'CHARD Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Government to review NR report.... http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/government-may-review-report-into-alternative-routes-at-dawlish?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Rail+Technology+Magazine&utm_campaign=4870324_RTM+Newsletter+Oct+14+Week+3&dm_i=IJS,2WDYS,8018N7,AHIQ4,1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2014 Very interesting, especially the comparison to the Galashilels reopening.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted October 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2014 There's quite a bit more mileage in this yet.... If you are looking for some very interesting reading, take a look at this document from the Network Rail website - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study-draft-for-consultation/?cd=1 (the .pdf document entitled Western Route Study Draft for Consultation). Have a look in particular at page 211, under 'Longer Term Strategy' (up to 2043)... (all I know on this is what I've read in the same document myself, I have no specific insider knowledge on the 'alternative route' debate - just to be clear). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
synthnut Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Well, given that the Scottish project got the go ahead on a lower cost benefit ratio, I think there is a justification for people to expect it to be looked at again. Whether the two cases are comparable is another matter of course. In the case of the Borders, they were left without any rail link were they not, but still... I also wonder if there is a different mindset in the Scottish parliament perhaps too! Will be interesting to hear what transpires now. TTFN, Ben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted October 17, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2014 There's quite a bit more mileage in this yet.... If you are looking for some very interesting reading, take a look at this document from the Network Rail website - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study-draft-for-consultation/?cd=1 (the .pdf document entitled Western Route Study Draft for Consultation). Have a look in particular at page 211, under 'Longer Term Strategy' (up to 2043)... (all I know on this is what I've read in the same document myself, I have no specific insider knowledge on the 'alternative route' debate - just to be clear). Interesting that for 2043 they plan to move Plymouth further east. Analysis has identified that the following infrastructure or equivalent would be required to operate the full 2043 ITSS: • improve planning headways between Exeter St Davids, and Plymouth on the Paignton branch to enable greater flexibility in the timetabling of services Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 17, 2014 Government to review NR report.... http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/government-may-review-report-into-alternative-routes-at-dawlish?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Rail+Technology+Magazine&utm_campaign=4870324_RTM+Newsletter+Oct+14+Week+3&dm_i=IJS,2WDYS,8018N7,AHIQ4,1 All good stuff but I do seem to recollect there is a General Election in 2015 and the incumbent Govt might well be under pressure from those with an interest in taking a kip, so to speak, in much of the western part of England and in Cornwall. So good news and the right sort of political pressure is always nice ti have as is the link posted by the good Cap'n but alas I think it's all a long way off if it might happen at all (but it would be tremendous if it does and I think it's needed now, not 'then'. (but I admit my bias ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted October 17, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 17, 2014 Interesting that for 2043 they plan to move Plymouth further east. This must mean that they are going to demolish the bridges and take the chains off the ferries to allow us to open up the gap, pity I will more than likely be pushing up the daisey's to benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This subject has arisen again which is of great interest to those with GW leanings. Tend to agree with Mike about the coming election. Labour doesn't appear to be very happy with the increasing cost of the electrification project and should they prevail all might come to naught or be severely restrained. As it is only Bristol and South Wales will derive any real benefit from faster, newer trains while the far West will have the same old same old; the very place that was impacted most by the Dawlish break. After revisiting the previous report perhaps that situation will be reassessed and a real solution to another crisis be put forward to ameliorate what could be a recurring problem, especially with climate change and rising seas. Expensive or not, the LSWR route always seemed to be the best fit as opposed to digging tunnels and laying infrastructure across a large swath of South Devon. One can imagine the wrath of the locals! As for 'Plymouth on the Paignton branch' - are these the same guys we're asking to build a diversionary route? Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 I can't ever see the norther of Dartmoor route taking off as a viable option as a diversionary route Brian - it just doesn't make any sort of sense at all in view of the massive ongoing costs for little or no return which it would create. Torbay will remain one of the major population centres of Devon (whether Plymouth is moved there or not ) and something which doesn'tt serve it, or facilitate growth for Devon Metro ideas and traffic beyond Plymouth, simply won't be a runner in my view. The key in the future to the railway retaining competitiveness for long distance passengers into and out of the far south west will be speed, reliability, and quality of service and the route which will deliver that is not going to be one meandering round the northern fringe of Dartmoor and involving two time consuming train reversals. I think the genie is now out of the bottle regarding an inland diversionary line between Exeter and Plymouth and I suspect that while it might take a very long time to appear as a real railway it might also be very difficult to get that particular genie back into the bottle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Not wishing to bring politics into this, but I wonder if they'll soon be an "Essex & Anglia Route Study Draft for Consultation" to accompany those for the Western and for Sussex on Network Rail's website..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I can't ever see the norther of Dartmoor route taking off as a viable option as a diversionary route Brian - it just doesn't make any sort of sense at all in view of the massive ongoing costs for little or no return which it would create. Torbay will remain one of the major population centres of Devon (whether Plymouth is moved there or not ) and something which doesn'tt serve it, or facilitate growth for Devon Metro ideas and traffic beyond Plymouth, simply won't be a runner in my view. Must confess, Mike, the choice is mainly sentimental coming from the area with all things GW and Southern but tend to agree with your assessment. I suppose it is doubtful whether much will ever happen at least in the foreseeable future but is a good case for pondering an outcome. Brian. PS The only pictures of GW trains I can take these days are on the layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernman8 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I think that all are agreed that the line through Dawlish (whether double or single) would be maintained unless completely destroyed. Network Rail appear to be saying that the work now done will greatly enhance its strength. Now, why built an extra railway through Haldon at vast expense (where would Dawlish and Teignmouth stations be - if at all on this route?). The benefits of opening up other parts of Devon and Cornwall through re-opening of the line via Okehampton cannot be ignored! The time delays of reversing with units/HSTs are not long especially if crew changes are made. Torquay will still have its line via Dawlish as that must be protected. Customers will then benefit from two separate routes to Plymouth (except a small length at either end. No more coach transfers during engineering/emergencies! By all means identify and guard against development a route through Haldon if you wish. However it certainly isn't worth the expense of constructing a railway which may never be required! - Unless it is intended to close the existing line through Dawlish. Something that might of course happen once electrification is seriously contemplated if that route is not suitable for the overheads (but not likely in my lifetime!). All the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 I think that all are agreed that the line through Dawlish (whether double or single) would be maintained unless completely destroyed. Network Rail appear to be saying that the work now done will greatly enhance its strength. Now, why built an extra railway through Haldon at vast expense (where would Dawlish and Teignmouth stations be - if at all on this route?). The benefits of opening up other parts of Devon and Cornwall through re-opening of the line via Okehampton cannot be ignored! The time delays of reversing with units/HSTs are not long especially if crew changes are made. Torquay will still have its line via Dawlish as that must be protected. Customers will then benefit from two separate routes to Plymouth (except a small length at either end. No more coach transfers during engineering/emergencies! By all means identify and guard against development a route through Haldon if you wish. However it certainly isn't worth the expense of constructing a railway which may never be required! - Unless it is intended to close the existing line through Dawlish. Something that might of course happen once electrification is seriously contemplated if that route is not suitable for the overheads (but not likely in my lifetime!). All the best. What I found interesting was the (very) long term suggestion on the part of the Network Rail draft study published last week, that four tracks may eventually be necessary between Exeter and Newton Abbot (2043 +). That would tend to preclude the Dartmoor route as an option, but would tie in with a new inland double track route such as one of of the three former GW options... It was for this reason (4 tracks/more capacity) that the GWR proposed a new inland route via the Haldon Hills in the late 1930s, it wasn't put forward in terms of anticipated problems with the Sea Wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernman8 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 What I found interesting was the (very) long term suggestion on the part of the Network Rail draft study published last week, that four tracks may eventually be necessary between Exeter and Newton Abbot (2043 +). That would tend to preclude the Dartmoor route as an option, but would tie in with a new inland double track route such as one of of the three former GW options... It was for this reason (4 tracks/more capacity) that the GWR proposed a new inland route via the Haldon Hills in the late 1930s, it wasn't put forward in terms of anticipated problems with the Sea Wall. Thanks for the comment (much appreciated) - I did see that and was very surprised! With the introduction of ETCS I would have thought that the number of trains able to use Exeter-Newton Abbot would be greatly enhanced (way beyond the current capacity which suffices at present?). The GWR were dealing with steam when those proposals were made, including those long slow goods trains. In any event this proposal, as you rightly point out, is not likely to be considered/required for some 30 years. I consider that an alternative route will be decided on (or rejected) much sooner than that. The L&SWR line (single) is surely the least disruptive/cheapest and quickest to be provided. An alternative through green field areas will be subject to lengthy planning delays/public enquiries and objections. The route of the Okehampton line is already there and much less likely to be subject to these issues. In many ways it resembles the case for the Borders Railway but has the added attraction of a diversionary route in case of need. I think the political aspect may come into play and action will need to be seen to be happening? Will England do what Scotland is already achieving? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 18, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 18, 2014 Thanks for the comment (much appreciated) - I did see that and was very surprised! With the introduction of ETCS I would have thought that the number of trains able to use Exeter-Newton Abbot would be greatly enhanced (way beyond the current capacity which suffices at present?). The GWR were dealing with steam when those proposals were made, including those long slow goods trains. In any event this proposal, as you rightly point out, is not likely to be considered/required for some 30 years. I consider that an alternative route will be decided on (or rejected) much sooner than that. The L&SWR line (single) is surely the least disruptive/cheapest and quickest to be provided. An alternative through green field areas will be subject to lengthy planning delays/public enquiries and objections. The route of the Okehampton line is already there and much less likely to be subject to these issues. In many ways it resembles the case for the Borders Railway but has the added attraction of a diversionary route in case of need. I think the political aspect may come into play and action will need to be seen to be happening? Will England do what Scotland is already achieving? The big problem with the Southern route is that it doesn't serve Torbay and that will be an area where the councils will be looking to Devon Metro to reduce road congestion etc. Thus capacity on the double line will potentially be squeezed hence a future thought about quadrupling. And of course one thing which ERTMS does not do is make all trains run at similar speeds with similar stopping patterns and it is the differentials in those which eat line capacity. Moving block, which I believe is a potential with the highest level of ERTMS, would obviously help but it still can't make all trains travel at the same speed with the same stopping patterns. And of course the various loops which once upon a time helped to get freights through between Exeter and Newton Abbot are no longer there and in any case it is no longer a case of shoving freights into the night time hours - they have to run when resources are available and when customers want them. And to be honest I still can't really see the train operators wishing to take on the added costs (to their everyday operations) of having the exSouthern route on tap for diversionary purposes or indeed what sort service via it would be possible in view of the likely considerable resource constraints it would create. Would FGW, for instance, really be happy to route an HST via Okehampton, in each direction several days a week - every week? (and could they actually afford to do so without allowance being made in their franchise agreement?). One thing having a railway line there, quite another to actually be able to make meaningful use of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 19, 2014 Before I comment, I should be clear that I'm not advocating the Dartmoor route over any other option, but I do ask why don't those looking at the options look further out of the box in terms of trains using that route. Assuming we're talking about the route as providing extra capacity rather than when in use as a diversionary route, a double reversal is being cited as a major disbenefit. Yes of course it might be, but it needn't. I think it's a safe bet that service levels west of Plymouth will always be much lower than trains terminating there. So if only Plymouth terminators were to go via Dartmoor, that's immediately one reversal only not two. Second, what about capacity and wider service benefits east of Exeter? The second reversal could be avoided by operating Dartmoor services from Castle Cary via the ex-SR route to St David's. Yes that route would also need upgrading (doubling at least) but isn't that likely to happen anyway if passenger numbers rise as forecast? Of all the options effectively quadrupling the existing route does probably make most sense, but if that is ruled out for whatever reason, the other options can still be made to work better than the NR report might have us believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edcayton Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Is there really a case for 4 tracks to Newton Abbott when, TBH, they coped without any railway at all for some months? Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 19, 2014 Before I comment, I should be clear that I'm not advocating the Dartmoor route over any other option, but I do ask why don't those looking at the options look further out of the box in terms of trains using that route. Assuming we're talking about the route as providing extra capacity rather than when in use as a diversionary route, a double reversal is being cited as a major disbenefit. Yes of course it might be, but it needn't. I think it's a safe bet that service levels west of Plymouth will always be much lower than trains terminating there. So if only Plymouth terminators were to go via Dartmoor, that's immediately one reversal only not two. Second, what about capacity and wider service benefits east of Exeter? The second reversal could be avoided by operating Dartmoor services from Castle Cary via the ex-SR route to St David's. Yes that route would also need upgrading (doubling at least) but isn't that likely to happen anyway if passenger numbers rise as forecast? Of all the options effectively quadrupling the existing route does probably make most sense, but if that is ruled out for whatever reason, the other options can still be made to work better than the NR report might have us believe. Re-doubling, in effect, Castle Cary to Pinhoe would mean 42 miles of railway to be re-doubled involving - obviously - all the associated infrastructure and slewing work. The Swindon - Kemble re-doublng cost £45million for 12.5 miles and it was fairly straightforward infrastructure work whereas Castle Cary - Pinhoe involves some tricky embankemnt sections which are already prone to flood damage so the cost of groundworks would be undoubtedly higher and there would be some additional level crossing costs as well plus, of course reinstating platforms at several stations so I doubt it could be done for less than £200 million at the very least. And that is basically for no more than diversionary route although obviously it would deliver advantages for the Waterloo - Exeter route which could be exploited in the regular timetable and would help improve its reliability. But the re-doubling of 12 miles between Castle cary & Yeovil would deliver little benefit to a fairly 'thin' service yet in my experience of dealing with diversions over the route would be essential. All in all looks like a lot of money for not much gain to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted December 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2014 Interestingly the local BBC news said that they were expecting some kind of announcement today re Okehampton, in connection with the Chancellor's Autumn Statement... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Interestingly the local BBC news said that they were expecting some kind of announcement today re Okehampton, in connection with the Chancellor's Autumn Statement... From the NIP (National Infrastructure Plan) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ambitious-plans-for-housing-flood-defence-and-roads-set-out-in-national-infrastructure-plan-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381884/2902895_NationalInfrastructurePlan2014_acc.pdf • Dawlish rail services – the government will support Network Rail in its work to improve the resilience of the railway at Dawlish. Additionally, it will ask Network Rail to examine wider issues surrounding connectivity to and within the South West peninsula. Specifically, Network Rail will consider alternatives to the current mainline route to the South West via Dawlish, including an alternative route via the north side of Dartmoor through Okehampton. This work will feed into Network Rail’s Initial Industry Plan for Control Period 6 (2019-2024) So - that reads to me as not a decision, but a green light to NR to look at that option in a bit more detail? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium brushman47544 Posted December 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 2, 2014 Re-doubling, in effect, Castle Cary to Pinhoe would mean 42 miles of railway to be re-doubled involving - obviously - all the associated infrastructure and slewing work. The Swindon - Kemble re-doublng cost £45million for 12.5 miles and it was fairly straightforward infrastructure work whereas Castle Cary - Pinhoe involves some tricky embankemnt sections which are already prone to flood damage so the cost of groundworks would be undoubtedly higher and there would be some additional level crossing costs as well plus, of course reinstating platforms at several stations so I doubt it could be done for less than £200 million at the very least. And that is basically for no more than diversionary route although obviously it would deliver advantages for the Waterloo - Exeter route which could be exploited in the regular timetable and would help improve its reliability. But the re-doubling of 12 miles between Castle cary & Yeovil would deliver little benefit to a fairly 'thin' service yet in my experience of dealing with diversions over the route would be essential. All in all looks like a lot of money for not much gain to be honest. Whilst I accept what you say about costs, sorry but this reads as if you are still thinking in terms of historic routes west; Waterloo - Exeter via Yeovil and Paddington - WoE via Taunton. Why shouldn't some regular scheduled Paddington - Plymouth services be operated over an upgraded Castle Cary - Pinhoe section instead of following the traditional route via Taunton? Yes there would be other costs but surely it would allow new direct links, e.g. for Yeovil, that longer distance services over the route would offer. Surely these options deserve consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mow Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 BBC Coverage. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30292756 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Whilst I accept what you say about costs, sorry but this reads as if you are still thinking in terms of historic routes west; Waterloo - Exeter via Yeovil and Paddington - WoE via Taunton. Why shouldn't some regular scheduled Paddington - Plymouth services be operated over an upgraded Castle Cary - Pinhoe section instead of following the traditional route via Taunton? Yes there would be other costs but surely it would allow new direct links, e.g. for Yeovil, that longer distance services over the route would offer. Surely these options deserve consideration. There were direct services between Plymouth (and Paignton) and Yeovil until fairly recently, but the lack of backlash over the loss of the through journey options I suspect probably says something about demand! An alternative would be SWT extending their current Exeter trains to Plymouth... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2014 Whilst I accept what you say about costs, sorry but this reads as if you are still thinking in terms of historic routes west; Waterloo - Exeter via Yeovil and Paddington - WoE via Taunton. Why shouldn't some regular scheduled Paddington - Plymouth services be operated over an upgraded Castle Cary - Pinhoe section instead of following the traditional route via Taunton? Yes there would be other costs but surely it would allow new direct links, e.g. for Yeovil, that longer distance services over the route would offer. Surely these options deserve consideration. Yes, but ... - as Martyn has already said, the various efforts at extending what amounts to a London - Salisbury - Exeter service beyond Exeter have never seemed to last on a reliable basis over a series of timetable changes. Equally why increase the resource cost of the GW route services by diverting them via Yeovil and chucking in a reversal at Exeter - what benefit would that bring? Currently just about every station on the Salisbury - Exeter route has a better service to/from London than at any other time in its history and with reasonable quality trains doing the honours. It is interesting that the traditional attitude in the Yeovil area was to regard the Waterloo route as being 'the better way' of going to London with many folk regarding Paddington as a less than usefully sited London terminus. Thus people remained more inclined to go to Yeovil Jcn or Sherborne for a London train than to the improved service from Castle Cary (I'm talking 1970s, but much passenger thinking was founded on much earlier thoughts). As I worked in the area - covering both routes - for some years I found that local thinking tended to be rather different from the way I had looked previously at the railway network with Yeovil Pen Mill being seen very much as the station for Bristol, the Midlands and Wales (and Weymouth) rather than as anything else, and I doubt that would change. If trains did exist following the route you suggest no doubt some people would use them but would the additional revenue make up for the lost revenue and extra costs - I think not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted December 2, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 2, 2014 Did I hear that right on Spotlight earlier, the old LSWR route would be the cheapest option?? Il have a few hats to eat if that comes off!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.