Washout at Dawlish

[Oldddudders]

And it's in an earthquake zone, so one day the sea floor might drop a couple of metres after a 'quake.

Would then be ideal for Seaplanes!

 

Keith

 

Bishopsteignton?

[bgman]

 

LIVE !

Edited November 9, 2018 by bgman

[locoholic]

Nature doing its worst again https://twitter.com/DrLucyHawkes/status/1060993605182111746

What a ridiculous place to put a railway.

[Covkid]

What a ridiculous place to put a railway.

That reminds me of the quoted question from an American tourist who is alleged to have asked why the Royals had Windsor Castle built under Heathrow's flight path !!!!

 

Yeah. I know.

[olivegreen]

Nature doing its worst again https://twitter.com/DrLucyHawkes/status/1060993605182111746

 

 

…as the ill-informed discussion on Twitter continued, counsel for the defence interjected, 'M'lud, I refer the court to my previous statement in post 5316 of this thread', then retired to a small, dark room for the rest of the weekend.

Edited November 10, 2018 by olivegreen

[Captain Kernow]

Nature doing its worst again https://twitter.com/DrLucyHawkes/status/1060993605182111746

I liked the picture of King Canute.

 

Not many people know that I used to have a large, wooden throne kept in the storeroom of Exeter Panel. Each time 'high seas' were predicted, I'd get the PWay to take it down to Dawlish in a van, so that I could go down there and deliver outstanding service to my customers.

 

LIVE !

Doesn't work for me, Grahame!

[Geoff Endacott]

What a ridiculous place to put a railway.

 

The railway is fine. It's the sea that's in the wrong place.

 

Geoff Endacott

[bgman]

I liked the picture of King Canute.

 

Not many people know that I used to have a large, wooden throne kept in the storeroom of Exeter Panel. Each time 'high seas' were predicted, I'd get the PWay to take it down to Dawlish in a van, so that I could go down there and deliver outstanding service to my customers.

Doesn't work for me, Grahame!

 

 

Hmmm, worked earlier maybe try this 

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/dawlishbeach

 

Otherwise search Dawlish beach webcam live on YouTube which should take you to the site.

 

G

 

p.s. I tend to ignore the "Live comments" !!!

Edited November 10, 2018 by bgman

[Re6/6]

Five years ago last night. How fast time flies. NR's plan has finally been revealed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47121121

 

Views on this?  My view...It doesn't look very convincing to me, but then what do I know!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c1w1hs/spotlight-evening-news-04022019 Only available until 1830 hrs.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Re6/6

[brushman47544]

If the extra height (from 5m to 7.5m if I read correctly) means that passengers cannot see out to sea but just a wall, then permission should be refused.

 

And looking at the pictures of the sea swamping the current sea wall, an extra 2.5m hardly seems sufficient.

[Captain Kernow]

38 minutes ago, Re6/6 said:

Five years ago last night. How fast time flies. NR's plan has finally been revealed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47121121

 

Views on this?  My view...It doesn't look very convincing to me, but then what do I know!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c1w1hs/spotlight-evening-news-04022019 Only available until 1830 hrs.

In fact, it looks pretty much like what I've been suggesting all along, only I also suggested putting it a couple of metres or so further out, as well, which should also preserve some of the views from the train.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It is evident foolishness. Time long past that a replacement inland route is constructed. No sentiment, the railway is a utility and providing a robust and reliable service is the priority.

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It is evident foolishness. Time long past that a replacement inland route is constructed. No sentiment, the railway is a utility and providing a robust and reliable service is the priority.

That in itself is a sentiment. There's no such thing as "no sentiment" (thank goodness), just differing sentiments about what our priorities are about the sort of world we want to live in, of which everything, including the railway, is a part.

 

I don't necessarily disagree that an inland route is the best option either, but stating an ultra-utilitarian approach to the world is the only thing that merits consideration inevitably winds me up. Providing a robust and reliable service is certainly a very important consideration. It is not the only one that needs to be taken into account. Labelling it as the priority is fair enough, just as long as there's no implication that it has to come top on every single consideration - some drop from the ideal there may be an acceptable price for other considerations.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Reorte

[Zomboid]

Probably the best that the kind of money that the government will actually pony up will buy.

 

An inland route would clearly be the most robust solution, but this is the country where we can't find the money to put basic facilities like canopies on brand new main line stations (have you seen Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village? What an image to project to tourists).

 

A sea view from the train is a nice to have, but was also no use to anyone when the line was closed for a couple of months.

[jcredfer]

I seem to remember that the Oakhampton - Plymouth route is still present, beyond Oakhampton; not rails, but the route.  A simgle line, with frequent passing places would be better than the B**** All, when the seaside route is not available.  It would also serve as a freight route, to ease the coastal traffic.  I'm no less sceptical about Gov't than the previous couple of posters, 'though.

 

Regards

 

Julian

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, jcredfer said:

I seem to remember that the Oakhampton - Plymouth route is still present, beyond Oakhampton; not rails, but the route.  A simgle line, with frequent passing places would be better than the B**** All, when the seaside route is not available.  It would also serve as a freight route, to ease the coastal traffic.  I'm no less sceptical about Gov't than the previous couple of posters, 'though.

Better than sweet FA of course but most of the time rather longer and more awkward, so I can't see that it would get much use out of the cost required to reopen (washing away once in a blue moon wouldn't justify it). It would probably be a lot cheaper than a slightly inland replacement of the current line but less value for money.

[Zomboid]

The okehampton line will be discussed at great length until such time as it is reopened. The reality is and probably always will be that the traffic to, from and between Tavistock and Okehampton will have to justify it, the main Plymouth to London line will always be the GW route.

[Captain Kernow]

Despite being a fairly typical enthusiast, who doesn't like the idea of railway closures (and despite having been a bit of an 'infrastructure fundamentalist' at work - meaning that I usually opposed the removal or reduction of sidings and other useful operational infrastructure), I have never supported the reopening of the Okehampton route as a solution to the Dawlish 'problem'.

 

The facts are pretty unambiguous (and I speak as someone who was extremely closely associated with all operational aspects of the Sea Wall until I retired from Network Rail almost three years ago):

• The main local centres of population are in South Devon, through which the current main line runs
• Reversing at Exeter St Davids and Plymouth, whilst operationally much easier with unit type trains, nevertheless would add additional time to schedules that the TOCs and other parties with an interest in rail transport (eg. local authorities, local business communities, Community Rail etc.) would not welcome
• Maintaining route knowledge for GWR traincrews via Okehampton would be extremely expensive, as not only would a local passenger service via Tavistock and Okehampton be required, sufficient drivers with traction knowledge of both 800s/802s and other types of DMU would be required (otherwise you'd be taking local Okehampton line drivers off their booked turns to pilot 800/802 drivers - or - you'd be cancelling local trains and putting additional stops into main line services, which TOCs would be unlikely to be happy about, nor the DfT
• Whilst the condition of Meldon Viaduct and it's fitness to carry regular traffic again is debatable, it is clearly not in the best of condition, as it was subject to a 20 mph PSR in the final year or so (not sure how long) of it's use as a through route in 1968. I doubt that any work done on the structure since then will have prepared it for a more intensive, daily service

 

To my mind, if we are talking about serving Devon and Cornwall with a modern, fast and fit-for-purpose railway line and if you are going to spend a significant amount of money doing so, then the desirable option is to build the new inland route between Exminster and Bishopsteignton (approx), as the GWR proposed prior to the Second World War, even if that option were more expensive than reopening via Okehampton (and doing that properly, with increased line-speeds and double track and decent signal sections etc.)

 

 

Of course it would be great to see the link via Okehampton reopened, but when I was working, the figures never, ever added up, so the decision would have to be a political one, with associated funding, from the Government itself (Devon CC can't even afford NR's inflated prices for new stations at places like Marsh Barton, let alone Bere Alston to Tavistock).

 

What is now proposed on the NR website for Dawlish features (quite coincidentally), all the features that I have been suggesting for some time:

• new wall built in front of the existing Sea Wall
• slightly higher (2.5m) than the existing wall (but not so high that you can't see the horizon of the sea from the train)
• slightly further out
• utilising pre-cast concrete sections to construct the wall, as was used in the rebuilds of 2014 and 2015 at Sea Lawn Terrace

The new wall, if it really does get properly funded, will no doubt feature a proper, effective wave-return and effective drainage, to take the water from overtopping waves away from the track.

 

They are proposing to do the section called 'Marine Parade' first, which is sensible, as it is one of the most vulnerable.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the next section tackled will be to connect the new section at Marine Parade with the existing rebuilt section at Sea Lawn Terrace. This would, of course, require the down platform at Dawlish station to be rebuilt (it would certainly offer the opportunity to do so and at the same time, provide a much-needed disabled access to the down platform via a new footbridge with lifts).

 

After that, it's debatable. The section from Parsons Tunnel to Teignmouth is also very vulnerable, but that is subject to separate proposals, which involve pushing the railway further out to sea, so that they can build a more gradual slope to the cliffs (I don't support that, by the way, I think NR should 'man up' and compulsorily purchase sufficient property at the top of the cliffs, so that they can grade the cliffs back that way).

 

The sections between the tunnels have historically given us fewer problems (the bedrock is harder there), which then leaves the section from Sea Lawn Terrace to Dawlish Warren, which I think may follow as a potential 'stage 3'.

 

[bgman]

This is all well and good but will it still be possible to take my Bathing Hut into the beach at Dawlish if the scheme is carried out ?

 

It does have quite a wide berth you know !

 

Ed Wardian 

[Re6/6]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c1w1j8/spotlight-evening-news-05022019 From the beginning. Available until 1830 hrs 06/02.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Re6/6

[Captain Kernow]

1 hour ago, bgman said:

This is all well and good but will it still be possible to take my Bathing Hut into the beach at Dawlish if the scheme is carried out ?

 

It does have quite a wide berth you know !

 

Ed Wardian 

You may have to go to Budleigh Salterton in future! 

[raymw]

15 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

You may have to go to Budleigh Salterton in future!

the butt of many a joke...

[rodent279]

I know the route was built for the Atmospheric Railway, but why did Brunei build it there in the first place? It does seem an odd place to put the railway, right next to the sea. Surely it could have gone a mile or two inland?

[Edwin_m]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

I know the route was built for the Atmospheric Railway, but why did Brunei build it there in the first place? It does seem an odd place to put the railway, right next to the sea. Surely it could have gone a mile or two inland?

The land is very hilly right up to the coast. 

[Dunsignalling]

There is another issue, inextricably connected with all this, which barely seems to get touched upon. The sea wall does far more than hold up the railway, but the costs of maintaining it are covered (AFAIK) entirely from rail funding.

 

Unless rising sea levels force the issue, I doubt that anyone who is out of their teens as they read this will live long enough to see an alternative inland rail route constructed/revived. However, when it eventually does happen, NR or its successors will no longer have any use for the coastal route, and will presumably relinquish their responsibility for it.

 

With the political profile the railway creates gone, how long would central government continue to fund maintaining and, of necessity, strengthening, the operationally redundant infrastructure in order to ensure the survival of the coastal communities it protects? It's highly unlikely the county council could afford to do so.

 

John

 

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Dunsignalling
Typo