Dawlish Diversion Route

[Glorious NSE]

Do the government subsidise footballers pay?

[Glorious NSE]

Do the government subsidise footballers pay?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Do the government subsidise footballers pay?

 

Given that most of our Premiership clubs are now foreign-owned by people with tax "arrangements", yes, it probably does, albeit not deliberately.

[The Stationmaster]

Well, it is all about money, really, isn't it? A few banker's bonuses and Premier League footballers would easily pay for the 13 miles from Meldon to Tavistock to be reopened. Add a few noughts and you could have a proper 150mph line from Exeter to Plymouth via Newton Abbot, well out of the reach of high tides.

 

Instead, any kind of truly fit-for-purpose update to the rail system for SW England is just written off as being too expensive to justify for the few thousand unsophisticated people who inhabit the region, and so they'll just have to manage with what Brunel cooked up 160 years ago, or buy a car.

 

And meanwhile, this thread can fill up with discussions about exactly how long it takes to reverse a train at Exeter St Davids, which I would argue is also pretty peripheral.

Actually the matter of timings are rather directly relevant to a discussion about a diversionary route, not much use having one if you don't know how usable it might or might not be.  On the other hand I can't quite see what bankers' bonuses and footballers have to do with it so let's just get back on subject shall we?

 

As far as a truly fit for purpose update to the rail system for the SW is concerned I don't think an inland route around Dawlish and Teignmouth has yet been entirely written-off - after all NR seem sufficiently aware of the way future capacity needs are developing to actually mention the possible need for something to increase capacity in the future.

[southernman8]

Actually the matter of timings are rather directly relevant to a discussion about a diversionary route, not much use having one if you don't know how usable it might or might not be.  On the other hand I can't quite see what bankers' bonuses and footballers have to do with it so let's just get back on subject shall we?

 

As far as a truly fit for purpose update to the rail system for the SW is concerned I don't think an inland route around Dawlish and Teignmouth has yet been entirely written-off - after all NR seem sufficiently aware of the way future capacity needs are developing to actually mention the possible need for something to increase capacity in the future.

It would be interesting to know what the extra costs of running a second 'inland' route in addition to the existing seawall line would be against any possible increased income. As I previously commented, these increased costs would surely lead to the temptation to close the existing line which would only serve a few local stations. There would still only be one line Exeter to Plymouth and I thought the idea was to provide an alternative in the event of a closure. I do not think that the 'inland' route is out of the question eventually but for the short/medium term the Dartmoor line must be the favourite (if there is to be one that is...)

[Siberian Snooper]

I'd still like to know what all the proposed Tavistock Okehampton diversionary route supporters are proposing to do for the passengers of Devon's second largest conurbation Torbay. They all seem to be forgotten in the rose tinted pipe dream of the re-instatement of the inland route.

 

Okehampton to Exeter takes around 30 mins by road these days, when I first moved to Devon, I caught the train from Okehamton to Exeter a few times and the journey took the best part of an hour, hence the low train usage and that was before the dualling of the A30. I also suspect that those commuting to Exeter are working on the various trading and insustrial estates just off tbe M5. So I think it will take some very cheap fares to entice people to use the train except for longer distance travel.

[brianusa]

It would be interesting to know what the extra costs of running a second 'inland' route in addition to the existing seawall line would be against any possible increased income. As I previously commented, these increased costs would surely lead to the temptation to close the existing line which would only serve a few local stations. There would still only be one line Exeter to Plymouth and I thought the idea was to provide an alternative in the event of a closure. I do not think that the 'inland' route is out of the question eventually but for the short/medium term the Dartmoor line must be the favourite (if there is to be one that is...)

Unless I'm mistaken (which could very well be!) there was no intention of abandoning Torbay, rather as mentioned the provision of an alternative route. At that time, no consideration was given to funding and all subsequent topics and messages are speculation. Short of running a new railway, the rehabilitation of the line from Meldon to Bere Alston appears to be the preferred way to go.

 

Brian

 

All this 'advice' sometimes comes from thousands of miles away!

[brushman47544]

If (yes I know..) the Government said that the South West should have a diversionary route and that it would be the Dartmoor route, take it or leave it, are people really saying the answer should be "no thanks" because of the funding issues for the services that would operate over it? That's how some of the comments read and to me that seems very shortsighted.

[Joseph_Pestell]

This is all about money. Not necessarily what costs the least but what has the best cost/benefit analysis.

 

So, starting from the viewpoint that UK Government (and Brussels) see maintaining rail service to  Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall as essential, there are three options:

 

1) Make the existing GW route totally resistant to damage from the sea.

2) Accept that the existing route will suffer occasional damage and have a slightly inconvenient and limited diversionary route on the old LSW/PDSW.

3) Build a new route inland (1930 GW proposal).

 

Option 1 looks technically difficult as well as expensive. One might build a sort of tunnel/rock shelter below the cliffs but that would not work at Dawlish station unless the town is to be cut off from the sea (at least visually). It does not add any capacity to the rail network. There would have to be long closures of the main line during building. Option 1b would have to be to move the sea wall out a long way.

 

Option 2 not too difficult on the engineering but still costly. It does not maintain a service to Torbay in case of a washout so scores badly there but does have the additional  benefit of a new service to Okehampton and Tavistock.

 

Option 3 needs a lot of tunnelling. Expensive but not necessarily all that difficult.

 

I would not want to be the person that has to do the maths. It's going to be complicated but my hunch would be that the tunneled new route would come out best, especially if it allows a bit of a reduction in London - Plymouth times.

 

 

 

Option 3

[southernman8]

This is all about money. Not necessarily what costs the least but what has the best cost/benefit analysis.

 

So, starting from the viewpoint that UK Government (and Brussels) see maintaining rail service to  Torbay, Plymouth and Cornwall as essential, there are three options:

 

1) Make the existing GW route totally resistant to damage from the sea.

2) Accept that the existing route will suffer occasional damage and have a slightly inconvenient and limited diversionary route on the old LSW/PDSW.

3) Build a new route inland (1930 GW proposal).

 

Option 1 looks technically difficult as well as expensive. One might build a sort of tunnel/rock shelter below the cliffs but that would not work at Dawlish station unless the town is to be cut off from the sea (at least visually). It does not add any capacity to the rail network. There would have to be long closures of the main line during building. Option 1b would have to be to move the sea wall out a long way.

 

Option 2 not too difficult on the engineering but still costly. It does not maintain a service to Torbay in case of a washout so scores badly there but does have the additional  benefit of a new service to Okehampton and Tavistock.

 

Option 3 needs a lot of tunnelling. Expensive but not necessarily all that difficult.

 

I would not want to be the person that has to do the maths. It's going to be complicated but my hunch would be that the tunneled new route would come out best, especially if it allows a bit of a reduction in London - Plymouth times.

 

 

 

Option 3

I think the crunch time (assuming no complete washout on the existing route) will come when electrification between Exeter and Plymouth is seriously being planned. With the escalating costs of the costs for electrifying the London Paddington lines I think that date may not be arriving very quickly! I hear of other schemes being postponed due to costs. Add the expense of a new 'inland' route into the equation quite a lot of cost benefit analysis(!) will be necessary. Some big decisions will then be required including questioning whether the existing seawall route should be retained or closed.

 

In the meantime get the Okehampton line in service and maintain the seawall route to a high standard.

[brianusa]

God forbid electricity with all the OHW ever comes south of Bristol, but at what cost with all the tunnels and other engineering that would have to be instigated.  Can you imagine the wailing along the sea wall destroying the most attractive rail route un the country.

 

Brian.

[JohnR]

I'd still like to know what all the proposed Tavistock Okehampton diversionary route supporters are proposing to do for the passengers of Devon's second largest conurbation Torbay. They all seem to be forgotten in the rose tinted pipe dream of the re-instatement of the inland route.

 

Okehampton to Exeter takes around 30 mins by road these days, when I first moved to Devon, I caught the train from Okehamton to Exeter a few times and the journey took the best part of an hour, hence the low train usage and that was before the dualling of the A30. I also suspect that those commuting to Exeter are working on the various trading and insustrial estates just off tbe M5. So I think it will take some very cheap fares to entice people to use the train except for longer distance travel.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the idea is we re-open via Okehampton and close the Dawlish route completely. The idea is that the route is available on those occaisions when the the Dawlish route is unavailable. Torbay could be served by busses - as it is at present when Dawlish is shut. It would also have the advantage of providing a large part of North Devon and Cornwall with better access to Rail services. 

 

Reversing trains at Exeter and Plymouth (for those continuing to Cornwall) would add several minutes to journey times, and of course the route would be slightly slower. The Network Rail study suggested total times would be slightly extended - but the comparison is NOT with the current train journey, but the travel time when the Dawlish route is closed - de-training passengers, lining them up outside the station, getting them and their luggage aboard the rail replacement coach, slowly making their way through the congested roads in Exeter before trundling down the A38 to Plymouth to repeat it all in reverse. 

[HSB]

I don't understand how reversing trains at Exeter or Plymouth can make any significant difference to journey times because all trains stop at both stations for several minutes anyway to allow passengers to get on or off!

[Gwiwer]

I don't understand how reversing trains at Exeter or Plymouth can make any significant difference to journey times because all trains stop at both stations for several minutes anyway to allow passengers to get on or off!

 

Perhaps little difference at Plymouth for those trains going to and from Cornwall but there would be an effect at Exeter.  As discussed above there are agreed minimum times negotiated for a reversal and the required protocols when drivers change ends or hand over a train.

 

That is longer - even if only by a few minutes - than the typical station stop at St. Davids.

 

Paths then have to be found for a reversed train to run back out the way it came and take a longer and probably slower route to the other end of the diversion.  If one looks at track occupancy between St. Davids and Cowley Bridge there are times when that might be tricky.

[Siberian Snooper]

You seem to be under the impression that the idea is we re-open via Okehampton and close the Dawlish route completely. The idea is that the route is available on those occaisions when the the Dawlish route is unavailable. Torbay could be served by busses - as it is at present when Dawlish is shut. It would also have the advantage of providing a large part of North Devon and Cornwall with better access to Rail services. 

 

Reversing trains at Exeter and Plymouth (for those continuing to Cornwall) would add several minutes to journey times, and of course the route would be slightly slower. The Network Rail study suggested total times would be slightly extended - but the comparison is NOT with the current train journey, but the travel time when the Dawlish route is closed - de-training passengers, lining them up outside the station, getting them and their luggage aboard the rail replacement coach, slowly making their way through the congested roads in Exeter before trundling down the A38 to Plymouth to repeat it all in reverse.

 

I am not under the impression that the South Devon route would be axed at all. If rail replacement busses are good enough for Torbay and Newton Abbot, why is it not good enough for Plymouth and Cornwall, especially as the busses run between Plymouth and Tiverton Parkway, which is usually a quicker journey including de-training and re-boarding than the equivelant train journey.

 

Been there and done it.

 

Unless the Exeter, Okehampton, Tavistock & Plymouth route is mostley double track then the diverted trains will probably held in loops for periods of time while a train coming the other way adding more time to the journey, especially if one or the other is running late. It will also add to the running costs in maintainance of the double track.

[The Stationmaster]

You seem to be under the impression that the idea is we re-open via Okehampton and close the Dawlish route completely. The idea is that the route is available on those occaisions when the the Dawlish route is unavailable. Torbay could be served by busses - as it is at present when Dawlish is shut. It would also have the advantage of providing a large part of North Devon and Cornwall with better access to Rail services. 

 

Reversing trains at Exeter and Plymouth (for those continuing to Cornwall) would add several minutes to journey times, and of course the route would be slightly slower. The Network Rail study suggested total times would be slightly extended - but the comparison is NOT with the current train journey, but the travel time when the Dawlish route is closed - de-training passengers, lining them up outside the station, getting them and their luggage aboard the rail replacement coach, slowly making their way through the congested roads in Exeter before trundling down the A38 to Plymouth to repeat it all in reverse. 

Having done the detraining bit (at Tiverton Parkway - the best place for it) and, with our luggage, got onto the first through coach to Plymouth the uncomfortable fact for any enthusiast for rail travel is that we arrived at Plymouth (North Road - to avoid any misunderstanding) station before the normal advertised arrival time of the train we had got off.  Fortunately FGW seem to have sussed how to do the 'bus alternative with separate vehicles for Exeter (definitely later arrival than the train), Torbay (difference in time variable), and Plymouth (usually quicker than the train if you know what you're at and it does depend on traffic in Plymouth itself and the route the 'bus takes in from the A38).

 

It then comes down to what people want - is it, for Plymouth and beyond, a transfer to road at Tiverton Parkway (Exeter is well known to be useless to make such a transfer) and little time lost at the expense of humping luggage around and getting wet on a rainy day and a possibly early arrival in Plymouth.  Or is it taking one of the few services which would be able to run through to Plymouth/Cornwall via Okehampton arriving much later than normal but at least keeping you dry on a wet day although there might not be any onboard catering after Exeter (not that there would be any on the 'bus of course)?   The choice might well one day be yours if the Okehampton route is ever reopened - which I doubt because I don't think the money will ever be there to do it (let alone the money needed as an extra subsidy to operators to ensure that it would be feasible to use the line should the need for diversions arise).

 

Now the interesting point is that at the moment we are in electoral promise wonderland and although it has several months to run I have yet to hear any of them make a promise to re-open the route via Okehampton.  All that has been said is that 'something will be done' - well it is, with a large amount of money currently being spent at Dawlish.

[Captain Kernow]

1) Make the existing GW route totally resistant to damage from the sea.

2) Accept that the existing route will suffer occasional damage and have a slightly inconvenient and limited diversionary route on the old LSW/PDSW.

3) Build a new route inland (1930 GW proposal).

 

Option 1 looks technically difficult as well as expensive.

Not necessarily that technically difficult.

 

Any long term solution to 'Dawlish' won't be cheap, so why not fully explore the options that keep the main line fully operational?

 

 

1) Make the existing GW route totally resistant to damage from the sea.

2) Accept that the existing route will suffer occasional damage and have a slightly inconvenient and limited diversionary route on the old LSW/PDSW.

3) Build a new route inland (1930 GW proposal).

 

Option 1b would have to be to move the sea wall out a long way.

 

Not necessarily that far out.

 

Option 4 - (purely personal opinion) invest in the existing route, improve resilience of Sea Wall, spending as much of the money that the Okehampton diversion would have cost as is permitted in business case terms, and forget about re-building a loss-making Coleford Jct - Tavistock line where the trains would be running more than half-empty most of the year.

 

That way you keep the trains running via the places where most of the people in Devon actually live and you don't waste taxpayers money.

 

If, on the other hand, the 'political decision' post-election is to rebuild the Okehampton route anyway, as a purely local line with the ability to support diversions 'as and when', then fine, but those making said 'political decision' will clearly understand that the taxpayer is not only funding the capital cost, but also the on-going running costs for a very long time.

[Gwiwer]

And given the precarious nature of local authority funding do not count on any support from those quarters.  Any contribution Dartmoor National Park might be in a position to make would be peanuts compared to the overall cost of a Dartmoor Alternative no matter how desirable it might be to minimise car traffic in the National Park.  They gave up funding loss-making bus services aimed at car-driving visitors a few years ago.  Where once there was a comprehensive network of routes crossing every moorland road passable and linking most major destinations there are now none.  Even the long-standing Trans-Moor bus between Exeter and Plymouth via Postbridge is thought unlikely to run again after being cut back to a once-weekly trip in 2014.

 

If Westminster wishes to throw money at a second rail route that is their loss no matter how appealing it might seem on paper and no matter how passionate some of us are about reinstating missing link.  The voters of mid-Devon will have their say if they find two or three trains an hour whizzing past their farms and delaying their Bourge-mobiles at level crossings.  But "They" won't allow level crossings any more will they?  It's costly bridge rebuilds or nothing.  More money

 

 

Edit.  In the first line I typed "count".  This was "corrected" to vicuna.  Please, someone, explain that ......... 

[Joseph_Pestell]

And given the precarious nature of local authority funding do not count on any support from those quarters.  Any contribution Dartmoor National Park might be in a position to make would be peanuts compared to the overall cost of a Dartmoor Alternative no matter how desirable it might be to minimise car traffic in the National Park.  They gave up funding loss-making bus services aimed at car-driving visitors a few years ago.  Where once there was a comprehensive network of routes crossing every moorland road passable and linking most major destinations there are now none.  Even the long-standing Trans-Moor bus between Exeter and Plymouth via Postbridge is thought unlikely to run again after being cut back to a once-weekly trip in 2014.

 

If Westminster wishes to throw money at a second rail route that is their loss no matter how appealing it might seem on paper and no matter how passionate some of us are about reinstating missing link.  The voters of mid-Devon will have their say if they find two or three trains an hour whizzing past their farms and delaying their Bourge-mobiles at level crossings.  But "They" won't allow level crossings any more will they?  It's costly bridge rebuilds or nothing.  More money

 

 

Edit.  In the first line I typed "count".  This was "corrected" to vicuna.  Please, someone, explain that ......... 

 

Seems unlikely that count can be predictive-texted to vicuna. But my new phone comes up with all sorts of unlikely options. Takes ages to compose a text.

 

Perhaps a result of the millions of people following the llama escape story in Phoenix??? We have alpacas and find that people don't know the difference between llamas, alpacas and vicunas.

[locoholic]

especially as the buses run between Plymouth and Tiverton Parkway, which is usually a quicker journey including de-training and re-boarding than the equivelant train journey.

 

I wonder if George Osborne knows this? A lot of non railway enthusiasts would say that's a pretty good argument for closing the line beyond Newton Abbot (or even Exeter) completely, and saving the taxpayer a big chunk of subsidy.

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder if George Osborne knows this? A lot of non railway enthusiasts would say that's a pretty good argument for closing the line beyond Newton Abbot (or even Exeter) completely, and saving the taxpayer a big chunk of subsidy.

I would be surprised if many local rail users don't know and yet they were, understandably, most vociferous in their cries for Dawlish to be reopened as quickly as possible.  It would however leave Cornwall cut off from the main network which might not go down so well and don't forget they are an 'ethnic minority' so any Govt would have to be careful how it treats them.

[Gwiwer]

A lot of people from up-country don't realise how long and relatively remote Cornwall actually is.  Including many politicians.

 

It used to be the case (possibly still is) that on holiday Fridays there would be additional rest stops set up along the A30 for drivers heading down overnight who might be both unfamiliar with the area and tired thinking "I'll press on - we're nearly there".  That is when accidents happen.  Those locations also had signs indicating driving time to the major resorts such as "Newquay 3 hours; St. Ives 5 hours".  And I'm talking mid-Devon here (though granted before the much of the new road was built)  not back up near Birmingham!

 

Cornwall relies heavily on its railway for connectivity to Plymouth and beyond.  The passenger service has improved massively over the years yet demand has still outstripped supply.  There are suggestions - perhaps plans afoot behind the scenes - for a half-hourly base headway west of Plymouth roughly doubling what exists now.  

 

Comparing road and rail it is possible to drive from Penzance to Exeter, centre to centre, in around 2½ hours while the train takes 3.  I know people who claim 2 hours but that is usually taken from the edge of Penzance where the speed limit rises from 30 to 70 as far as Exeter M5 services.  To achieve a fairer comparison one must time the drive between Penzance and St. Davids railway stations and include the slower bits.  It is still faster by car by over half an hour.  That comparison does not hold for Plymouth; it is as quick by train as by car.  For longer trips up-country the high-speed railway (up to 125mph against 70mph on the motorway) east of Exeter gives rail the competitive edge on journey times and comfort.

[PhilJ W]

From where I live (South Essex) Lands End is as far away as Edinburgh.

[Glorious NSE]

I would be surprised if many local rail users don't know and yet they were, understandably, most vociferous in their cries for Dawlish to be reopened as quickly as possible. It would however leave Cornwall cut off from the main network which might not go down so well and don't forget they are an 'ethnic minority' so any Govt would have to be careful how it treats them.

Given they seem happy enough to fund the UKs most consistently high spec local service for folk north of Sheffield keeping the GWML open should be peanuts by comparison.

[edcayton]

 

.  To achieve a fairer comparison one must time the drive between Penzance and St. Davids railway stations and include the slower bits.

 

Why?  The car takes me from where I am to where I want to be, neither of which is likely to be the railway station.

 

Ed