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

[mdvle]

And we have some video and NR description of the model NR have created to demonstrate the proposed work.

 

 

[Harlequin]

There’s another video and some stills on Devon Live:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/beaches-retained-under-new-plans-3758836

The scheme is explained by a different member of NR staff in this one.

 

It’s a nice model and the model maker cut a hole in the Parsons Tunnel end board almost as if he/she had thoughts of operating it!

 

[brushman47544]

6 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There’s another video and some stills on Devon Live:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/beaches-retained-under-new-plans-3758836

The scheme is explained by a different member of NR staff in this one

 

 

That is a serious change in the appearance and make up of the coastline. I do hope NR have taken advice from coastal engineers about the impacts, and ideally also from local fishermen who not surprisingly have a better understanding that so called experts on the likely impact on the local currents and the effect on the sand on the beaches. The long rocky stretch with no sandy beach will certainly affect shoreline drift along the coast and there are no groynes to protect the sand. Difficult to tell but the wall appears to be higher so is the beach being lowered or the track raised? Lowering the beach may well encourage more sand erosion. We've had cases here where relatively minor changes have seen sand levels drop every year, so less beach for tourists to use.

[The Stationmaster]

Don't get me wrong but from what I can make of the link from 'Harlequin' the 'deviation' doesn't deal with what historically has been one of the worst affected areas, hence the fencing to catch the cliff falls.  Is it me or is it NR? 

 

I still remain firmly of the view that the best answer is to remove the problem, not to - literally - skirt round it.

[Siberian Snooper]

It was mentioned in one of yesterday's news bulletins,  that recent investigations of the cliff face have found it too be more stable than originally thought, since the stabilisation works after the wash outs a few years ago.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

Passing the Dawlish Warren NR compound a week ago, it seemed there were a lot of people and vehicles present, as if surveys and works along the affected stretch might be ongoing. 

[Re6/6]

BBC 'spotlight' local news had the item first in the programme.

 

The model looked impressive.

 

 

 

Of course there was the other side from the dog walker NIMBYs droning on about their beach. Of course there was no alternative propounded.

 

 

 

[brushman47544]

11 minutes ago, Re6/6 said:

Of course there was the other side from the dog walker NIMBYs droning on about their beach. Of course there was no alternative propounded.

 

Why should they? It's up to NR to come up with a scheme that is acceptable to the local community and will be approved by the local authority. If NR can't do that, then they need to come up more fundamental alternatives.

[Captain Kernow]

24 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Why should they? It's up to NR to come up with a scheme that is acceptable to the local community and will be approved by the local authority. If NR can't do that, then they need to come up more fundamental alternatives.

It strikes me that there is unlikely to be any possible scheme that won't attract criticism from some part of the local community.

 

The current scheme now being peddled by NR is far from perfect and I also remain firmly of the view that a properly engineered solution would remove the problem and not push the railway any closer to the sea, the other adversary on this stretch.

 

However, let's see what else emerges from this current consultation period. If I can, I am going to try to go to one of their sessions and ask some awkward questions of former colleagues.

 

[Harlequin]

37 minutes ago, Re6/6 said:

BBC 'spotlight' local news had the item first in the programme.

 

The model looked impressive.

 

 

 

Of course there was the other side from the dog walker NIMBYs droning on about their beach. Of course there was no alternative propounded.

 

 

 

 

I bet there were similar objections in Brunel's era and it was ironic that one of the objections put forward by this group was that it would cause some of his original construction to be lost... 

 

[boxbrownie]

27 minutes ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Why should they? It's up to NR to come up with a scheme that is acceptable to the local community and will be approved by the local authority. If NR can't do that, then they need to come up more fundamental alternatives.

Agree, there was also interviews with local hoteliers/tourist attraction businesses who were very worried about just how much beach was to be removed by the proposed work, obviously the beach there is a MAJOR part of the tourist industry.

[boxbrownie]

4 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

It strikes me that there is unlikely to be any possible scheme that won't attract criticism from some part of the local community.

 

The current scheme now being peddled by NR is far from perfect and I also remain firmly of the view that a properly engineered solution would remove the problem and not push the railway any closer to the sea, the other adversary on this stretch.

 

However, let's see what else emerges from this current consultation period. If I can, I am going to try to go to one of their sessions and ask some awkward questions of former colleagues.

 

Totally agree 

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

I bet there were similar objections in Brunel's era and it was ironic that one of the objections put forward by this group was that it would cause some of his original construction to be lost... 

 

Probably were, but that sort of point often gets brought up any time anyone objects these days. I can't help thinking though that if you could bring forward to now those original objectors their reaction would be "And I thought what we were getting worked up over was depressing!"

[Captain Kernow]

On 16/01/2020 at 18:15, boxbrownie said:

People wonder why in bad weather the trains slow down so much at Dawlish, it’s the rocks in the waves they don’t want to be cruising into at 50 mph, not the water 

Not quite so.

 

I was closely involved with the creation of the original 'Level 1 & 2' protocol in 1996 and remained the 'owner' and author of the updated Protocol until I retired in 2016.

 

Back in 1996 the main risk was of Sea Wall collapse, due to undermining of the foundations of the masonry wall during storm conditions. This was a very real threat during each and every storm, so train speeds were reduced to 30 mph on the DML (20 mph during darkness or poor visibility) for 'Level 1' working, with a member of PW staff riding each cab from Dawlish Warren to Teignmouth.

 

When the project to strengthen the toe foundations of the masonry wall were completed around 2002 - 03, at a cost to RT (and then NR) of several million pounds, the risk to the foundations largely disappeared from most of the previously affected sections.

 

The trigger levels for 'Level 1 working' were correspondingly raised to reflect the reduced risk, but the reductions in speed and PW supervision etc. remained, as the greater risks then became those of track flooding and ballast displacement.

 

In all my time managing the Dawlish Sea Wall Operations Protocol, I can't recall more than one of two instances where train windows have been broken by flying shingle, until this most recent incident.

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Captain Kernow

[royaloak]

13 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

Agree, there was also interviews with local hoteliers/tourist attraction businesses who were very worried about just how much beach was to be removed by the proposed work, obviously the beach there is a MAJOR part of the tourist industry.

Most of which disappears at high tide anyway, the NR proposal keeps most of the beach at either side which are the bits most commonly used, there are NEVER many people on the part NR want to cover in rocks as it is too far to walk from either end and there arent any amenities there, toilets, coffee shop etc.

 

I think the NR proposal is an excellent idea, it moves the railway away from the main problem area and puts a wall in between it and the railway, keeps (and massively improves) the current access and only loses the least used part of the beach, whats not to like!

 

Dont forget the main part of the beach is nowhere near the railway and we are only discussing losing about 10% (its probably a lot less than that) of the entire beach!

Edited January 21, 2020 by royaloak

[Captain Kernow]

On 16/01/2020 at 17:57, royaloak said:

1A81 1052 PGN to PAD lost all 3 engines (802011) before managing to get some started after 100 minutes and limp to Exeter where the service terminated.

I actually heard of two 800/802 failures due to ingress of sea water back on 20th December last, when in the company of some former colleagues.

 

Needless to say, I was disappointed, but completely unsurprised.

 

The GWR staff I spoke to on the same occasion said that they still didn't quite know the mechanism for the failure, but it concerned sea water getting into vents(?) at solebar or underframe level, so not the same type of failure mechanism as that affecting the Voyagers.

 

I remained sceptical right up until my retirement, regarding the future reliability of these trains along this stretch of railway, especially when I had been told, with some confidence a few years prior to that, that the units had been 'fully Dawlish tested'. A deeper probe of this statement revealed that this meant that someone had sprayed fresh water from a high pressure hose on a unit on a depot somewhere.

 

I really hope that the 800/802s don't end up having to be kept away from sea water in the same manner as the Voyagers. That would probably make some of the die-hard supporters of the Okehampton route rather pleased.

 

[Captain Kernow]

9 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Most of which disappears at high tide anyway, the NR proposal keeps most of the beach at either side which are the bits most commonly used, there are NEVER many people on the part NR want to cover in rocks as it is too far to walk from either end and there arent any amenities there, toilets, coffee shop etc.

 

I think the NR proposal is an excellent idea, it moves the railway away from the main problem area and puts a wall in between it and the railway, keeps (and massively improves) the current access and only loses the least used part of the beach, whats not to like!

 

Dont forget the main part of the beach is nowhere near the railway and we are only discussing losing about 10% (its probably a lot less than that) of the entire beach!

No doubt time will tell, but my greatest concern is whether NR have really, fully, completely understood the way that long shore drift works and what this is going to do to beach levels here and up at Dawlish etc. I personally have little understanding of the science behind these matters, but I am left with nagging doubts at the moment.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Captain Kernow

[royaloak]

The word is that most of the issues are salt water filling up the V in the V12 engines and upsetting some of the sensors, how the water manages to get in there I have no idea because the cylinder heads are VERY close to the floor. I am actually quite confident they will sort the issue or at least come up with a workaround so that we can keep going while the water drains off, of course that doesnt take into account the lovely salt which is left behind.

[boxbrownie]

9 minutes ago, royaloak said:

Most of which disappears at high tide anyway, the NR proposal keeps most of the beach at either side which are the bits most commonly used, there are NEVER many people on the part NR want to cover in rocks as it is too far to walk from either end and there arent any amenities there, toilets, coffee shop etc.

 

I think the NR proposal is an excellent idea, it moves the railway away from the main problem area and puts a wall in between it and the railway, keeps (and massively improves) the current access and only loses the least used part of the beach, whats not to like!

 

Dont forget the main part of the beach is nowhere near the railway and we are only discussing losing about 10% (its probably a lot less than that) of the entire beach!

I assume the local businesses know their customers and requirements, but everybody has their own agenda eh?  

[boxbrownie]

9 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I remained sceptical right up until my retirement, regarding the future reliability of these trains along this stretch of railway, especially when I had been told, with some confidence a few years prior to that, that the units had been 'fully Dawlish tested'. A deeper probe of this statement revealed that this meant that someone had sprayed fresh water from a high pressure hose on a unit on a depot somewhere.

 

 

Now that I can believe 

[boxbrownie]

2 minutes ago, royaloak said:

So me driving trains along there and actually SEEING WITH MY OWN EYES how much beach (or not) is actually there is having an agenda is it!

 

Of course a Northerner who moved to Kernow 5 minutes ago but still classes himself as a 'local' would know more about the beaches in Devon than I do wouldnt he!

 

I think we have another one for my ignore list, goodbye!

Jeez...but rude or what?

 

I pointed out that the local business owners could have their own agenda.....ease back on the accusations and bile.

[Dunsignalling]

17 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Why should they? It's up to NR to come up with a scheme that is acceptable to the local community and will be approved by the local authority. If NR can't do that, then they need to come up more fundamental alternatives.

The ideal solution for NR would be a new inland route so they could be rid of this problematic and expensive issue once and for all.

 

However, the local communities/authorities would then be forced to choose what to defend and what to surrender to the sea. 

 

It's pretty certain that, without NR's need to keep the railway open, no other body would we willing/able to finance the level of protection currently provided over the full distance that the sea wall covers.

 

John

Edited January 22, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[Oldddudders]

46 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The ideal solution for NR would be a new inland route so they could be rid of this problematic and expensive issue once and for all.

 

However, the local communities/authorities would then be forced to choose what to defend and what to surrender to the sea. 

 

It's pretty certain that, without NR's need to keep the railway open, no other body would we willing/able to finance the level of protection currently provided over the full distance that the sea wall covers.

 

John

Point taken - but if NR moved inland, and the existing trackbed were abandoned, it would surely make a fine corridor to build relatively affordable sea defences, enough to protect the town at least as well as now. 

[woodenhead]

24 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Point taken - but if NR moved inland, and the existing trackbed were abandoned, it would surely make a fine corridor to build relatively affordable sea defences, enough to protect the town at least as well as now. 

I am guessing though having the railway along the front is part of the charm of that particular bit of coastline, also it's handy for the locals and travellers alike having the railway where it is.

 

Move the track inland and everyone is suddenly forced to travel a bit to get a train which will likely impact patronage.

 

With regards a decent flood defence in place of the railway - I think Dunsignalling has called it correctly, it is the railway that is driving the current level of protection being proposed, without a key railway line you've got to think they would abandon some of the coastline and where there are defences they may not be pretty which in turn would impact tourism.

[Reorte]

Could NR still be left with having to maintain the seawall even if the line moved?