Jump to content
 

Storm-hit Dawlish railway line 'may be moved out to sea'


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, lightengine said:

Apologies for digressing.

 

How much more room did double track broadgauge take over double track standard gauge?  At points along the Teignmouth seawall there doesn't seem to be much for much extra width.

Don't forget most of that section was originally only single line in broad gauge times.  Broad gauge double track between outer running edges was a whisker over 20 feet, standard gauge laid to a similar 6 foot is almost 5 feet narrower.

 

Exeter - Starcross doubling - various sections opened in 1860 and completed in September 1861 when the section Between Exeter St Davids and Exeter St Thomas was opened as double line.  Double line from Starcross to Dawlish (where various station works were not completed until 1875 was opened as double line on 16 February 1874.  Double line between Teignmouth station and Old Quay was opened  on 25 May 1884 and between Teignmouth station and Parsons Tunnel on 6 July 1884.   Thus all teh doubling up to then was of braad gauge width.   The double line between Dawlish station and Parsons Tunnel Signal Box was commissioned in two stages in June and October 1905 with the final section to be doubled being the 28 chains between Dawlish station and Dawlish Tunnel Signal Box and was of course on a standard gauge railway.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the cliffs have encroached since broad gauge days but there are places, such as the inland side where the lime burners hut still just about stands that can determine the track width.

Back in the 70's I walked up the Parsons Tunnel box stairs that led from trackside to the cliff top.  One bit of a climb.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/06/2019 at 11:34, Fat Controller said:

A good deal of the area around Shakespere Cliff is protected by 'Samphire Hoe', a wide strech of fairly level made ground, built using spoil from the Channel Tunnel. This was tipped behind  a sea-wall of Larsen piles, protected by rock-armour.

 

Yes. I think I just said armoured wall sea protection, but it obviously was not enough.

 

And it won't be, over the medium term, apparently, partly through the chalk cliff instability and partly through continued erosion due to rising seal levels and extreme weather. Hence my comparison.

 

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2019 at 02:05, Fenman said:

Cornwall is by no means alone. Norfolk doesn't have a single mile of motorway, either.

 

According to a list of pub trivia questions I found the 9 counties without a motorway are Cornwall, Dorset, Norfolk, Suffolk, Rutland, Northumberland, East Sussex, Isle of Wight and City of London.

 

Cheers

David 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DavidB-AU said:

 

According to a list of pub trivia questions I found the 9 counties without a motorway are Cornwall, Dorset, Norfolk, Suffolk, Rutland, Northumberland, East Sussex, Isle of Wight and City of London.

 

Cheers

David 

 

Quite so - but tell that to the local yoof and middle-aged Audi and BMW drivers, using the A12 in Suffolk.....

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2019 at 20:39, Mike Storey said:

 

Yes. I think I just said armoured wall sea protection, but it obviously was not enough.

 

And it won't be, over the medium term, apparently, partly through the chalk cliff instability and partly through continued erosion due to rising seal levels and extreme weather. Hence my comparison.

 

 

I just noticed that rising seals are a major problem. I think I may have invented that, but hey - if I repeat it often enough, it will obviously be true?

 

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Quite so - but tell that to the local yoof and middle-aged Audi and BMW drivers, using the A12 in Suffolk.....

 

Ah, yes, the A12. My late friend - from skooldays - Mike, had just had his year-old company Vauxhall serviced. Being in something of a hurry, he was booting it on the A12 when the engine let go, big time. As he coasted to an unavoidable stop, the oil light came on....... 

  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Ah, yes, the A12. My late friend - from skooldays - Mike, had just had his year-old company Vauxhall serviced. Being in something of a hurry, he was booting it on the A12 when the engine let go, big time. As he coasted to an unavoidable stop, the oil light came on....... 

 

Anything to do with Vauxhall turns my red light on, especially whilst a certain Ms Hoey represents it......

 

But Luton would be proud - their innovative, SD ("Stable Door"), engine analysis system, clearly had found the problem.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Anything to do with Vauxhall turns my red light on, especially whilst a certain Ms Hoey represents it......

 

But Luton would be proud - their innovative, SD ("Stable Door"), engine analysis system, clearly had found the problem.

 

:bye:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
19 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Ah, yes, the A12. My late friend - from skooldays - Mike, had just had his year-old company Vauxhall serviced. Being in something of a hurry, he was booting it on the A12 when the engine let go, big time. As he coasted to an unavoidable stop, the oil light came on....... 

So it should, as the oil was no longer circulating!

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just caught up with the whole of this thread now.

 

Interesting to see that the supporters of the Okehampton route still feel so strongly about this as a viable option to the South Devon line.

 

I may be retired now, but I know that the economic and political facts surrounding the idea of a diversionary route haven't really changed much.

 

There is, and never really has been, any meaningful political support for reopening the Okehampton line as a full main line alternative to the Dawlish route, certainly not from those DfT officials I used to speak to, not from the grown-up suit-wearing executives in Network Rail that I used to annoy work with, not from Devon County Council or the local authorities in South Devon, not from the MPs representing the South Devon constituencies and not from the TOCs.

 

No one ever really gave the notion any real credence in any discussions that I was party to, nor in any work-related documentation that I was privy to.

 

It was also always accepted that the idea of Okehampton being reopened in addition to the South Devon main line route, meant that Okehampton would have to have a robust business case, ie. be guaranteed to provide an acceptable return on investment and essentially pay it's way going forward.

 

As Mr Stationmaster has pointed out, the discussions about Tavistock have been going on for around 30 years (which includes the entirety of that part of my career spent in the South West and no physicial works have yet resulted. The situation here hasn't been helped by (a) the project becoming the responsibility of Devon CC to drive forward, (b) Devon CC losing most of it's experienced officers who knew and understood rail issues, within a short space of time of each other (retirement, other jobs etc.) and (c) the Network Rail project estimates increasing by an outrageously improbable and high factor (in no small part, I have been given to understand, by the need to ensure adequate contingency, should the project spiral out of financial control. This following NR experience with a recent electrification project. In a similar vein, this is also one of the reasons why Marsh Barton station hasn't been built yet).

 

There has also been much talk about reinstating a regular Okehampton to Exeter service, but even this relatively easy (from a physical point of view) project hasn't materialised. Interestingly, there was a significant sum put aside in Devon CC budgets for a number of years (but no longer, I understand), to fund 'Okehampton East Parkway', on the Dartmoor Railway. Again, this hasn't (yet) happened.

 

Turning to the current round of actual and proposed NR projects to make the existing Sea Wall route more resilient.

 

I was surprised but also rather pleased in a slightly smug way, to note that the methodology of rebuilding the Sea Wall between Dawlish station and Kennaway Tunnel is following almost exactly that which I have felt was necessary for years. Ever since the 2014 rebuilding of the Sea Lawn Terrace section, to the east of Dawlish station, I have been saying that using pre-cast concrete wall sections, a bit higher, a bit further out and with a proper, scientifically-calculated wave return built into the profile, should be the way forward. And this seems to be exactly what NR are now going to do for this section. I hope that they will include adequate measures as part of the build, to prevent track flooding and ballast displacement. It was always these latter two factors that were the main risks to the operation of trains along the Sea Wall in more recent times, during 'average' storms, at least. 

 

The vast majority of the structure of the Sea Wall was safeguarded from collapse by the 'deep toe foundation' works, started by Railtrack in the late 1990s and completed by Network Rail in around 2003. These large, deep blocks of reinforced concrete prevented the foundations of the original masonry wall from being undermined by the sea, when beach levels dropped due to tidal and storm action, thus exposing the soft red sandstone underneath, which was quickly leached away, resulting in voids and loss of support, initially to the Down Main line. The major storms of January 1996 were the impetus for these works. Those storms also resulted in the first real application of a disciplined, planned and structured operations protocol along the wall during storm conditions, which any operations folk associated with the Sea Wall will know as Level 1 and Level 2 Working. In conjunction with the Stuctures Engineer responsible for the maintenance of the Sea Wall during that time, I was the author of that protocol for 20 years, before I retired.

 

I find, though, that I struggle rather more with NR's proposals for the Parsons Tunnel to Teignmouth section.

 

As an operations manager, with a major interface role with the TOCs, I was involved in countless weather-related incidents along the Sea Wall, took part in countless phone conferences to discuss adverse weather forecasts, oversaw the introduction of the emergency operations protocol countless times and held my fair share of reviews and even inquiries into weather-related delays and incidents. I was in overall local charge of two serious Voyager failure incidents in 2004 and 2005, where on both occasions sea water caused the complete failure of a Voyager train on the Down Main line, right next to a very stormy sea.

 

When the Voyager sets lost power, they lost their air and one result was that the door seals deflated, allowing sea water to permeate into the actual vestibule areas. We had to get the Fire Brigade to evacuate the train, into an adjacent HST, on the first incident and almost had to do that the second time, in 2005. Only the determination of a small number of (frankly) brave operations and PW staff, together with the driver on a Class 57 'Thunderbird' loco, avoided the need to evacuate that second train, which had failed only about a quarter of a mile from Dawlish station on the Down Main line.

 

The reason I have related the above is to explain that, although I fully acknowledge that the Teignmouth Cliffs are a continuing problem, to me, the sea is the real enemy, right along the whole length of the Sea Wall.

 

I recall going to a public consultation and presentation event in Teignmouth in autumn 2016, a few months after I had retired. This proposal to push the railway out to sea was being hawked around there. At the time, it even included an up and down running loop between Sprey Point and Parsons Tunnel. I asked the head Public Affairs chap (who I knew well) about that and was told that some junior 'flunky' had added the loops in, 'because it seemed like a good idea!'

 

I asked him which PW and S&T engineer in their right mind was going to be happy about maintaining point mechanisms and the rest of the associated infrastructure in such a location and under such circumstances, or which train crew and passengers would be happy about being held in the Down Loop during storm conditions. He went a bit quiet and that part of the proposal appears to have been dropped! Just as well.

 

To me, the whole notion of pushing the railway further out towards harsh, maritime conditions, seems counter-intuitive (which when I was working, was management-speak for 'daft'). You would be pushing the railway further out into the 'danger zone'. Why would anyone in their right mind seek to do that?

 

They speak of rock armour and other measures, but having looked at the proposals and talked to a number of people, I am not persuaded that NR know enough about the effect of such a massive, battle-ship-sized structure on the beach, to really be able to speak with confidence. Perhaps that section of beach isn't as popular with summer tourists as the beaches nearer and around Dawlish. But who's to say what the future holds?

 

What is certain, is that once that beach is destroyed by the new NR works, no one is ever going to bring it back. Would the 'new amenities' involving some of the reclaimed land between the new alignment and the base of the cliffs be adequate compensation, in tourism terms? Who's to say? Not NR, in my view, who are supposed to be experts in operating and maintaining railway infrastructure, not tourism.

 

I wonder whether the track geometry, as the line emerges from Parsons Tunnel, won't have to involve some fairly tight curvature, in order to bring the line so far out to sea. If so, what effect will that have on Permanent Speed Restrictions? To avoid sharp curves, perhaps they will need to re-burrow a new tunnel section from half-way through the existing Parsons Tunnel, to a new portal further from the cliffs? And if so, how expensive (and disruptive) would that be?

 

When I was working, I discussed the question of 'avalanche shelters' with the engineering fraternity in NR. Unfortunately, it seems that the geology of the area isn't helping us here, as there is some kind of 'rotational' action going on, which would mean that the avalanche shelters wouldn't be stable. I know that the eastern end of Parsons Tunnel is an avalanche shelter, but that is a relatively short section, was built (probably) before the current geological science was understood and the geology of that portion of the cliffs could be different from that west of Parsons Tunnel.

 

As such, the interesting idea of a concrete or some kind of translucent tube, suggested earlier in this thread, was never going to work. Apart from any considerations of long-term stability, the amount of disruption to existing services, possessions etc. to put it in place, together with the associated costs, would render it a non-starter. Sorry.

 

My own preference for this section would be for NR to (in my estimation) displease the smallest number of locals and compulsory-purchase sufficient property at the top of the cliffs (mostly gardens) and grade the cliffs back from the top, to the existing base. NR have stated in their publicity that this would require too many disruptive possessions, but it is my belief that this could be accomplished with a combination of carefully worked-through operations protocols, some disruptive possessions and non-possession work. I cannot say how much this would cost, but I don't think that the compulsory purchase of property at the top of the cliffs would be the main element, it would be the work itself.

 

My gut feeling is that this would be cheaper than the cost of building a run-aground concrete battleship with rail tracks on it, just off the existing beach.

 

And it would ensure that the existing beach is safeguarded. My feeling is that ensuring that this beach is retained for future generations would be more acceptable to more people locally, than the loss of portions of what are mostly gardens at the tops of the cliffs (clearly the property owners at the tops of the cliffs wouldn't agree).

 

The railway could be given additional protection from the sea by using more pre-cast concrete sections, slightly higher and with minimal intrusion on the existing beach.

 

The debate will, no doubt, continue for a long time to come.

 

Edited by Captain Kernow
Clarity.
  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jack Benson

Hi,

 

Apart from deeply ingrained prejudice, what exactly is the actual cause of the push-back against re-instating inland Okehampton route or indeed any route that avoids the marine environment?

 

Just asking

 

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

Hi,

 

Apart from deeply ingrained prejudice, what exactly is the actual cause of the push-back against re-instating inland Okehampton route or indeed any route that avoids the marine environment?

 

Just asking

 

Jack

 

Well worded question ;)

You mean apart from the point that the line via Okehampton manages to miss almost every population centre in south Devon?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's opposition to reopening the LSWR line, so much as opposition to the idea of replacing the Dawlish line with it.

 

Which is odd, since I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested doing so. Its only hope is as a route serving Exeter, Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth, and in so doing providing an alternative to the Dawlish route when one is temporarily required, not a replacement.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Jack Benson said:

Apart from deeply ingrained prejudice, what exactly is the actual cause of the push-back against re-instating inland Okehampton route or indeed any route that avoids the marine environment?

 

In terms of Okehampton as a diversionary route only, it's mostly the money. 

 

Rail industry investment rules and the requirement for any such scheme to pay it's way and reopening purely as a diversionary route (which would have to have it's own regular, daily local service) just wouldn't pay it's way.

 

Not that I am any kind of investment expert, but the capital cost of building it wouldn't make a business case under existing rules.

 

In terms of day to day operational terms, it's doubtful that such a service could be made to pay. Additional (new?) trains and crews would also be required, and a significant number of crews who work the existing South Devon main line would also have to have sufficient opportunities to work trains via Okehampton, in order to retain route knowledge. All this extra cost would have to be funded from passenger revenue, plus any 'support funding' that might be politically acceptable to government.

 

Reopening Okehampton as the main line to Plymouth and Cornwall is considered politically unacceptable, given the population distribution between North and South Devon, plus you have the cost of reinstatement and the fact (again, politically) that some kind of rail link would be expected to be retained between Exeter and Torbay (even if it was accepted that a lower level of protection rendered that occasionally vulnerable to bad weather).

 

Building a new, inland route (say between Exminster and Bishopsteignton, just west of Newton Abbot) would be my favourite solution to the whole problem, as it both serves all the South Devon population and keeps the railway away from the sea.

 

Again, the cost is the problem here, including the political cost of compulsory purchase etc.

 

I've always believed that the existing route could be made sufficiently resilient to meet the majority of economic and political requirements. I agree wholeheartedly with what NR are doing around the Dawlish station area. I'm not so sure that their (seemingly) chosen solution for Parsons Tunnel to Teignmouth is the right one, but retaining the railway in this area is definitely the right thing.

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I don't think there's opposition to reopening the LSWR line, so much as opposition to the idea of replacing the Dawlish line with it.

 

Which is odd, since I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested doing so. Its only hope is as a route serving Exeter, Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth, and in so doing providing an alternative to the Dawlish route when one is temporarily required, not a replacement.

Personally, I don't oppose the reopening of the Okehampton route, with my 'railway enthusiast' hat on.

 

However, the cost and business case factors, outlined in my posts above, are the reason that it is extremely unlikely to happen.

 

Otherwise, for Okehampton to reopen, as a local passenger service route, which can also serve as a diversionary route to Dawlish when needed, needs some extremely senior government figures, business and industry leaders to want it to happen sufficiently much, to make it happen.

 

Despite all the talk of 'marginal seats' etc., it's always seemed to me that we in the South West don't have sufficient economic and political clout as those in some other areas.

 

Perhaps a future Wessex Regional Assembly, sitting in Exeter or Plymouth, might look at schemes like the Borders line and make Okehampton a priority.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jack Benson
36 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

 

Well worded question ;)

You mean apart from the point that the line via Okehampton manages to miss almost every population centre in south Devon?

 

 

 That is simple, Okehampton isn't in South Devon. Try Google maps, if you don't believe me.

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Hi,

 

Apart from deeply ingrained prejudice, what exactly is the actual cause of the push-back against re-instating inland Okehampton route or indeed any route that avoids the marine environment?

 

Just asking

 

Jack

 

You are confusing prejudice with being rational.

 

Let me repeat, there is ZERO BUSINESS CASE for the reinstatement of the Oakhampton route as any form of diversionary route when weather causes problems on the sea wall.

 

its got nothing to do whether you ‘dislike’ (or are ‘prejudiced’) against it as you phrase it.

 

As a railway enthusiast there are lots of railways I personaly would like to see re-opened, some of which could prove very useful in a diversionary capacity (Christ’s Hospital to Shoreham being one local to me for instance).

 

However, the realist in me appreciates that under the current financial regime a positive BCR has to be generated before any funding will be made for such ideas - and regrettably ‘diversionary’ benifits cannot be cited under current rules.

 

I didn’t create the regime for infrastructure investment - and after the success of the Scottish re-openings have a deep suspicion it is fatally flawed, but there is not a lot I, nor indeed NR can do about that, let alone change it. Change can only come about if the politicians alter the formulas and rules governing how we judge the worth of proposals.

 

The frustration many railway professionals express on here is simply that far too many folk don’t seem to be able to understand that.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

 

 

 That is simple, Okehampton isn't in South Devon. Try Google maps, if you don't believe me.

 

Cheers

 

Jack

 

 

Thats what the OP meant.  Trains going via Okehampton would serve hardly anyone except Dartmoor ponies, sheep and cattle.  All the big population areas are way south, pretty much close to the present railway (for some reason).

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Just caught up with the whole of this thread now.

 

Interesting to see that the supporters of the Okehampton route still feel so strongly about this as a viable option to the South Devon line.

 

I may be retired now, but I know that the economic and political facts surrounding the idea of a diversionary route haven't really changed much.

 

There is, and never really has been, any meaningful political support for reopening the Okehampton line as a full main line alternative to the Dawlish route, certainly not from those DfT officials I used to speak to, not from the grown-up suit-wearing executives in Network Rail that I used to annoy work with, not from Devon County Council or the local authorities in South Devon, not from the MPs representing the South Devon constituencies and not from the TOCs.

 

No one ever really gave the notion any real credence in any discussions that I was party to, nor in any work-related documentation that I was privy to.

 

It was also always accepted that the idea of Okehampton being reopened in addition to the South Devon main line route, meant that Okehampton would have to have a robust business case, ie. be guaranteed to provide an acceptable return on investment and essentially pay it's way going forward.

 

As Mr Stationmaster has pointed out, the discussions about Tavistock have been going on for around 30 years (which includes the entirety of that part of my career spent in the South West and no physicial works have yet resulted. The situation here hasn't been helped by (a) the project becoming the responsibility of Devon CC to drive forward, (b) Devon CC losing most of it's experienced officers who knew and understood rail issues, within a short space of time of each other (retirement, other jobs etc.) and (c) the Network Rail project estimates increasing by an outrageously improbable and high factor (in no small part, I have been given to understand, by the need to ensure adequate contingency, should the project spiral out of financial control. This following NR experience with a recent electrification project. In a similar vein, this is also one of the reasons why Marsh Barton station hasn't been built yet).

 

There has also been much talk about reinstating a regular Okehampton to Exeter service, but even this relatively easy (from a physical point of view) project hasn't materialised. Interestingly, there was a significant sum put aside in Devon CC budgets for a number of years (but no longer, I understand), to fund 'Okehampton East Parkway', on the Dartmoor Railway. Again, this hasn't (yet) happened.

 

Turning to the current round of actual and proposed NR projects to make the existing Sea Wall route more resilient.

 

I was surprised but also rather pleased in a slightly smug way, to note that the methodology of rebuilding the Sea Wall between Dawlish station and Kennaway Tunnel is following almost exactly that which I have felt was necessary for years. Ever since the 2014 rebuilding of the Sea Lawn Terrace section, to the east of Dawlish station, I have been saying that using pre-cast concrete wall sections, a bit higher, a bit further out and with a proper, scientifically-calculated wave return built into the profile, should be the way forward. And this seems to be exactly what NR are now going to do for this section. I hope that they will include adequate measures as part of the build, to prevent track flooding and ballast displacement. It was always these latter two factors that were the main risks to the operation of trains along the Sea Wall in more recent times, during 'average' storms, at least. 

 

The vast majority of the structure of the Sea Wall was safeguarded from collapse by the 'deep toe foundation' works, started by Railtrack in the late 1990s and completed by Network Rail in around 2003. These large, deep blocks of reinforced concrete prevented the foundations of the original masonry wall from being undermined by the sea, when beach levels dropped due to tidal and storm action, thus exposing the soft red sandstone underneath, which was quickly leached away, resulting in voids and loss of support, initially to the Down Main line. The major storms of January 1996 were the impetus for these works. Those storms also resulted in the first real application of a disciplined, planned and structured operations protocol along the wall during storm conditions, which any operations folk associated with the Sea Wall will know as Level 1 and Level 2 Working. In conjunction with the Stuctures Engineer responsible for the maintenance of the Sea Wall during that time, I was the author of that protocol for 20 years, before I retired.

 

I find, though, that I struggle rather more with NR's proposals for the Parsons Tunnel to Teignmouth section.

 

As an operations manager, with a major interface role with the TOCs, I was involved in countless weather-related incidents along the Sea Wall, took part in countless phone conferences to discuss adverse weather forecasts, oversaw the introduction of the emergency operations protocol countless times and held my fair share of reviews and even inquiries into weather-related delays and incidents. I was in overall local charge of two serious Voyager failure incidents in 2004 and 2005, where on both occasions sea water caused the complete failure of a Voyager train on the Down Main line, right next to a very stormy sea.

 

When the Voyager sets lost power, they lost their air and one result was that the door seals deflated, allowing sea water to permeate into the actual vestibule areas. We had to get the Fire Brigade to evacuate the train, into an adjacent HST, on the first incident and almost had to do that the second time, in 2005. Only the determination of a small number of (frankly) brave operations and PW staff, together with the driver on a Class 57 'Thunderbird' loco, avoided the need to evacuate that second train, which had failed only about a quarter of a mile from Dawlish station on the Down Main line.

 

The reason I have related the above is to explain that, although I fully acknowledge that the Teignmouth Cliffs are a continuing problem, to me, the sea is the real enemy, right along the whole length of the Sea Wall.

 

I recall going to a public consultation and presentation event in Teignmouth in autumn 2016, a few months after I had retired. This proposal to push the railway out to sea was being hawked around there. At the time, it even included an up and down running loop between Sprey Point and Parsons Tunnel. I asked the head Public Affairs chap (who I knew well) about that and was told that some junior 'flunky' had added the loops in, 'because it seemed like a good idea!'

 

I asked him which PW and S&T engineer in their right mind was going to be happy about maintaining point mechanisms and the rest of the associated infrastructure in such a location and under such circumstances, or which train crew and passengers would be happy about being held in the Down Loop during storm conditions. He went a bit quiet and that part of the proposal appears to have been dropped! Just as well.

 

To me, the whole notion of pushing the railway further out towards harsh, maritime conditions, seems counter-intuitive (which when I was working, was management-speak for 'daft'). You would be pushing the railway further out into the 'danger zone'. Why would anyone in their right mind seek to do that?

 

They speak of rock armour and other measures, but having looked at the proposals and talked to a number of people, I am not persuaded that NR know enough about the effect of such a massive, battle-ship-sized structure on the beach, to really be able to speak with confidence. Perhaps that section of beach isn't as popular with summer tourists as the beaches nearer and around Dawlish. But who's to say what the future holds?

 

What is certain, is that once that beach is destroyed by the new NR works, no one is ever going to bring it back. Would the 'new amenities' involving some of the reclaimed land between the new alignment and the base of the cliffs be adequate compensation, in tourism terms? Who's to say? Not NR, in my view, who are supposed to be experts in operating and maintaining railway infrastructure, not tourism.

 

I wonder whether the track geometry, as the line emerges from Parsons Tunnel, won't have to involve some fairly tight curvature, in order to bring the line so far out to sea. If so, what effect will that have on Permanent Speed Restrictions? To avoid sharp curves, perhaps they will need to re-burrow a new tunnel section from half-way through the existing Parsons Tunnel, to a new portal further from the cliffs? And if so, how expensive (and disruptive) would that be?

 

When I was working, I discussed the question of 'avalanche shelters' with the engineering fraternity in NR. Unfortunately, it seems that the geology of the area isn't helping us here, as there is some kind of 'rotational' action going on, which would mean that the avalanche shelters wouldn't be stable. I know that the eastern end of Parsons Tunnel is an avalanche shelter, but that is a relatively short section, was built (probably) before the current geological science was understood and the geology of that portion of the cliffs could be different from that west of Parsons Tunnel.

 

As such, the interesting idea of a concrete or some kind of translucent tube, suggested earlier in this thread, was never going to work. Apart from any considerations of long-term stability, the amount of disruption to existing services, possessions etc. to put it in place, together with the associated costs, would render it a non-starter. Sorry.

 

My own preference for this section would be for NR to (in my estimation) displease the smallest number of locals and compulsory-purchase sufficient property at the top of the cliffs (mostly gardens) and grade the cliffs back from the top, to the existing base. NR have stated in their publicity that this would require too many disruptive possessions, but it is my belief that this could be accomplished with a combination of carefully worked-through operations protocols, some disruptive possessions and non-possession work. I cannot say how much this would cost, but I don't think that the compulsory purchase of property at the top of the cliffs would be the main element, it would be the work itself.

 

My gut feeling is that this would be cheaper than the cost of building a run-aground concrete battleship with rail tracks on it, just off the existing beach.

 

And it would ensure that the existing beach is safeguarded. My feeling is that ensuring that this beach is retained for future generations would be more acceptable to more people locally, than the loss of portions of what are mostly gardens at the tops of the cliffs (clearly the property owners at the tops of the cliffs wouldn't agree).

 

The railway could be given additional protection from the sea by using more pre-cast concrete sections, slightly higher and with minimal intrusion on the existing beach.

 

The debate will, no doubt, continue for a long time to come.

 

 

Highly illuminating - thank you.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

As Mr Stationmaster has pointed out, the discussions about Tavistock have been going on for around 30 years (which includes the entirety of that part of my career spent in the South West and no physicial works have yet resulted. The situation here hasn't been helped by (a) the project becoming the responsibility of Devon CC to drive forward, (b) Devon CC losing most of it's experienced officers who knew and understood rail issues, within a short space of time of each other (retirement, other jobs etc.) and (c) the Network Rail project estimates increasing by an outrageously improbable and high factor (in no small part, I have been given to understand, by the need to ensure adequate contingency, should the project spiral out of financial control. This following NR experience with a recent electrification project. In a similar vein, this is also one of the reasons why Marsh Barton station hasn't been built yet).

CK's experience of this aligns with my own in the West Midlands. We lost a lot of passenger trains our local lines to Beeching, several just at the time of large housing developments nearby such as Castle Vale with a population of 20,000, Walmley to the east of Sutton Coldfield and those between Lichfield and Walsall. We almost lost Redditch off the map the year after it was designated a New Town with a population since increased to around 85,000, that's 14 times the population of Okehampton. Most lines affected were still used by freight at the time.

In 1969 I was taken along to some meetings with the embryonic WMPTE and their consultants about reinstatement of various services. The Redditch situation was recovered in about 10 years as part of Cross City and its service has gone from 3 trains per day to 3 per hour but some of the stuff we discussed then is still in the 'To Do Box' 15 years after I retired. 

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another way. :good_mini:  Extend the Moretonhampstead branch over to Princetown, rebuild the branch and join it on the Tavistock line below Yelverton for direct access to Tavvy Junction. :crazy_mini:  Bob's yer uncle!:clapping:

       Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/06/2019 at 20:25, Oldddudders said:

Ah, yes, the A12. My late friend - from skooldays - Mike, had just had his year-old company Vauxhall serviced. Being in something of a hurry, he was booting it on the A12 when the engine let go, big time. As he coasted to an unavoidable stop, the oil light came on....... 

As would happen on any other road car, the oil light comes on at about 3-5psi but the internals of a fast revving engine would be destroyed when the pressure falls below about 10-15psi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...