Heathfield branch developments

[Oldddudders]

There might well be traffic congestion in the Newton Abbot area, but I am not sure how much this would help,

are there that many folk who commute into Newton Abbot?

 

 

There is quite a heavy flow of traffic northbound up the new South Devon Highway, even at 0700, about one quarter of it then diving off into the NA roundabout, rather than heading over the single-lane (Why? Why? What must Summer Sundays be like in both directions?) flyover towards Exeter.

[dymstocklr]

If they buy a helicopter!

Maybe they could get lottery funding for that as well!

 

In all seriousness none of the potential funding streams (lottery, councils, etc.) will be forthcoming without a solid and sensible revenue plan, and I just can't see how sufficient traffic is going to be generated. I travelled on the last Moretonhampstead train in 1959 so I'd love to be proved wrong. But I don't think so.

Bill 

[brianusa]

As long as the rails remain in place, these conversations will continue.  We've all seen the deterioration of the remaining stub of this branch over the years, gradually getting worse and worse as nature does its thing!  But its always fun to ponder the prospects no matter how unrealistic.  Its not the SDR with somewhere to go to, more like the Plym Valley or Helston line which seek to do great things with little backing and not really going anywhere; Heathfield is not exactly a tourist destination.   All have to be admired for their dedication but how much easier would it have been if they could have had the branches in their entirety.  Trouble is then it would have been cost prohibitive!

 

Brian

[Finch]

As long as the rails remain in place, these conversations will continue.  We've all seen the deterioration of the remaining stub of this branch over the years, gradually getting worse and worse as nature does its thing!  But its always fun to ponder the prospects no matter how unrealistic.  Its not the SDR with somewhere to go to, more like the Plym Valley or Helston line which seek to do great things with little backing and not really going anywhere; Heathfield is not exactly a tourist destination.   All have to be admired for their dedication but how much easier would it have been if they could have had the branches in their entirety.  Trouble is then it would have been cost prohibitive!

 

Brian

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Sensibility says that there's no real merit in reopening this line which is a mildly picturesque 6 mile trundle to a dead end at a trading estate on the edge of town. Every group that comes and goes that's trying to revive the line seems to fall at various hurdles with gargantuan sums of money being requested by various stakeholders along the way. 

 

I leave Bovey at 07:00 in the morning, Monday - Friday and even at that time in the morning there are vehicles everywhere around Bovey and Heathfield and the main routes beyond. It'd be prudent to suggest that all of these people could instead be sat on a DMU bound to or from Heathfield and the counties traffic problems would suddenly be alleviated. A train service in this area could help reduce the situation though.

 

This could be a step in the right direction that compliments the wider Devon Metro plan and money that would otherwise be spent on straightening out some congested A road (A382 widening scheme comes to mind) could be used to take some vehicles off the road for good and safeguard a well positioned rail-head for years to come.

 

There are already plenty of examples of how short sighted some of the decisions on Britain's railways have been over the years; whatever the future of the Heathfield line, lets hope it doesn't prove to be a another regrettable oversight in the future.

[phil-b259]

There is quite a heavy flow of traffic northbound up the new South Devon Highway, even at 0700, about one quarter of it then diving off into the NA roundabout, rather than heading over the single-lane (Why? Why? What must Summer Sundays be like in both directions?) flyover towards Exeter.

 

Because a few of decades ago someone sold part of the land required for a bigger junction to Sainsbury's Supermarkets and part of the store would be in the way if the slip roadbeds if the flyover was any wider. When Central Government finally agreed to stump up a portion of the cost for the new road (the DfT demanded various cost savings halfway through its design anyway or they would pull the funding) there was only space for a single carriageway flyover - which is better than nothing (well a large signal controlled roundabout to handle all movements).

[Sturminster_Newton]

Because a few of decades ago someone sold part of the land required for a bigger junction to Sainsbury's Supermarkets and part of the store would be in the way if the slip roadbeds if the flyover was any wider. When Central Government finally agreed to stump up a portion of the cost for the new road (the DfT demanded various cost savings halfway through its design anyway or they would pull the funding) there was only space for a single carriageway flyover - which is better than nothing (well a large signal controlled roundabout to handle all movements).

Bit of a red-herring there mate, as the A380 Penn Inn junction is the other side of Newton Abbot.

 

Heathfield is off the Stover Junction on the A38.

 

While the track remains in place re-opening the Heathfield section of the Teign Valley Line will always be on the list of possible restored lines.

 

A Park and Ride to Newton Abbot using the existing track seems feasible, consider that Newton Abbot Station is just that bit too far out of the main town for many to consider it as a viable choice, although a few through rail commuters travelling to Plymouth or Exeter and beyond might be pleased.

 

A customer interchange would be needed around Jetty Marsh Basin near the existing B&Q, itself an area of archaeological interest and the canal restoration group will be certain to have a view on building a new station there.

 

Alternatively running as a street tram from that point would have it emerge onto the busiest roundabout in Newton Abbot with the Fire and Ambulance station situated there it's not got many ticks to say it is viable.

 

Whilst the aims of putting the line in place are laudable, the practicalities and costs do arbitrate against it.

 

Currently there is not enough supporting population at Bovey Tracey or Heathfield to maintain the hourly demand for a rapid transit Train/Tram service, currently met by at least four service bus routes.

 

The buses deliver customers from the supposed rail catchment area direct to Newton Abbot town centre so will remain the chief means of access for any potential rail travellers.

 

Off peak travel via the buses sustains the retired population via the ENCTS free bus policy.

 

Commercial bus service fares are extortionately high for the service provided.

 

Devon County Council Supported services have subsidised fares and seem unbelievably cheap for the distances involved.

 

Heathfield Rail fares would need to be of a confiscatory level commercially to cover the overheads and infrastructure of such a tiny line.

 

If the line was run on Heritage principles to reduces the costs by slashing the wages to all but essential full time staff.

 

The operating costs are still significant and the fares would of necessity need to be set at a uncomfortably high level for users.

 

In my various musings on injecting life into the Teign Valley Link, a Parry People mover would seem the way forward to keep operating costs down but their capacity is too limited even on the larger units.

 

The line itself needs to be doubled, or it would need new passing loops installed before it could sustain the density of service required to make a Park and Ride shuttle line cost effective, assuming a 20minute headway.

 

It would needs to have a USP and beating bus and car journey times is it. Only then could it be a worthy of customer consideration.

 

I would suggest at least four/five PPM sets would be needed to provide service and allow for maintenance. Four during Peak times two off peak.

 

There is little or no joined up thinking within the public transport network in spite of Devon County Council's supposed policy. Buses don't meet Trains and Trains do not feed Buses.

 

All I can presently see in the resurrection of this line is the supposed glamour that comes from shunting a couple of Wickham Trollies or a class8/9 coupled to a DVT up and down what is essentially a tiny Heritage Line, mimicking the Dartmoor Railway, with occasional commercial uses for timber extraction.

 

I have not yet covered the permission to run into Newton Abbot mainline station, the storage and other infrastructure needed to make even PPM operations a viable option.

 

Note:

 

I would propose that much of the traffic originating from Bovey/Heathfield around peak hours is people, like myself, travelling to work places beyond Newton Abbot with no rail or regular bus service.

(In my case it is to provide a bus service to outlying rural places.)

Putting the railway back would not change this situation.

Some of the more remote Newton Abbot and Exeter bus services have been in place since the trains left in 1950s.

All there has been is a reduction in the bus service provided as more people use cars to fill in the short comings of public service.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Sturminster_Newton

[phil-b259]

 

There is little or no joined up thinking within the public transport network in spite of Devon County Council's supposed policy. Buses don't meet Trains and Trains do not feed Buses.

 

 

To be fair, when the council has zero ability to influence either commercial bus services or anything to do with rail franchises what else do you expect?

 

Bus deregulation and rail franchising mean local authorities have relatively little clout in terms of service provision - they can of course put forward their ideas, but there is no obligation on others to act on what the council may say.

[Oldddudders]

There is quite a heavy flow of traffic northbound up the new South Devon Highway, even at 0700, about one quarter of it then diving off into the NA roundabout, rather than heading over the single-lane (Why? Why? What must Summer Sundays be like in both directions?) flyover towards Exeter.

 

 

Because a few of decades ago someone sold part of the land required for a bigger junction to Sainsbury's Supermarkets and part of the store would be in the way if the slip roadbeds if the flyover was any wider. When Central Government finally agreed to stump up a portion of the cost for the new road (the DfT demanded various cost savings halfway through its design anyway or they would pull the funding) there was only space for a single carriageway flyover - which is better than nothing (well a large signal controlled roundabout to handle all movements).

 

 

Bit of a red-herring there mate, as the A380 Penn Inn junction is the other side of Newton Abbot.

 

 

 

What was a red herring? Phil's response to my post was entirely appropriate. The junction to which I referred is indeed right by Sainsbury, so widening out the flyover access at the Torquay end would be impossible. And as he implies, it is a lot better than just the old roundabout, which these days sees local traffic only. Still a pity.

[Re6/6]

Whilst preparing for an audience at 'Schloss ZOB' the other day, l just had to visit Teigngrace crossing and take a couple of snaps.

 

Such a shame that the timber traffic has long gone.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Re6/6

[Siberian Snooper]

Looks like the gypos have moved in.

[phil-b259]

Looks like the gypos have moved in.

 

Wonder how long till bits of rail start going missing?

[Re6/6]

I think that it's part of a caravan dealer as there were more behind wire mesh inside the compound on the right.

[Captain Kernow]

I think that it's part of a caravan dealer as there were more behind wire mesh inside the compound on the right.

Compact, deluxe and bijou holiday opportunities, no doubt.

[Finch]

A mention of the Heathfield branch line in this article on Devon Live:

 

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/new-garden-village-reopened-railway-1699305

 

Not sure how much involvement the Council have in trying to move things forward but it certainly seems to be on their agenda and great at least to hear that the line will be protected.

[brianusa]

Undoubtedly the 12,400 houses will be built despoiling yet more acres of rural Devon. The rail line probably won't!.

 

Brian.

[royaloak]

Undoubtedly the 12,400 houses will be built despoiling yet more acres of rural Devon. The rail line probably won't!.

 

Brian.

Unfortunately it is all about the houses and not about the infrastructure to support the people moving into those houses, no industry, no jobs, no extra gas, electric, water, sewage, schools, doctors etc so everything just gets stretched thinner and thinner until it cannot support the catchment area any more.

Edited June 22, 2018 by royaloak

[Torn-on-the-platform]

At the other end of the branch, progress has been made on the cycle path between Moretonhampstead and Bovey Tracey since the 2016 extension which went as far as Wray Barton. Here, the new path rejoins the railway line. Not yet explored the full extent of the new section yet, but it was very busy this weekend just gone! Great to see.

[Wummyock]

Went up to Exeter and back today on the train and theres a reasonable sized rake of flat wagons(Ferry type) complete with what I assumed was log cradles on them in the engineers sidings at Newton Abbot, from a search I think they are KSA's. Is there more logs goings out of Heathfield? Didnt get a pic sorry, I forgot till the last minute on the return journey.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Wummyock

[Torn-on-the-platform]

The platform at Moretonhampstead has been dug up today as part of a new development. I understand the goods she'd is to be saved as part of this scheme. Sad to see the station site progress to being less recognisable but I suppose any development on 'brownfield' land is better than expanding the town into the countryside.

[cctransuk]

On 22/06/2018 at 20:25, royaloak said:

Unfortunately it is all about the houses and not about the infrastructure to support the people moving into those houses, no industry, no jobs, no extra gas, electric, water, sewage, schools, doctors etc so everything just gets stretched thinner and thinner until it cannot support the catchment area any more.

 

Exactly the same here in Cornwall - all the council cares about is meeting the government housing target.

 

Try and get a dentist or doctor, though - no chance!!

 

John Isherwood.

[brianusa]

It is interesting to go right back to the beginnings of this thread and see the similarity on all its various openings and closings.  The good Capt'ns remarks were relevant from beginning to end.  There is an interesting video posted elsewhere of a  train of ballast wagons accessing the branch at Newton.  The  saga continues............ 

 

      Brian.

Edited March 21, 2021 by brianusa

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Exactly the same here in Cornwall - all the council cares about is meeting the government housing target.

 

Try and get a dentist or doctor, though - no chance!!

 

John Isherwood.

 

And have you bothered to research what happens to any council that does not meat its housing targets?

 

The Answer is that BY LAW the planning inspector MUST APPROVE THE APPLICATION* upon appeal.

 

In short, the rules put in place BY THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT are deliberately designed to PUNISH local authorities who are not seen to be providing 'sufficient housing' by the national Government.

 

The large property developers know this and make full use of said powers where Councils are perceived to be blocking the building of housing (and thus developers making money)

 

As such it is in the interests of local authorities to set land aside for development and meet said targets as at least that way they might have some influence over things and be able to secure a better contribution from developers to local amities / services.

 

If you dislike housing policy then you need to stop whinging about local authorities and start complaining to MPs who are the ones who have rigged the planning system so it is rigged in favour of housing developers.

 

 

* The only grounds for rejection in such cases is the development being in a SSI, an AONB or a National Park.

[cctransuk]

16 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And have you bothered to research what happens to any council that does not meat its housing targets?

 

The Answer is that BY LAW the planning inspector MUST APPROVE THE APPLICATION* upon appeal.

 

In short, the rules put in place BY THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT are deliberately designed to PUNISH local authorities who are not seen to be providing 'sufficient housing' by the national Government.

 

The large property developers know this and make full use of said powers where Councils are perceived to be blocking the building of housing (and thus developers making money)

 

As such it is in the interests of local authorities to set land aside for development and meet said targets as at least that way they might have some influence over things and be able to secure a better contribution from developers to local amities / services.

 

If you dislike housing policy then you need to stop whinging about local authorities and start complaining to MPs who are the ones who have rigged the planning system so it is rigged in favour of housing developers.

 

 

* The only grounds for rejection in such cases is the development being in a SSI, an AONB or a National Park.

 

Whoa !! Calm down !! As I spent a forty year career in local government, you cannot teach me anything about local / central government politics.

 

I am fully aware that councils, of whatever status or political affiliation, are held to ransom by central government - they are obliged to meet their housing allocations.

 

I also know that councils can and do require developers to provide certain infrastructure as a condition of granting planning consent. This can vary from simply highway, footways, drainage and services for a small development to schools, shopping centre, health centres, etc., etc. for new conurbations.

 

My concern - not whinge - is that councils, all to often fail, to require developers to provide the additional infrastructure that those purchasing the new homes will require. Here in Cornwall there is a huge under-provision of health and education infrastructure, and yet Cornwall Council seem to have no interest whatsoever in requiring developers to provide such facilities. This failure is NOT attributable to central government - it rests firmly at the door of local government.

 

Incidently - the multiple acres that comprise the entire view from our house have been designated for housing and light industrial development by Cornwall Council - much to the delight of a major local landowner! Potential developers are already having trial holes dug to determine how easy it will be to build, despite a very significant gradient across the site.

 

Please - don't try to teach your Granny to suck eggs!!

 

John Isherwood.

Edited March 22, 2021 by cctransuk

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Whoa !! Calm down !! As I spent a forty year career in local government, you cannot teach me anything about local / central government politics.

 

I am fully aware that councils, of whatever status or political affiliation, are held to ransom by central government - they are obliged to meet their housing allocations.

 

 

Far too many people I see commenting on social media fail to appreciate that - hence my ire when I came across what read like another one.

 

16 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

My concern - not whinge - is that councils, all to often fail, to require developers to provide the additional infrastructure that those purchasing the new homes will require. Here in Cornwall there is a huge under-provision of health and education infrastructure, and yet Cornwall Council seem to have no interest whatsoever in requiring developers to provide such facilities. This failure is NOT attributable to central government - it rests firmly at the door of local government.

 

 

Things may not be as simple as it appears.

 

Given developers have the upper hand in law should a council get too demanding then its easy for developers to appeal about the amount of additional infrastructure they should provide to the planning inspector who will most likely side with them.

 

Some councils may therefore have effectively been scared off and feel they simply cannot 'get tough' in the manor you would wish. Obviously a few councils don't care, but I'd wager that is in the minority and more likely the rigged planning system is to blame.

 

And thats before we get to the shady business of developers claiming that the site has some sort of issue which means that any house they build there will have to be sold at a loss when in reality they know that housing demand means the opposite is the case.

 

Indeed London has missed out of large amounts of social housing - most notably at the Battersea Power station development where the site clean up was alleged to be so costly that the only way the development would be 'viable' was to exclude social housing completely. Yes money was paid top local councils but houses need land to be built on and if the council doesn't have that then piles of cash isn't going to help.

 

You say the site allocated for housing new you is on a steep gradient - well I'm sure the developers will be able to come up with all sorts of reasons why that makes the site 'difficult' to develop and effectively hold the council to ransom.

 

 

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Far too many people I see commenting on social media fail to appreciate that - hence my ire when I came across what read like another one.

 

 

Things may not be as simple as it appears.

 

Given developers have the upper hand in law should a council get too demanding then its easy for developers to appeal about the amount of additional infrastructure they should provide to the planning inspector who will most likely side with them.

 

Some councils may therefore have effectively been scared off and feel they simply cannot 'get tough' in the manor you would wish. Obviously a few councils don't care, but I'd wager that is in the minority and more likely the rigged planning system is to blame.

 

And thats before we get to the shady business of developers claiming that the site has some sort of issue which means that any house they build there will have to be sold at a loss when in reality they know that housing demand means the opposite is the case.

 

Indeed London has missed out of large amounts of social housing - most notably at the Battersea Power station development where the site clean up was alleged to be so costly that the only way the development would be 'viable' was to exclude social housing completely. Yes money was paid top local councils but houses need land to be built on and if the council doesn't have that then piles of cash isn't going to help.

 

You say the site allocated for housing new you is on a steep gradient - well I'm sure the developers will be able to come up with all sorts of reasons why that makes the site 'difficult' to develop and effectively hold the council to ransom.

 

 

 

One thing that I learned in forty years at Cambridge City Council is that officers - and retired officers - do well to steer clear of any political comment, one way or the other!

 

John Isherwood.