mins at least to go via O̶a̶k̶h̶a̶m̶p̶t̶o̶n̶ Okehampton would not be competitive if the route were re-built.

Put right this old favourite. Just awaiting a Barnstable (sic) now. This thread usually turns up both at some stage.

 

[Cowley]

Not sure about some of that.Surely one of the points of a complete through service from Plymouth to Brighton would be that you wouldn't have to change at Salisbury? That was certainly the case in days of yore when the Plymouth-Brighton service was a prestige daily service which outlasted all the others of its ilk and in fact was still operating at the time of closure of the BA-Okehampton section in 1968.The Westbury route may be the quickest at the moment but looking at any map would seem to indicate that you need to travel north west to get to Westbury from Salisbury then travel west again to get to a similar latitudinal point on the direct Salisbury-Exeter route-with an equal playing field as far as traction is concerned,then the Southern line has to be quicker.The Exeter -Plymouth section would not necessarily be 20 minutes longer either- i have timetables which demonstrate that the section was covered in 75 minutes in the 1950's,darned sure that with modern traction and engineering techniques that figure could be reduced substantially to bring it line with current times on the Dawlish route.

I agree, the Southern route from Salisbury to Exeter and then on to Plymouth was a well engineered railway and with the right investment and engineering could be a fast route, the ex GWR route from Exeter to Plymouth is not a fast one and it's hard to see there being any significant reduction in journey times bearing in mind the many speed restricted curves on the line, it also serves far more people than the ex LSWR route would and regardless of what problems the sea wall has Dawlish, Teignmouth, Torquay etc will still need a rail service to Exeter.
It would take an awful lot of money to develop the route through Okehampton though and Devon is not London when it comes to spending money on railways.

 

[Ash Bridge]

It would take an awful lot of money to develop the route through Okehampton though and Devon is not London when it comes to spending money on railways.

I think one of, if not the major deciding factor on reinstatement of the through route, is if Meldon Viaduct could be made fit for use again rather than having to construct a brand new adjacent replacement?

 

[MarkRedon]

I think one of, if not the major deciding factor on reinstatement of the through route, is if Meldon Viaduct could be made fit for use again rather than having to construct a brand new adjacent replacement?

In their summer 2014 investigation, Network Rail estimated the cost of reinstatement of the North Devon via Okehampton line as £814 million – for a relatively low specification, primarily local, railway. By way of comparison, their estimates for tunnelling interventions to improve the existing South Devon line were between £1300 million and £2900 million. More recently they have put forward the interesting notion of a causeway-borne railway 25 m from the existing South Devon line – no doubt cheaper at around £500 million, but in my view almost certain to be operationally non-viable at least as frequently as the existing Dawlish line. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-37639243. Recent evidence suggests that Network Rail continue to be somewhat optimistic in their planning and forecasting. The cost of an alternative to the Meldon viaduct on a reopened North Devon line, if the existing viaduct cannot be revamped, would pale in significance against such large overall budgets. In addition, reopening via Okehampton has the considerable advantage of creating a new link to areas of the country which currently are not served by rail – and also addressing the economic deprivation of North Cornwall. Added to the potential benefits of Exeter to Okehampton commuting and relieving the congested road network to Tavistock, I still find myself much more positive about the North Devon reopening.

 

[Ash Bridge]

In their summer 2014 investigation, Network Rail estimated the cost of reinstatement of the North Devon via Okehampton line as £814 million – for a relatively low specification, primarily local, railway. By way of comparison, their estimates for tunnelling interventions to improve the existing South Devon line were between £1300 million and £2900 million. More recently they have put forward the interesting notion of a causeway-borne railway 25 m from the existing South Devon line – no doubt cheaper at around £500 million, but in my view almost certain to be operationally non-viable at least as frequently as the existing Dawlish line. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-37639243. Recent evidence suggests that Network Rail continue to be somewhat optimistic in their planning and forecasting. The cost of an alternative to the Meldon viaduct on a reopened North Devon line, if the existing viaduct cannot be revamped, would pale in significance against such large overall budgets. In addition, reopening via Okehampton has the considerable advantage of creating a new link to areas of the country which currently are not served by rail – and also addressing the economic deprivation of North Cornwall. Added to the potential benefits of Exeter to Okehampton commuting and relieving the congested road network to Tavistock, I still find myself much more positive about the North Devon reopening.

Yes, the causeway idea sounds like a reasonable solution for protecting the line regarding rockfalls from the sandstone cliffs but how exactly does that help when the main problem is a raging English Channel! Agree on everything above, just wish I could be as positive about the last bit though.

 

[The Ham]

In their summer 2014 investigation, Network Rail estimated the cost of reinstatement of the North Devon via Okehampton line as £814 million – for a relatively low specification, primarily local, railway. By way of comparison, their estimates for tunnelling interventions to improve the existing South Devon line were between £1300 million and £2900 million. More recently they have put forward the interesting notion of a causeway-borne railway 25 m from the existing South Devon line – no doubt cheaper at around £500 million, but in my view almost certain to be operationally non-viable at least as frequently as the existing Dawlish line. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-37639243. Recent evidence suggests that Network Rail continue to be somewhat optimistic in their planning and forecasting. The cost of an alternative to the Meldon viaduct on a reopened North Devon line, if the existing viaduct cannot be revamped, would pale in significance against such large overall budgets. In addition, reopening via Okehampton has the considerable advantage of creating a new link to areas of the country which currently are not served by rail – and also addressing the economic deprivation of North Cornwall. Added to the potential benefits of Exeter to Okehampton commuting and relieving the congested road network to Tavistock, I still find myself much more positive about the North Devon reopening.

If NR are being overly optimistic about costs and forecasts on all projects by the same margins (I.e. everything is 10% more) then it doest matter if NR say it's going to cost £81 vs £130 or £1.8bn vs £13bn the comparable costs would be the same. It is only if they under estimate in one area and not another that things would be hard to compare the costs of the various projects.

Yes, under estimating doesn't help with the cost benefit analysis.

One question I have is, does the reopening allow for the section to Tavistock or is it assumed that section is open? As if it is open, and it assumed that it wasn't, then there is likely to some cost saving. Also, as I highlighted previously the cost of running through trains is not that more than running the two branches and so the benefits are increased.

It is likely that the reopening would mean that other schemes would be more likely to happen, for instance the redoubling of the WofE line and arguably the Dawlish Avoiding Line (DAL) as well. In that with more passengers heading west of Yeovil the need for a more frequent service increases, potentially to the point that you have 2tph all the way along the WofE line which both extend to Plymouth. Likewise, with an increase in passengers between Exeter and Plymouth the justification for a faster route increases.

Conversely, the likelihood of a more frequent service along the DAL lays with a bigger demand for services "up country" (I.e. London and/or Birmingham) where there are signification capacity issues. At least on the SWML there are plans, in the form of Crossrail 2, for capacity enhancements which could allow 3tph (semi fast services) to Salisbury with the possibility of at least some of those being able to extend to Exeter. The GWML would require more tracks into London or the extension of the Bristol services. Whilst the route through Birmingham New Street, although will benefit from HS2 also has a lot of competing routes which would also benefit from extra services.

Also as I have indicated before there is at least the scope for the route through Okehampton to attract passengers from a wider area. In doing so it means that they fill up services which are either emptying out as they have got beyond the main capacity issues with London (I.e. Few people will travel from Waterloo to Plymouth, so the extra passengers will be joining at Woking, Basingstoke and Salisbury where trains tend to be that bit less busy) or are new (I.e. the bit between Exeter and Plymouth).

It should also be noted that even when competing against a service frequency of 2tph), depending on the timetable it could still be quicker to get a slower train than a faster one. For instance if the slow train leaves 10 minutes after one fast train but still gets to where you want to go 5 minutes before the next fast service then people are still going to use it.

The other thing to remember is that not all Exeter to Plymouth passengers start at St. Davids, as such there could be significant numbers of people who would use a direct service from Central over having to change, even if it was (even allowing for a change) slightly slower. This would be especially true as it could be that you then effectively have the choice of 2tph (one where you change and one where you don't) even if they were broadly at the same segment of any hour (I.e. 10 minutes apart).

 

[Cowley]

Yes, the causeway idea sounds like a reasonable solution for protecting the line regarding rockfalls from the sandstone cliffs but how exactly does that help when the main problem is a raging English Channel! Agree on everything above, just wish I could be as positive about the last bit though.

I thought that building breakwaters just offshore would be the most likely solution because the real damage comes from the waves on top of high tides. High tides on their own are fine and don't get anywhere near rail height. Breakwaters just offshore would take the sting out of the waves and could be built without effecting the running of the railway, I'm no expert in this but my father was involved in flood defences when he worked for the environment agency and he thinks similar.
The problems with the cliffs are a different matter though and I'm not sure of the solution for that, they've been trying to stay on top of it for decades and the more rain we have the more they get weakened.
I don't see them building a new causeway as surely this would also be vulnerable to the sea as well as the massive cost and disruption of building it, not to mention the inaccessibility of the actual site.
Also I would think that there would be plenty of environmental objections to the altering of a much loved bit of coastline. Obviously building breakwaters would cause quite a few of these issues too but maybe not to the same extent.

If an inland route was built it would probably be the one that served Dawlish and Teignmouth best but it'll take a few more events like the washing away of the railway again before it starts to become reality and even if they did bypass the sea wall section would NR still be liable for the maintenance of the wall as they are with much other long disused infrastructure?

So the ideal would be an inland bypass still serving the coastal towns, built to enable higher speeds and also the Okehampton route being reopened and developed as partly an alternative diversion route but mainly as a route that opens up new travel opportunities for the area. I think like the Waverley route it could be very successful.
Just got to find some money for it now...

As far as the coastal route goes, if it did end up being bypassed and the track lifted the wall would still have to be maintained just to protect the cliffs and also the properties above, but it would make a lovely walking/cycling route from Dawlish Warren through to Teignmouth
I'd miss it though. You never get bored looking at the view on that journey. One of my earliest memories is travelling along there with waves hitting the wall and going right over the train and all the passengers finding it really exciting. That was in 1978, I was five and I thought it was amazing.

 

[MarkyT]

So the ideal would be an inland bypass still serving the coastal towns, built to enable higher speeds and also the Okehampton route being reopened and developed as partly an alternative diversion route but mainly as a route that opens up new travel opportunities for the area. I think like the Waverley route it could be very successful.
Just got to find some money for it now...

As far as the coastal route goes, if it did end up being bypassed and the track lifted the wall would still have to be maintained just to protect the cliffs and also the properties above, but it would make a lovely walking/cycling route from Dawlish Warren through to Teignmouth
I'd miss it though. You never get bored looking at the view on that journey. One of my earliest memories is travelling along there with waves hitting the wall and going right over the train and all the passengers finding it really exciting. That was in 1978, I was five and I thought it was amazing.

I disagree somewhat. A better result long term would be a significantly shorter and faster inland alignment for expresses only well away from the expense of construction through the built up areas of Dawlish and Teignmouth, while the local stopping service, excursions etc could continue to use the coast route which I think WILL survive long term, at least as long as the towns do. The problem is how to deal with the issue of temporary closure following damage of varying severity, and providing access for maintenance. An inland bypass would mean that any such closure would not affect long distance operations at all and without the expresses it would provide more opportunities for maintenance access to the sea wall itself. In particular, with only local trains operating on the coast route, the entire service might be run more easily at times on the inner track alone using the bidirectional signalling. This would allow long possessions for safe access to the wall for men and machinery from the outer line. I agree in the shorter term the Okehampton route makes a lot of sense, ideally extending the Waterloo - Exeter service to Plymouth.

 

[Cowley]

I disagree somewhat. A better result long term would be a significantly shorter and faster inland alignment for expresses only well away from the expense of construction through the built up areas of Dawlish and Teignmouth, while the local stopping service, excursions etc could continue to use the coast route which I think WILL survive long term, at least as long as the towns do. The problem is how to deal with the issue of temporary closure following damage of varying severity, and providing access for maintenance. An inland bypass would mean that any such closure would not affect long distance operations at all and without the expresses it would provide more opportunities for maintenance access to the sea wall itself. In particular, with only local trains operating on the coast route, the entire service might be run more easily at times on the inner track alone using the bidirectional signalling. This would allow long possessions for safe access to the wall for men and machinery from the outer line. I agree in the shorter term the Okehampton route makes a lot of sense, ideally extending the Waterloo - Exeter service to Plymouth.

I can't see the need for three routes heading west of Exeter serving a population of less than a million people. Surely the problem of maintaining the sea wall section would still be a problem if this was to happen and the cost of building an inland route would be very expensive bearing in mind the small issue of the Haldon hills being in between Exeter and Newton Abbot.
If billions were going to spent on that then running behind Dawlish and Teignmouth would probably not be that much if any more cost wise and once you go a mile or so inland it isn't densely populated anyway. That's why the Great Western picked that route.

 

[The Ham]

I can't see the need for three routes heading west of Exeter serving a population of less than a million people. Surely the problem of maintaining the sea wall section would still be a problem if this was to happen and the cost of building an inland route would be very expensive bearing in mind the small issue of the Haldon hills being in between Exeter and Newton Abbot.
If billions were going to spent on that then running behind Dawlish and Teignmouth would probably not be that much if any more cost wise and once you go a mile or so inland it isn't densely populated anyway. That's why the Great Western picked that route.

In reality it would be a NR owned sea wall which just happens to have a local line on the top of it (which is a downgrade from the current mainline), two branch lines which happen to be linked through as it attracts more people to use the line with little increase in operating costs (i.e. the Okehampton route) and a high speed route that provides fast services between London and Plymouth (the Dawlish Avoiding Line, which may not be needed or justified for another 30 plus years by which point the population may well have increased).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I disagree somewhat. A better result long term would be a significantly shorter and faster inland alignment for expresses only well away from the expense of construction through the built up areas of Dawlish and Teignmouth, while the local stopping service, excursions etc could continue to use the coast route which I think WILL survive long term, at least as long as the towns do.

I somewhat agree. Although a faster alignment that avoids Dawlish and Teignmouth would be expensive, it does have the advantage of being the solution likely to lead to the biggest increase in passenger numbers - since it would make rail travel from Plymouth and all of Cornwall to Exeter and the rest of the country quicker and therefore more attractive - both for Plymouth-Exeter commuters and for long-distance passengers. (Although for maximum effectiveness you'd need a new route all the way to Plymouth).

Set against that, re-opening the Okehamption route, while nice, is only really going to be of benefit to some fairly small towns, and any work on the existing route (or a new Causeway) won't make any difference to most passengers - except for fewer disruptions in bad weather etc.

 

[Cletus]

Perhaps the sea-wall works going on at Dover will be an idea as to how the Dawlish area might be protected?
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106504-folkestone-dover-sea-wall-wash-out/page-170

 

[The Ham]

I somewhat agree. Although a faster alignment that avoids Dawlish and Teignmouth would be expensive, it does have the advantage of being the solution likely to lead to the biggest increase in passenger numbers - since it would make rail travel from Plymouth and all of Cornwall to Exeter and the rest of the country quicker and therefore more attractive - both for Plymouth-Exeter commuters and for long-distance passengers. (Although for maximum effectiveness you'd need a new route all the way to Plymouth).

Set against that, re-opening the Okehamption route, while nice, is only really going to be of benefit to some fairly small towns, and any work on the existing route (or a new Causeway) won't make any difference to most passengers - except for fewer disruptions in bad weather etc.

I disagree, the speed increase by building the avoiding route will be achieved by the introduction of the 80x's on the route (circa 15 minutes). Reducing the journey time from London to Plymouth from just under 3 hours to about 2:45 is unlikely to attract many extra people maybe a few an hour. Especially bearing in mind that there is limited spare capacity on some services between London and Exeter.

However making it easier for people to travel from a large area (i.e. Salisbury, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Woking, etc.) by extending the SWT services from Exeter to Plymouth would attract more people. Most of these extra passengers are likely to be joining the service at Basingstoke or west of there as such using seats that have been vacated by people who have used the service to travel out from London and have already left the train.

As I have pointed out before the number of extra units for a through service using the Okehampton route would not be that dissimilar to that required for the two branch lines if they remained unjoined. As such there would be limited extra costs in running a through service over running the two branch lines, but with the potential for extra passengers (i.e. those long distance travellers as well as a those travelling from Okehampton to Plymouth and Tavistock to Exeter, although the latter may not pay very much nor there be many each hour the former could add a lot of extra income as an off peak return from Yeovil to Exeter is just over £20, so even a few more tickets at that price will all add up).

I think that is where the Okehampton reopening differs from others is that there is scope for a number of longer distance travellers to use the service to get to a fairly major settlement with little time penalty over the theoretical (i.e. short change times on trains keeping perfect time) fastest journeys that are currently possible. However be able to do so hour in hour out. As well as not increasing running costs to the industry by very much over a baseline that is likely to be operational by the time the new route is open (i.e. the baseline assumes that the line has reached Tavistock or at least would be serving Tavistock anyway).

 

[edwin_m]

I can't help thinking if Okehampton can't manage to sustain a regular daily service, what justification is there for spending the money extending it to Tavistock?

 

[yorksrob]

I can't help thinking if Okehampton can't manage to sustain a regular daily service, what justification is there for spending the money extending it to Tavistock?

It probably can from what people are saying, however no one's got the rolling stock spare.

Incidentally, in Beeching days, the Okehampton stub was seen as a better bet than the Barnstaple branch (as it had more season ticket holders).

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

I somewhat agree. Although a faster alignment that avoids Dawlish and Teignmouth would be expensive, it does have the advantage of being the solution likely to lead to the biggest increase in passenger numbers - since it would make rail travel from Plymouth and all of Cornwall to Exeter and the rest of the country quicker and therefore more attractive - both for Plymouth-Exeter commuters and for long-distance passengers. (Although for maximum effectiveness you'd need a new route all the way to Plymouth).

Set against that, re-opening the Okehamption route, while nice, is only really going to be of benefit to some fairly small towns, and any work on the existing route (or a new Causeway) won't make any difference to most passengers - except for fewer disruptions in bad weather etc.

I'm always bemused by the way a fifteen minute time improvement on a route which is already well served, is calculated to be economically game changing, yet a step change in transport provision to an area which could be genuinely life changing for residents is seen as being unable to justify a much lower cost.

I suspect the reason boils down to it being easier to extrapolate some figures from an existing service, whereas its more difficult to prove the benefit of a service that doesn't yet exist.

 

[HowardGWR]

I can't help thinking if Okehampton can't manage to sustain a regular daily service, what justification is there for spending the money extending it to Tavistock?

Who said it couldn't? Devon CC thinks it can.

 

[Chester1]

I can't help thinking if Okehampton can't manage to sustain a regular daily service, what justification is there for spending the money extending it to Tavistock?

Okehampton to Exeter is one traffic flow. Extending Tamar line from Bere Alston to Tavistock is also one flow. If a line between the two is built then Okehampton to Plymouth and Tavistock to Exeter becomes possible as well as adding more local flows. Ultimately the entire case is built on providing a backup line to avoid West Devon and Cornwall being cut off. The worst case senario would be needing to run an hourly service across the entire route via Gunnislake rather than a hourly Gunnislake to Plymouth stopping service and an hourly semi fast Exeter to Plymouth service (NR 2014 assumed level of service to calculate BCR).

I would prefer completely closing Dawlish route and reopening Okehampton to Bere Alston to enable to a half hourly express service and reopening Heathfield to Alphington as a single track line supporting hourly service for local trains between Exeter and Plymouth via Newton Abbot. NR ruled out this route because it was built as a single line and has local river flooding issues. Doubling it was estimated at £450m+ but a single line would cost allot less and occasion flooding closures wouldnt matter it was the secondary route. The time penalty for Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton according to NR is 4 minutes with 5 minutes for each reversal for a Voyager and 7 minutes for loco hauled stock. The latter is irrelevant because in the next few years anything going to Penzanze would be Voyagers, IEP or the sleeper (were time penalty doesn't matter). Local campaigners are trying to persaude NR to estimate the cost of staighting the line near Crediton to enable 90-110mph for most of Exeter to Okehampton which would save enough to cancel out time penalty to Plymouth.

Ultimately any reopening would be due to politics not a BCR because alll the options have a terrible BCR. The Lib Dems are positioning themselves to take back Cornwall and Devon seats they lost in 2015 (they went from dominating the region to having no MPs. The Tories majority in 2015 is entirely due to taking Lib Dem seats because they had a net loss of 5 or 6 against Labour. Throwing a billion at a couple of high profile infrastructure projects would be politically money well spent.

 

[Busaholic]

Okehampton to Exeter is one traffic flow. Extending Tamar line from Bere Alston to Tavistock is also one flow. If a line between the two is built then Okehampton to Plymouth and Tavistock to Exeter becomes possible as well as adding more local flows. Ultimately the entire case is built on providing a backup line to avoid West Devon and Cornwall being cut off. The worst case senario would be needing to run an hourly service across the entire route via Gunnislake rather than a hourly Gunnislake to Plymouth stopping service and an hourly semi fast Exeter to Plymouth service (NR 2014 assumed level of service to calculate BCR).

I would prefer completely closing Dawlish route and reopening Okehampton to Bere Alston to enable to a half hourly express service and reopening Heathfield to Alphington as a single track line supporting hourly service for local trains between Exeter and Plymouth via Newton Abbot. NR ruled out this route because it was built as a single line and has local river flooding issues. Doubling it was estimated at £450m+ but a single line would cost allot less and occasion flooding closures wouldnt matter it was the secondary route. The time penalty for Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton according to NR is 4 minutes with 5 minutes for each reversal for a Voyager and 7 minutes for loco hauled stock. The latter is irrelevant because in the next few years anything going to Penzanze would be Voyagers, IEP or the sleeper (were time penalty doesn't matter). Local campaigners are trying to persaude NR to estimate the cost of staighting the line near Crediton to enable 90-110mph for most of Exeter to Okehampton which would save enough to cancel out time penalty to Plymouth.

Ultimately any reopening would be due to politics not a BCR because alll the options have a terrible BCR. The Lib Dems are positioning themselves to take back Cornwall and Devon seats they lost in 2015 (they went from dominating the region to having no MPs. The Tories majority in 2015 is entirely due to taking Lib Dem seats because they had a net loss of 5 or 6 against Labour. Throwing a billion at a couple of high profile infrastructure projects would be politically money well spent.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do wonder whether the politics will ever pan out. The West Country (bar Exeter) voted Tory in 2015 despite having no apparent economic self-interest in so doing, while all Cornwall's MPs bar one supported Brexit even though Cornwall gets far more out of the EU than it pays in. I suspect the government will continue to take the SW for granted, perhaps throwing a few crumbs near election time, knowing that Labour as presently constituted will never get more than a handful of seats down here. There might be a slightly better prospect if Bere Alston to Tavistock opens, but that seems to have gone from a very probable to a vague possibility within the last year. Let's be honest, it'll take an even worse storm than Feb 2014 to wash away yet more of the Dawlish line to even get this seriously discussed again, let alone acted upon, not that I'm hoping for this to happen.

 

[HowardGWR]

I would prefer completely closing Dawlish route and reopening Okehampton to Bere Alston to enable to a half hourly express service and reopening Heathfield to Alphington as a single track line supporting hourly service for local trains between Exeter and Plymouth via Newton Abbot.

You can't be serious. An earlier recent poster also completely forgot to mention Torbay.

It's contributions like these that totally destroy credibility on this issue. Of course there must be a main line solution to Torbay. The Okehampton route case stands on its own merits and these are eminently considerable.

 

[Chester1]

You can't be serious. An earlier recent poster also completely forgot to mention Torbay.

It's contributions like these that totally destroy credibility on this issue. Of course there must be a main line solution to Torbay. The Okehampton route case stands on its own merits and these are eminently considerable.

Okehampton has a BCR of 0.15 which is terrible. Its entirely reliant on the need for an alternative line. If you accept that then it begs the question whether the existing line is worth preserving at an estimated cost of £20m a year of routine works + emergency works when the wall is breached. Heathfield route would add 7 minutes and not justify any new stations. That would retain a good service to Exeter and Plymouth and a couple of services a day from Torquay to London via Newton Abbot. The coast stopping service could be replaced by a limited stopping bus service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I do wonder whether the politics will ever pan out. The West Country (bar Exeter) voted Tory in 2015 despite having no apparent economic self-interest in so doing, while all Cornwall's MPs bar one supported Brexit even though Cornwall gets far more out of the EU than it pays in. I suspect the government will continue to take the SW for granted, perhaps throwing a few crumbs near election time, knowing that Labour as presently constituted will never get more than a handful of seats down here. There might be a slightly better prospect if Bere Alston to Tavistock opens, but that seems to have gone from a very probable to a vague possibility within the last year. Let's be honest, it'll take an even worse storm than Feb 2014 to wash away yet more of the Dawlish line to even get this seriously discussed again, let alone acted upon, not that I'm hoping for this to happen.

The Tories routed the Lib Dems because left wing voters refused to tactically vote Lib Dem which switched 30 Lib Dem seats nationally to the Conservatives. After 5 years of Tory majority government and Brexit many left wingers will change their mind. The Conservatives share of the vote in Devon and Cornwall is actually low, their current dominance is caused by a very split opposition. I suspect the Lib Dems will make gains from the Tories, who will offset the losses by taking seats off Labour in other regions.

 

[MarkyT]

I would prefer completely closing Dawlish route and reopening Okehampton to Bere Alston to enable to a half hourly express service and reopening Heathfield to Alphington as a single track line supporting hourly service for local trains between Exeter and Plymouth via Newton Abbot. NR ruled out this route because it was built as a single line and has local river flooding issues. Doubling it was estimated at £450m+ but a single line would cost allot less and occasion flooding closures wouldnt matter it was the secondary route. The time penalty for Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton according to NR is 4 minutes with 5 minutes for each reversal for a Voyager and 7 minutes for loco hauled stock. The latter is irrelevant because in the next few years anything going to Penzanze would be Voyagers, IEP or the sleeper (were time penalty doesn't matter). Local campaigners are trying to persaude NR to estimate the cost of staighting the line near Crediton to enable 90-110mph for most of Exeter to Okehampton which would save enough to cancel out time penalty to Plymouth.

Ultimately any reopening would be due to politics not a BCR because alll the options have a terrible BCR. The Lib Dems are positioning themselves to take back Cornwall and Devon seats they lost in 2015 (they went from dominating the region to having no MPs. The Tories majority in 2015 is entirely due to taking Lib Dem seats because they had a net loss of 5 or 6 against Labour. Throwing a billion at a couple of high profile infrastructure projects would be politically money well spent.

You advocate deliberately closing the Dawlish sea wall route and leaving Dawlish and Teignmouth with no train service at all and adding maybe up to another 20 minutes or so journey time via the even more indirect, slow and flood prone Teign Valley, onto rail journeys from Exeter and points north and east to Newton Abbot, Torbay and Totnes? Well very good luck with that! You might as well abandon South Hams, Torbay and Teignbridge's rails entirely and run express coaches from Exeter. Don't forget these three authorities' combined population of 340K excedes Exeter's at 124k and Plymouth's at 260k. Journey time is excessive in this part of the world already compared to road today including from Exeter to Plymouth. Adding extra journey time for everywhere west of Exeter is a very bad idea, whether or not a new DAL is justified. This idea would be throwing away much traffic, particularly local flows. I've come round to being a supporter of the Okehampton - Tavistock reinstement but only at reasonable cost and not as a complete replacement for the GWR route. It would normally serve local and regional traffic, and provide new direct journey opportunities and the potential for some healthy price competition between Exeter and Plymouth via different operators and routes.

A new fast line could allow an additional 10 minutes or so journey time savings ON TOP of the 15 minutes from London already identified. This is because line speed via the coast cannot be raised so the 80xs could not gain anything on this section apart from perhaps a minute or two acceleration benefits at the few stops.

 

[yorksrob]

Okehampton has a BCR of 0.15 which is terrible. Its entirely reliant on the need for an alternative line.

Wasn't the BCR of 0.15 only calculated on its value as a diversionary route and end to end traffic? Infact I seem to recall that the report said something along the lines of a further study being needed to examine the economic benefits of the route to its intermediate settlements.

 

[HowardGWR]

If we are talking BCRs, then there would be nothing north of Aberdeen or Perth and nothing west of Swansea (I won't list them all, hopefully you get the drift). It's similar to that you pay the same cost of a postage stamp, whether the mail is going to Penzance or Thurso.

I am generally on the rightish side of politics but even I can see (in a similar way that our EU does) that we have to keep decent subsidised links to the extremities of our regions and that benefits the prosperity of the rest.

The Okehampton route opens up new travel possibilities in the same way as the road A30 does, and ditto with the comparison of the Totnes route with the A38 / A380.

Both are needed. It's called civilisation.

 

[The Ham]

Wasn't the BCR of 0.15 only calculated on its value as a diversionary route and end to end traffic? Infact I seem to recall that the report said something along the lines of a further study being needed to examine the economic benefits of the route to its intermediate settlements.

Assuming a cost of £350 million then you end up with revenue repaying 0.15 of the cost if 12 long distance passengers use the service in each direction paying £16 each way over a 40 year design life.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who said it couldn't? Devon CC thinks it can.

Depending on the time of day it could well be that the train could be quite a bit faster than driving, as such a station with a big car park near the A30 could attract significant numbers of passengers.

It could mean that people were willing to drive to the station and then use a long distance service to go elsewhere, as it could be quite a bit quicker (for some) than getting to Plymouth to do so.

 

[HowardGWR]

As illustration of The_Ham's point, I travelled mid-week from Axminster to Bristol recently. Axminster is a tiny town, little more than a large village really. However, folk were arriving on buses from Seaton and Lyme and further, as well as being dropped off and parked. The 1003 was boarded by at least 50 people and by the time we reached Exeter Central, after picking up more at Honiton, etc, at least 100 or more got off - I didn't count. Then quite a few stayed on board to go down the hill to St Davids and like us, some changed onto northbound and southbound trains.

I see no difference between similar future services picking up at Okehampton, Okehampton East, North Tawton and Crediton. It would be similar going the other way to Plymouth, although North Road is a lousy place for a 'central' station. They should reconstruct a terminating line to end up near the shops and offices, or provide a smart shuttle bus with a combined ticket system.

I know they say 'build it and they will come' but in the case of the west country, they really have.

 

[Ash Bridge]

As illustration of The_Ham's point, I travelled mid-week from Axminster to Bristol recently. Axminster is a tiny town, little more than a large village really. However, folk were arriving on buses from Seaton and Lyme and further, as well as being dropped off and parked. The 1003 was boarded by at least 50 people and by the time we reached Exeter Central, after picking up more at Honiton, etc, at least 100 or more got off - I didn't count. Then quite a few stayed on board to go down the hill to St Davids and like us, some changed onto northbound and southbound trains.

I see no difference between similar future services picking up at Okehampton, Okehampton East, North Tawton and Crediton. It would be similar going the other way to Plymouth, although North Road is a lousy place for a 'central' station. They should reconstruct a terminating line to end up near the shops and offices, or provide a smart shuttle bus with a combined ticket system.

I know they say 'build it and they will come' but in the case of the west country, they really have.

The former Plymouth Friary Station could perhaps have been nearly ideal for this role, also being close to tourist attractions such as the nearby marina, Mayflower Steps etc. What a shame it stood in a semi derelict state for so many years after closure and only fairly recently has been redeveloped, yet the route down to it still remains in situ.