Jump to content
 

Okehampton Railway re-opening


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Please re-read my post.

 

I specifically indicated the Crediton to Okehampton line as having a potentially better business case precisely because it exists (although needing LOTS of upgrading to make it viable for regular services (as opposed to a Summer Sunday only shoppers service).

 

I read your post, in the first place, hence only highlighting the comment in red and simply added that, despite that advantage, highlighted by yourself, it was still not, currently, a viable prospect.   The reference to the Okehampton line still being in existence was to keep Okehampton separate, from the other places the previous comment fezza also made.

 

Have a nice day.

Julian

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fezza said:

If Okehampton, Torrington and Ilfracombe had staggered on into the mid 1970s (as many Cornish branches did) they would still be here today, however much subsidy was required. What branches survived was largely due to local management decisions, not money. 

 

The beauty of the past is that you can change one decision that you don't like, ignore all the ramifications of that decision, and pronounce things perfect.

 

My guess (and only a guess) is that the line still wouldn't have survived - BR was constantly being forced to look for savings and I don't think the line would have survived the early to mid 80s if it somehow had managed to survive that long.  When the conditions for new equipment are that you are shrinking the fleet it would be hard to justify keeping it.

 

That said, if the line had managed to survive to the 90s, and if (likely a very big if) North Devon had allowed themselves to be blanketed with hundreds of thousands of new homes in the real estate boom of that era, the line might still be around.

 

But those are 2 unlikely ifs in my opinion.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many branches shut between 1975- 1985? Many were still losing money like water. But the political climate had changed. 

 

In the end the social railway is a political decision. The money needed for reopening and subsidies of these lines is tiny when compared to new motorways, aircraft carriers, Cross rail, HS2 and furloughing half the population. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit to the UK as a whole of keeping Barnstaple to Torrington open (for example) is miniscule in comparison to those big ticket projects, too. And the overall benefit of reopening it would be even lower.

 

Which is not to say that it would be impossible to justify.

 

The same could be said of many other routes up and down the country, I'm not picking on that one example for any particular reason.

Edited by Zomboid
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 13:02, phil-b259 said:

 

Road maintenance is no different to railway maintenance if you want to be that pedantic about it. The Government (via Network Rail) 'subsidises' the repair of rail infrastructure which is 'damaged' by intensive use or requires specialist skills to renew.

 

The big difference is the Government doesn't also have to pay to hire the lorries and cars which cause said damage (they pay the Government through road tax, plus in theory a levy which all foreign registered lorries must pay to use UK roads). Neither do the Government have to pay the wages of lorry drivers or the vehicle maintainers. Commercial road transport also runs at a profit - NO PASSENGER RAILWAY since WW2 has managed to survive without state handouts in some form, meaning that any rail re-opening will continue to cost the tax payer large sums of money on a ongoing basis where as a new piece of road infrastructure generally results in increased tax receipts in the future.

 

It thus follows that taxpayers who don't use the railway system (which is the majority of the UK population) have to pay for those who do - and the Government has to ensure that monies they invest in rail transport are wisely spent. A positive business case is thus crucial to provide reassurance that the money invested will be produce verifiable benefits

 

The threat of climate change and wider environmental issues do not create magic money trees for the Government to raid, nor do they change social behaviour overnight. Over over the past 80 odd years people have reverted to going back to based on road transport because it is inherently more flexible than any rigid public transport system which has to be dominated by fixed timetables. The ONLY reason the railway system took off in the way it did was the alternatives (Canal, Stagecoach, walking, horse & cart, horseback, etc) were so extremely poor by comparison. Fast forward a century with paved roads, reliable (and affordable) motor cars / lorries which can take you door to door (more quickly than the train in some cases once you factor in the transit time to / from the station at each end) whenever you please is a very different proposition.

 

Where rail has maintained a healthy share its either because the roads are congested and parking is difficult / expensive, rail has a big time advantage, or because many of the users don't have access to a car.

 

 

 

Roads though have a lot of 'external' costs though that are not always taken into account, for example the cost of accidents & policing.

 

Richard Douthwaite pointed out that compared with the 1960's the amount of time parents now spend escorting children, largely because of the dangers caused by increased road traffic would, if charged at 'minimum wage' rates and recovered from public funds would significantly change the way in which we look at roads.

 

Similarly if we were to hive off the roads into 'Roadtrack' or Network Road' then expect an 8% return on the value of the land what might happen then?

 

It isnt that railways cost more, its how those costs are identified and accounted for

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

23 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

It isnt that railways cost more, its how those costs are identified and accounted for

So, just as there are lies, damn lies and statistics, there are liars, damn liars and accountants?

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
On 10/07/2020 at 18:41, fezza said:

How many branches shut between 1975- 1985? 

No idea, but I know Woodside-Selsdon, a line within shouting distance of Croydon town centre and now part of Croydon Tramway, and Tunbridge Wells-Eridge both did. I was Project Manager for the latter closure, which was in July 1985. 

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

On 10/07/2020 at 17:41, fezza said:

How many branches shut between 1975- 1985? Many were still losing money like water. But the political climate had changed. 

 

The only passenger lines closed in Scotland during that period were the Paisley Canal/Kilmacolm routes; Most of the Paisley Canal line has since been re-opened, electrified, and now has a half-hourly train service ! Plus of course various other lines in Scotland have been re-opened.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 12:41, fezza said:

How many branches shut between 1975- 1985? Many were still losing money like water. But the political climate had changed.

 

The political climate had slightly changed - otherwise things like the Pacers wouldn't have existed if rail was no longer under cost constraints.

 

I suspect that while those money losing branches remained, and while the numbers may have been noticeable, they weren't outrageously expensive enough to overcome the political costs.

 

The same wouldn't be said of the old LSWR route - it would have (without the previously mentioned extremely large increase in customer base) required a significant amount of subsidy every year and the need for a new bridge to replace Meldon Viaduct would have killed it anyway.  It simply would have been money that BR needed elsewhere and as a redundant route the costs would not have been justified.

 

Otherwise we could also simply wave our hands and pretend if Beeching hadn't happened then we would still have the same UK rail network as pre-Beeching - which for all the faults of Beeching a lot of what was done was necessary.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Meldon? A small fortune was spent in the early 1980s repairing Barmouth Bridge on a route where services and traffic was negligible.  Again a political decision. At least Meldon had some freight traffic and was useful as a diversionary route. It also had growing commuter traffic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
37 minutes ago, fezza said:

Meldon? A small fortune was spent in the early 1980s repairing Barmouth Bridge on a route where services and traffic was negligible.  Again a political decision. At least Meldon had some freight traffic and was useful as a diversionary route. It also had growing commuter traffic.

One difference is that Barmouth Bridge is on a route which has remained open to passenger and freight traffic and which would have closed had the bridge not been repaired.  In that area road alternatives are lengthy, narrow and frequently congested; there is no road crossing at Barmouth and one must divert many miles inland via Dolgellau.  

 

The same can be argued for Ribblehead Viaduct. 

 

Meldon was already closed in the 1980s other than as a freight headshunt.  If it had stayed open then the viaduct may well have needed "phone numbers" spent to repair or rebuilt it.  It is considered safe as a walkway these days but carries minimal weight compared with even a 2-car sprinter train.  At the least it probably needs significant strengthening and some sources have suggested a complete rebuild to carry trains again.  And that would be on a route with no proven traffic of any kind, serving small communities already well-connected by the local road network and providing for somewhat indirect diversions on an unplanned but infrequent basis.  

 

The sums don't stack up in my mind.  

Edited by Gwiwer
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, fezza said:

Meldon? A small fortune was spent in the early 1980s repairing Barmouth Bridge on a route where services and traffic was negligible.  Again a political decision. At least Meldon had some freight traffic and was useful as a diversionary route. It also had growing commuter traffic.

 

You are overlooking the fundamental difference Barmouth Bridge was still part of a passenger carrying railway when it needed rebuilding, Meldon isn't!

 

As others have noted public opinion against rail closures had rise steady during the 1970s and 80s such that line closures became a VERY hard thing to sell to voters. Had Barmouth bridge been found to need an extensive rebuild in the early 1970s then it may well have seen the line been shut - by the mid 1980s that simply wasn't an option politicians could stomach.

 

IF the LSWR route round Dartmoor had remained open into the 1980s, then its almost a certainly that Meldon would have received whatever work it needed to still carry trains (though that might have been pacers and HSTs only, not loco hauled stuff). Because it is however disused from a railway perspective the political imperative isn't there and it really does become a case of whether the refurbishment to carry trains again is affordable (as part of the wider reinstatement business case that is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Part of the problem with Meldon Viaduct is listed and thus the necessary strengthening that would need special permission as it would visibility alter its appearance. It was mentioned when the options for an alternative route to the seawall was under discussion,  that the cheapest option was for a new viaduct on a different alignment

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Part of the problem with Meldon Viaduct is listed and thus the necessary strengthening that would need special permission as it would visibility alter its appearance. It was mentioned when the options for an alternative route to the seawall was under discussion,  that the cheapest option was for a new viaduct on a different alignment

 

Being listed is not a problem as such, many listed structures are still in regular use throughout the rail network. Its more the fact that it has been left to deteriorate to such an extent that bringing it back up to a fit standard for rail use without harming its appearance would be phenomenally expensive which gave rise to the idea of a new viaduct being built on a new alignment. That of course doesn't exactly come cheap either - and is a big part of the reason the BCR for reinstatement of the railway between Bere Alston and Okehampton Quarry is so poor.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

You are overlooking the fundamental difference Barmouth Bridge was still part of a passenger carrying railway when it needed rebuilding, Meldon isn't!

 

To be fair to them, they weren't - their argument was that if the LSWR had remained open into the late 70s if would still be open today.

 

But there is a difference between public opinion making closures difficult and making them impossible - and the cost of Meldon Viaduct would have made a big difference given how few people the line served (and hence the large ongoing losses), particularly if running an Okehampton - Exeter  and maybe a Tavistock - Plymouth branchline service gets you almost all of the customers anyway at significantly less than a new viaduct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Meldon quandary really puts the kibosh on the project.  One wonders what the situation will be like if and when the promised housing materialises.  If the traffic is as bad as it is now, one can only surmise the disaster it will be then, more houses=more people=more cars=more traffic, even widen the road across the Moor to Plymouth?  Not a popular idea!  Now if the Tavistock branch were still there............................................?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, brianusa said:

The Meldon quandary really puts the kibosh on the project.  One wonders what the situation will be like if and when the promised housing materialises.  If the traffic is as bad as it is now, one can only surmise the disaster it will be then, more houses=more people=more cars=more traffic, even widen the road across the Moor to Plymouth?  Not a popular idea!  Now if the Tavistock branch were still there............................................?

The new housing in Tavistock had a s.106 condition the effect of which should have obliged the developer to fund public transport improvements as a condition of increasing the population.  This was to be applied to the Tavistock re-opening.  But somewhere it all seems to have got lost and muddled and either the money was spent with no result or has never been seen.  That is not the only s.106 funding which hasn't produced any results either.  Okehampton might be in a similar position but I can't see there being any external funding for the link across the moor which would serve almost no-one and do little if anything to alleviate road congestion.  Which, to be fair, isn't an issue in that area for ten months of the year and isn't much of an issue in high summer on the village roads.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 14/07/2020 at 18:36, Siberian Snooper said:

Part of the problem with Meldon Viaduct is listed and thus the necessary strengthening that would need special permission as it would visibility alter its appearance. It was mentioned when the options for an alternative route to the seawall was under discussion,  that the cheapest option was for a new viaduct on a different alignment

Do not make the mistake of assuming that a listing, whatever the grade, is any use in saving a structure.  Back in the early 70s there was a warehouse on Swansea Docks, visible from the main road, which was Grade 1 listed because of it's architectural importance; it was the first building in the world to have been built on the principle of erecting a very solid reinforced concrete tower for the lift shaft and placing a steel framework around it.  It dated back to the 1860s IIRc, but was the direct precursor of all modern high-rise construction, and the skyscraper boom in the US during the 20s and 30s.  

 

It was, however, whichever way you looked at it, a derelict eyesore, even for someone like me who has an appreciation of such matters.  The BTDB were I believe responsible for it, and simply abandoned it until that part of the docks closed and Swansea council assumed responsibility.  No attempt was ever made to maintain it, much less preserve it, or explain it's not inconsiderable historical importance.  Of course, it became damp, rat infested, and unsafe, so the council tore it down.  Nobody complained (actually, I did but I was ignored; didn't even get an acknowledgement).

 

Meldon may have a few years left in it as a cycle route, but it is doomed IMHO, based on bitter experience.

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

  • RMweb Gold
On 14/07/2020 at 18:36, Siberian Snooper said:

Part of the problem with Meldon Viaduct is listed and thus the necessary strengthening that would need special permission as it would visibility alter its appearance. It was mentioned when the options for an alternative route to the seawall was under discussion,  that the cheapest option was for a new viaduct on a different alignment

Do not make the mistake of assuming that a listing, whatever the grade, is any use in saving a structure.  Back in the early 70s there was a warehouse on Swansea Docks, visible from the main road, which was Grade 1 listed because of it's architectural importance; it was the first building in the world to have been built on the principle of erecting a very solid reinforced concrete tower for the lift shaft and placing a steel framework around it.  It dated back to the 1860s IIRc, but was the direct precursor of all modern high-rise construction, and the skyscraper boom in the US during the 20s and 30s.  

 

It was, however, whichever way you looked at it, a derelict eyesore, even for someone like me who has an appreciation of such matters.  The BTDB were I believe responsible for it, and simply abandoned it until that part of the docks closed and Swansea council assumed responsibility.  No attempt was ever made to maintain it, much less preserve it, or explain it's not inconsiderable historical importance.  Of course, it became damp, rat infested, and unsafe, so the council tore it down.  Nobody complained (actually, I did but I was ignored; didn't even get an acknowledgement).

 

Meldon may have a few years left in it as a cycle route, but it is doomed IMHO, based on bitter experience.  It's destruction might make a new viaduct or embankment on the original alignment possible, but the plan to move the Dawlish seawall out offshore may make that route reliable enough to scupper any thought of the Okehampton section having any future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Happens all the time, particularly in city centres - unwanted/in-the-way listed building steadily neglected. Even if the owner is brought to task and are being forced to do something, there's often a 'convenient' fire, set by ruffians unknown, to ensure the building becomes unsafe and had to be pulled down - and conveniently clearing the way for a swanky new office/apartment block.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

but the plan to move the Dawlish seawall out offshore may make that route reliable enough to scupper any thought of the Okehampton section having any future. 

 

True, but we shall have to see after the first 'big one' hits.  Also theres also the need for commuter relief if all those house ever get built.  The biggest problem is not necessarily the roads but the traffic impact across the Moor, mornings and evenings, especially.

    Brian. (still flogging that poor horse!:unsure:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 minutes ago, brianusa said:

the traffic impact across the Moor, mornings and evenings, especially.

Tavistock - Plymouth is horrible and getting worse by the day.  That is why the railway is needed.  Okehampton - Exeter is busy but not all of the traffic originates from Okehampton by any means; the geography of Exeter means that numerous roads converge on what amounts to a single crossing-point of a river.  Traffic towards Plymouth is funnelled through the Yelverton - Roborough section but then distributes by various routes rather than converging on a single point in the city.  

 

The A30 across Dartmoor is now dual-carriageway all the way (from the point where it leaves the M5 south of Exeter all the way to Carland Cross in mid-Cornwall, in fact) and is usually free-flowing even when busy.  There are local peaks at entry and exit slips but seldom severe.  The Okehampton - Tavistock road can occasionally be busy but is seldom a bottleneck affecting a wider area and the old A30 through Lifton and Lewdown plus the many B-roads and lanes are lightly-trafficked at almost all times.  

 

There will always be pinch-points, accidents, road works and natural obstructions such as floodwater or a fallen tree.  But on the whole the road network copes with demand and has spare capacity other than at peak times towards or leaving the two main cities.  

 

The road across Dartmoor isn't used by anyone seriously trying to get between Exeter and Plymouth.  It is very slow, winding, narrow and you have to give way to ponies and other livestock.  It can be more heavily used in the tourist season but even then it is seldom truly busy.  Likewise the north-south roads across and on the fringes of the moor.

 

Edited by Gwiwer
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/07/2020 at 22:08, Gwiwer said:

The new housing in Tavistock had a s.106 condition the effect of which should have obliged the developer to fund public transport improvements as a condition of increasing the population.  This was to be applied to the Tavistock re-opening.  But somewhere it all seems to have got lost and muddled and either the money was spent with no result or has never been seen.  That is not the only s.106 funding which hasn't produced any results either.  Okehampton might be in a similar position but I can't see there being any external funding for the link across the moor which would serve almost no-one and do little if anything to alleviate road congestion.  Which, to be fair, isn't an issue in that area for ten months of the year and isn't much of an issue in high summer on the village roads.  

Section 106s are funny things. Often they are a requirement to contribute to a project rather than to fund or provide.

 

So if the obligation was simply to contribute to the reopening of the Tavistock branch, then that will have assumed other parties would also contribute and/or lead the programme. If they get cold feet then the S106 will remain unspent.

 

IIRC there is a time cut off for S106s and if unspent, it then returns to the developer. 

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

there is a time cut off for S106s and if unspent, it then returns to the developer. 

Correct.  And I suspect more than one developer has spotted this and played for time knowing that they will be able to line their own pockets and wriggle out of "requirements".  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 17:41, fezza said:

How many branches shut between 1975- 1985? Many were still losing money like water. But the political climate had changed. 

 

In the end the social railway is a political decision. The money needed for reopening and subsidies of these lines is tiny when compared to new motorways, aircraft carriers, Cross rail, HS2 and furloughing half the population. 

 

On 12/07/2020 at 19:32, Oldddudders said:

No idea, but I know Woodside-Selsdon, a line within shouting distance of Croydon town centre and now part of Croydon Tramway, and Tunbridge Wells-Eridge both did. I was Project Manager for the latter closure, which was in July 1985. 

Richard Faulkner and Chris Austin's book 'Holding the Line' is very informative and informed on these matters. Anything not closed by 1973 stood a much greater chance of survival because after that individual line grants were replaced by the Public Service Obligation grant to BR which required that the funding was used to maintain the network at around the same level as at 1974. The only closures after this date were for specific reasons, so Bridport (1975) and Alston (1976) closures had previously been stayed pending road improvements which were completed at those dates; Kilmacolm and Clayton West (1983) were PTE funded and the PTEs withdrew their grants (Sheffield -Huddersfield survived by the skin of its teeth with services diverted via Barnsley); Tunbridge Wells - Eridge (1985) was due to lack of funds to renew Grove Junction when the Hastings line was electrified. Selsdon-Woodside was a complete outlier, a peak hour only shuttle that had no chance of meeting any modernisation costs, but it would be interesting whether Olddudders has any info on the process of getting closure agreed as opposed to implementing it.

The 1973 date is why we have been left with some odd bits of network - I'm pretty sure that if the BRB had known they would have to continue running to Uckfield they would have not pursued closure to Lewes, as it was a classic 'closure by stealth' that only got half done; similarly, Whitby was clearly intended to be lost to the rail network, but the route via Battersby failed to get approval due to poor parallel road links. The 'main line' was though the one via Pickering which would have been much more logical to retain if you are going to serve Whitby. 

Even before the COVID pandemic no-one has expected the railways as a whole to pay their way now for over 40 years, but between 1955 and 1974 that was the only criteria that BR was able to use - either from passenger fares or from grant subsidy from an external body. Whatever the criticism of those in charge at the time they had no magic wand. Whilst a number of marginal routes were lost that would benefit the network today, the Faulkner/Austin book lays bare just how bad the shortfall was on many lines -  for example the MSWJR route from Cheltenham to Andover was covering only around 10% of its costs from fares by closure. No amount of singling, destaffing, service improvement etc would bridge that gap!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
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...