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

[rab]

Also posted on 'Washout at Dawlish' thread.

 

[mdvle]

On 22/05/2020 at 08:08, caradoc said:

People moaned when the West Country was cut off by the sea wall collapse, they moan about Network Rail's plans to do something about it, and no doubt they would moan if nothing was done ! Hopefully the crusties dangling from trees in Buckinghamshire will hear about this and move to Devon, allowing HS2 to move forward unimpeded.

 

This isn't about the sea wall at Dawlish though, it is about the claimed risk of further rock falls/mudslides from the cliff face along the Teignmouth section.

 

Network rail has 2 choices - deal with the cliff face directly or move the railway onto the beach, and they have chosen the beach which was always going to annoy the locals.

[mdvle]

21 hours ago, rab said:

Also posted on 'Washout at Dawlish' thread.

 

 

Actually, no, they are 2 different projects.

 

This one is a protest about the tunnels to Teignmouth section where Network Rail plan to move the line "out to sea", as in move it onto the existing beach.  This is about the risk of stuff falling off the cliffs along that section.

 

The story posted to "Washout at Dawlish" is about the next step of work at Dawlish, protecting the station (and hence passengers) from the sea during stormy conditions.

[phil-b259]

12 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

... and they have chosen the beach which was always going to annoy the locals.

 

And knocking down the houses at the top of the cliffs so as to radically reduce the slope wouldn't?

 

Yes NR had a choice - but the eventual decision I believe had far more to do with which option is going to cause the least amount of political grief. Sand doesn't vote in elections (and neither do holiday makers from outside the area). Propriety owners in the area do...

 

Remember part of why HS2 is costing so much is the amount of non essential tunnelling (as in demanded for engineering reasons) that has had to be added to placate residents voters in the areas through which it passes

 

 

[mdvle]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And knocking down the houses at the top of the cliffs so as to radically reduce the slope wouldn't?

 

Somewhere in this thread, or elsewhere on RMweb, the opinion was it would amount to about 3 houses.

 

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Yes NR had a choice - but the eventual decision I believe had far more to do with which option is going to cause the least amount of political grief. Sand doesn't vote in elections (and neither do holiday makers from outside the area). Propriety owners in the area do...

 

Again, somewhere in this or one of the other threads I said as much - that at least 1 of those properties is someone with connections which meant everyone else loses.

 

Because NR is already getting grief, and whether it is political or not depends on if the local MP is doing their job or not.  Because while you rightly point out sand doesn't vote, and the holiday makers are likely oblivious (at least for now), the property owners for the small number of houses at the top of the cliff aren't the only property owners in the area involved - anyone still involved in the tourism industry has a potential stake as the value of their business potentially declines, as do the people who own non-cliff-top houses in the area that use the beach.  A fact that NR acknowledges in their attempt to portray some cliff side paths as a suitable replacement for lost beach...

 

 

[rab]

2 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Actually, no, they are 2 different projects.

 

This one is a protest about the tunnels to Teignmouth section where Network Rail plan to move the line "out to sea", as in move it onto the existing beach.  This is about the risk of stuff falling off the cliffs along that section.

 

The story posted to "Washout at Dawlish" is about the next step of work at Dawlish, protecting the station (and hence passengers) from the sea during stormy conditions.

Oops sooory! Got it wrong again!!!