Washout at Dawlish

[brianusa]

Henceforth I will not mention NR in my usual moans but instead moan directly to DfT (daft?).  That's if they ever bother to read this board which is most unlikely!  Onward to Tavistock.

Brian.

Edited November 20, 2016 by brianusa

[APOLLO]

The Japanese have built a completely new island in the sea and put an airport on it.

 

 

 

Why not just move the coastline at Dawlish a hundred metres or so out to sea by tipping a few million tons of rock along the coast ?

 

Brit 15 

[phil-b259]

Henceforth I will not mention NR in my usual moans but instead moan directly to DfT (daft?).  That's if they ever bother to read this board which is most unlikely!  Onward to Tavistock.

Brian.

 

Please do so (moan to DfT, MPs etc that is)

 

Its something of a disgrace that since it was established, the Scottish Government has reopened three railways from scratch (i.e. they weren't mothballed / disused like the Claydon to Bletchley line or freight only), two of them electrified at that - while In the meantime the Westminster Government the runs things in England hasn't managed to reopen anything other than the Todmorden North - West Chord

 

Thus the biggest obstacle to progress with rail reopening is the mandarins of Whitehall. If we cannot get things like the Burton - Leicester line or the Portishead branch back in passenger use, what hope for something that requires extensive rebuilding from scratch like Oakhampton - Tavistock.

Edited November 20, 2016 by phil-b259

[Gwiwer]

Diverting the main line via Okehapmton would require somewhere between an additional 45 - 60 minutes over and above present journey times.  I agree the coastal route is hardly the fastest as it also includes some of the fiercest main-line gradients in Britain west of Newton Abbot.  But factor in these points: 7 minutes to reverse at St. Davids against a 1 or 2-minute station stop [+5] (even if that is rather optimistic), double-run back to Cowley Bridge [+5], take a rebuilt Okehampton route at speeds, being realistic, no more than 80mph and for some sections much lower and therefore taking perhaps 90 minutes Exeter - Plymouth and assuming at least one intermediate stop for some trains [+about 25], double-run St. Budeaux - North Road [+10] and for trains continuing to Cornwall another 7-minute reversal which is only a little more than current station times in some cases [+5].  The bracketed + times are the potential additional running times for the loss of service to Newton Abbot and Totnes and the loss of a perfectly good existing railway which might need to be kept open anyway to serve Torbay, Totnes and Ivybridge.  

 

 

 

the biggest obstacle to progress with rail reopening is the mandarins of Whitehall

I believe it is a significant factor.  If we were discussing a route in Scotland however the outlook might be different.  Who would have thought 20 years ago that the Waverley Route might arise from the dead, become so successful that trains regularly overload (and thus cause single-line delays) and to the extent that the next stage to Hawick is already being seriously looked at?  

[Not Jeremy]

Rick, any rebuilding of the route through Okehampton would be IN ADDITION to the coast route and would NOT replace it!!

 

My wife has a job that requires going to Plymouth on a regular basis. To leave home at 5.45am, pay significant prices for a ticket and then get to Bristol to find that your train is terminating at Exeter (because it doesn't like sea water on its roof) and that you will have to wait for the by now grossly overcrowded following Sprinter service is PATHETIC.

 

Re-opening to Tavistock is a blindingly good idea, given the appalling traffic into Plymouth and the stature and size of the town. More trains are beginning to run to Okehampton from Exeter and filling in the bit in the middle is frankly a no-brainer. The narrow analyses of the other benefits of a reopened Southern route that have been aired on this thread grossly underestimate its benefits - we have an exemplar in the re-opened Waverley route and just look what's happening there.

 

I quite accept that any reopening will be a politically driven decision and that NR won't be a driver, but for Christ's sake why do you feel the need to continually pour cold water on the idea?

 

What needs to happen is lobbying of all the relevant authorities, if the Politicians in the South West started talking sensibly about rail connectivity then it would be driven up the political agenda, I think a local Conservative MP (hallelujah) actually mentioned it in Parliament the other day.

 

On the other hand, I don't suppose endlessly taking the piss out of the idea on RMweb will make a blind bit of difference.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Andy Y

[sng7]

 

© No amount of physical works on the existing railway alignment can prevent the suspension of Voyager services during 'high seas', including conditions that are no where near severe enough to be considered a 'storm', but is merely 'lively seas', and which does not affect the operation of HSTs or Sprinters. I've yet to see any firm confirmation that the new IEPs won't also be affected by sea water like the Voyagers, unfortunately (this despite asking when I was still working - no one seemed to know)

 

If you look at they IEP specification they are specifically stated that they should be able to cope with salt water spray.

 

 

TS1983

Full Functionality of the IEP Trains must be maintained during and after exposure to salt

water spray and such exposure must not cause excessive cosmetic degradation of exposed

surfaces, components and equipment.

From page 24 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

 

So if they should be designed for it to not cause any problems and if it does Hitachi should have to resolve the issues.

[phil-b259]

Rick, any rebuilding of the route through Okehampton would be IN ADDITION to the coast route and would NOT replace it!!

 

My wife has a job that requires going to Plymouth on a regular basis. To leave home at 5.45am, pay significant prices for a ticket and then get to Bristol to find that your train is terminating at Exeter (because it doesn't like sea water on its roof) and that you will have to wait for the by now grossly overcrowded following Sprinter service is PATHETIC.

 

Re-opening to Tavistock is a blindingly good idea, given the appalling traffic into Plymouth and the stature and size of the town. More trains are beginning to run to Okehampton from Exeter and filling in the bit in the middle is frankly a no-brainer. The narrow analyses of the other benefits of a reopened Southern route that have been aired on this thread grossly underestimate its benefits - we have an exemplar in the re-opened Waverley route and just look what's happening there.

 

I quite accept that any reopening will be a politically driven decision and that NR won't be a driver, but for Christ's sake why do you feel the need to continually pour cold water on the idea?

 

What needs to happen is lobbying of all the relevant authorities, if the Politicians in the South West started talking sensibly about rail connectivity then it would be driven up the political agenda, I think a local Conservative MP (hallelujah) actually mentioned it in Parliament the other day.

 

On the other hand, I don't suppose endlessly taking the piss out of the idea on RMweb will make a blind bit of difference.

"Blindingly obvious" is not a verified measure of determining the viability of anything!

 

What one person may consider to be obvious is not necessarily shared by a another. For example I would say it is "blindingly obvious" that rebuilding the LSWR route is unaffordable.

 

Fortunately we don't rely on statements about what is "blindingly obvious" to inform Governmental spending - we use BCR calculations and real facts and figures. Those will determine whose position is the correct one.

 

Unfortunately those figures and resultant BCR for the LSWR are very poor - well below those obtained for the Waverly route and as such rebuilding the LSWR route is a non starter unless something radical changes - like a massive expansion of housing on route, or a serious change to how social benefits are calculated in the BCR formulas to change things.

 

Also if the issues with voyagers are so bad that something needs to be done - a fleet of new trains that do not suffer from salt water will come in way cheaper than reinstating the LSWR route - particularly as this then allows XC services in other parts of the country to be strengthen helping the BCR of such a proposal.

Edited November 21, 2016 by phil-b259

[ChrisJD]

 

If you look at they IEP specification they are specifically stated that they should be able to cope with salt water spray.

 

From page 24 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

 

So if they should be designed for it to not cause any problems and if it does Hitachi should have to resolve the issues.

 

 

I guess that Hitachi might argue that there is a difference between spray blowing over a vehicle and it having been engulfed by a breaking wave.

[bgman]

 

". More trains are beginning to run to Okehampton from Exeter and filling in the bit in the middle is frankly a no-brainer."

 .

That's a new one on me, there is only a service during the summer timetable and that is only on a Sunday. The only "train" to run from Exeter to Okehampton ( ending in Bude via Hatherleigh ) is from the front of the station in the form of a bus so far. Unless I've missed something coming through the station in the village ?

As for speaking to MP's ( Conservative or otherwise ) it all appears to fall on deaf ears sadly, despite local groups and individuals "lobbying them" to date.

[Not Jeremy]

Here we go.

 

I did not say it was "blindingly obvious" - I said it was a "blindingly good idea", which it manifestly is.

 

I completely agree with you that it is It is very far from "obvious", but beyond that I'm afraid the obscure and faux detailed piffle that you go on to entertain us with doesn't impress.

 

Your "real facts and figures" - I suppose they were the ones used to create the ongoing and disgraceful GW electrification disaster?

 

Perleassse…...

Edited November 21, 2016 by Not Jeremy

[The Stationmaster]

Rick, any rebuilding of the route through Okehampton would be IN ADDITION to the coast route and would NOT replace it!!

 

My wife has a job that requires going to Plymouth on a regular basis. To leave home at 5.45am, pay significant prices for a ticket and then get to Bristol to find that your train is terminating at Exeter (because it doesn't like sea water on its roof) and that you will have to wait for the by now grossly overcrowded following Sprinter service is PATHETIC.

 

Re-opening to Tavistock is a blindingly good idea, given the appalling traffic into Plymouth and the stature and size of the town. More trains are beginning to run to Okehampton from Exeter and filling in the bit in the middle is frankly a no-brainer. The narrow analyses of the other benefits of a reopened Southern route that have been aired on this thread grossly underestimate its benefits - we have an exemplar in the re-opened Waverley route and just look what's happening there.

 

I quite accept that any reopening will be a politically driven decision and that NR won't be a driver, but for Christ's sake why do you feel the need to continually pour cold water on the idea?

 

What needs to happen is lobbying of all the relevant authorities, if the Politicians in the South West started talking sensibly about rail connectivity then it would be driven up the political agenda, I think a local Conservative MP (hallelujah) actually mentioned it in Parliament the other day.

 

On the other hand, I don't suppose endlessly taking the piss out of the idea on RMweb will make a blind bit of difference.

 

I think the crux of the problem is the 'in addition to the coast route' bit because of the additional costs which would arise on a continuing basis (although the capital cost would no doubt be its own problem the way things are now going for NR).

 

I have no doubt that the long talked about Tavistock reopening (and I looked at signalling plan for it over 25 years ago) would make great sense but notwithstanding its very obvious benefits it still hasn't happened after nigh on 30 years of being talked about, examined, costs being estimated and so on.  Which leaves me wondering why it hasn't happened and I can but presume there is some sort of financial (lack of?) thing standing in the way of progress on the scheme.  At the other end of the route Okehampton seems to be very much a seasonal event and over a route which I believe its existing owners still seem to be keen to sell and on which they certainly don't go overboard on maintenance expense.   Again it suggests to me that if the present owners can't see it as a paying concern then nobody else could so it comes back to the costs/benefit of including it in, say, the Devon Metro idea for its operational support following some capital spending - back to money.

 

So with the two ends - one of which is know to make admirable sense - still scratching to properly get off the ground I remain to be convinced about the availability of the capital to reopen a through route (especially when money still has to be spent on the coastal route).  Going beyond that there then comes the availability of money to support ongoing operation of the route on a day-to-day basis where, generally the costs will far outweigh the revenue on virtually any part except, possibly, the Tavistock end.  Is Devon rich enough to support that as well as its metro plans for Torbay/Exeter etc?

 

That then leaves us to address the matter of diversions.  Effectively what we would be asking is for GWR,  Cross Country and DB Cargo, to fund a programme of maintaining route knowledge for the depots involved on a continuing basis - however that is done it will involve a considerable cost and one that will be borne by them.  I don't know how many Drivers would be involved, nor what working over frequency would be set as a norm so I don't know what the likely costs would be.  There is then the question of do you do the training/knowledge retention by retiming a couple of trains that way or do you hire in something for that purpose?  Either will involve additional costs and retiming an existing train that way will inevitably break diagrams so means either a reduction of the service via the coast or complete cancellation of existing trains because balances breakdown - yet more cost.  All of these are problems which could be solved in some way or another but what would be unavoidable is the continuing additional costs any solution would involve and who pays it.

 

So overall I remain sceptical about restoring a through route round the northern edge of the moor; I don't say that it is impossible to restore (although there is a potential problem at Tavistock) but it would be expensive with some major bridgework costs (not just Meldon), hefty formation costs and, to make it viable for diversions, some potentially horrendous signalling costs.  All of which comes before those costs of actually making sure it could be used for diversions by ensuring there are sufficient traincrews with route knowledge.  From a purely practical viewpoint in an increasingly cash strapped rail industry I simply can't see it happening.

[Re6/6]

Just for interest here are a couple of pieces from organizations that would know what they're talking about.

 

http://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1503-The-case-for-Okehampton

 

http://www.railengineer.uk/2016/04/22/after-borders-what-next/

 

RTM (Rail Technology Magazine) Dec 2014 "Coming in at a cost of £875m the former London & South Western Railway route from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton........." from the article : http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/further-study-of-new-route-via-okehampton-as-dawlish-alternative-rom 

 

l for one think that it should be done as a needed diversionary route, but equally important would be the regenerative impact on the places along the line. Just look at what's happened with the Borders Railway which was dismissed by many 'in power' as a waste of money that wouldn't pass the 'cost benefit analysis'. It looks like it was built in a 'minimalist' fashion which seems to have proved inadequate with reported train delays and giving calls for extending the short crossing loops. So the accountant and consultant 'experts' were proved totally wrong.

 

Sadly l have to agree with Mike that it is unlikely to happen. All the uncertainty that recent events have thrown up and wretched politicians of all colours who only seem to make short term decisions with little or no foresight because of their self/party interest. Everything that is announced seems to have been dressed up re-announcements like more money for this or that when in fact it would seem to be just re-instating what was cut previously.

 

Thank goodness that HS2 seems to still be happening but l'm not holding my breath on that one. It just wouldn't surprise me if l woke up one morning to hear bad news.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Re6/6

[Captain Kernow]

Wise words, John.

 

I'd really like to see the Okehampton to Bere Alston bit reopen, speaking as a railway enthusiast, who wouldn't?

 

However, based on various conversations I had with Devon people and especially those in GWR and the local Community Rail scene, I fear very much for Devon County Council's ability to push the Tavistock scheme much beyond the 'feasibility study', planning and talking stages. Devon is indeed very strapped for cash these days, as are so many local authorities, and even 'higher priority' schemes such as the new station at Marsh Barton have suffered delays. Devon are supposedly firmly in charge of pushing the Tavistock extension scheme forward now, not the DfT and certainly not NR. But they've also lost a significant number of experienced staff with knowledge of the rail industry, there have been job cuts and those that are left are generally having to try to run before they can walk with these projects, which is not something to engender confidence that the Tavistock scheme will happen anytime soon. Even as recently as earlier this year the 'delivery' of the scheme (notice that, by the way, I can still do corporate lingo if I put my mind to it), had been put back to 2021/22 time. Based on the initial projections, when the scheme was first mooted as a serious project with 'grown-up' interest, it should have already been open by now!

 

Simon's not actually correct in thinking that there are more trains to/from Okehampton these days. The Summer Sunday service (entirely funded by a cash-strapped Devon CC), has been pretty steady for a number of years now, and any other movements on or off the branch are purely in connection with Dartmoor Railway or the odd charter train.

 

One of the current local projects, that I still have a tenuous link to, is one that seeks to find some funding to upgrade the Barnstaple line further, by way of capitalising on track relaying already carried out and increasing line speeds, possibly extending a few platforms for longer trains and generally improving the 'train ride experience' and achieving shorter journey times to/from Exeter. There will soon be a survey of all people in North and Mid-Devon, asking what they want from their rail route. This is being coordinated by a 'steering group', which I am notionally still a part of and which I helped set up before retiring from NR.

 

The Barnstaple line has increased its useage from approx 200,000 journeys in 2001 to nearly 670,000 in 2015, and is expected to pass the 1 million mark in not many years time. Given the growing importance of the rail link to North Devon, I suspect that this, together with existing 'new station' projects will be the financial priority for Devon CC, and that the Tavistock extension project will slip further down the list.

 

I'm gratified to note the fact that IEPs are designed to be salt-water proof, but I do hope (as someone else pointed out), that they can also withstand a few large waves, besides a bit of spray.

 

All of which does not, in any way, excuse the on-going and utterly lamentable attitude of XC and the rolling stock company that leases them the Voyagers, to not have done more to improve their resistence to salt water in the 16+ years (I think?) since they've been in service.

[phil-b259]

All of which does not, in any way, excuse the on-going and utterly lamentable attitude of XC and the rolling stock company that leases them the Voyagers, to not have done more to improve their resistence to salt water in the 16+ years (I think?) since they've been in service.

You are making the rather sweeping assumption that it is possible to make the necessary engineering changes to the Voyagers in the first place.

 

As the whole "why don't they add a pantograph car to the Voyagers" debate shows, it is sometimes simply not possible to do things as the costs of making fundamental changes (e.g. re-wiring the entire train to accept the higher currents a pantograph car would generate) is simply too expensive to be justified.

 

So yes, while it may have been an error not to make the Voyagers salt water proof, it does not follow that it is a good idea to spend a fortune fixing them. Instead funds should be channels into expanding the XC fleet - say with some IEPs and allow the displaced Voyagers to be deployed away from the South West.

[Re6/6]

IIRC back when Virgin had the X/C franchise they stationed 'Thunderbird' 57s at Newton or Exeter for just this problem with Voyagers in bad weather. All credit to Virgin for that.

 

l have to agree with Tim about X/C's lamentable performance with their operation on the franchise. They are too parsimonious to spend money on hiring in a couple of rescue locos for when the forecast is for bad weather situations. They'd rather put the passengers on their trains (sometimes full and standing) through hell by cancelling services and leaving them to stuff themselves into an often well filled three car unit and at worse a two car 143. l have experienced this when an old reliable HST wasn't due.

 

As has been remarked, it's way too late to do any 'waterproofing work' now but that doesn't absolve them from their responsibilities to get people (who pay dearly) moving.

 

This is a thoroughly unacceptable way to run their services down here. They don't seem to give a damn unlike FGW/GWR who seem to be a little more customer focused.

[Captain Kernow]

You are making the rather sweeping assumption that it is possible to make the necessary engineering changes to the Voyagers in the first place.

 

As the whole "why don't they add a pantograph car to the Voyagers" debate shows, it is sometimes simply not possible to do things as the costs of making fundamental changes (e.g. re-wiring the entire train to accept the higher currents a pantograph car would generate) is simply too expensive to be justified.

 

So yes, while it may have been an error not to make the Voyagers salt water proof, it does not follow that it is a good idea to spend a fortune fixing them. Instead funds should be channels into expanding the XC fleet - say with some IEPs and allow the displaced Voyagers to be deployed away from the South West.

It may be a bit of an assumption, Phil, but it's also too tall an order, really, to completely replace all the Voyagers in the South West diagrams, so as to provide an uninterrupted service down here when there's bad weather at Dawlish.

 

Given the fleet life expectancy of the Voyagers (30 - 40 years?) and the fact that the salt water problem became known almost immediately following their introduction, I remain nonetheless disappointed that a fairly major modification wasn't even considered. They (Virgin, then XC and the leasing company) have farted around with computer re-sets, which doesn't ultimately make the units safe and robust to operate during storms, otherwise XC wouldn't cancel services when there's just 'heavy spray' (ie. the kind of conditions that doesn't affect other types of rolling stock and doesn't even warrant the sending of any NR staff to the area).

 

There has always been a marked reluctance on the part of Virgin/XC/the leasing company to spend any serious money solving this problem, and when you couple this with the eager willingness that XC display to start terminating trains short and cancelling services at the slightest sign of a problem (not just Dawlish), then you have the makings of a nightmare scenario for the poor old passengers.

 

There is a marked reluctance on the part of XC to mess around with diagrammed workings too much. When I worked in Western Region control, we had such a good level of flexibility with the HSTs, that we could step sets up and change diagrams around to suit emerging circumstances, fairly easily. These days there aren't sufficient 'spare resources' to do that (sets, train crews and probably control staff with sufficient time on their hands). I wouldn't denigrate the work of anyone who works in XC or any other Control office these days, though, but I'd firmly say 'rather them than me'.

 

Yes, that kind of thing was a lot easier in BR days!

[royaloak]

 

If you look at they IEP specification they are specifically stated that they should be able to cope with salt water spray.

 

From page 24 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

 

So if they should be designed for it to not cause any problems and if it does Hitachi should have to resolve the issues.

 

I do love the way they call it 'salt water spray' instead of several thousand gallons being dumped on the roof which is what actually happens.

[phil-b259]

It may be a bit of an assumption, Phil, but it's also too tall an order, really, to completely replace all the Voyagers in the South West diagrams, so as to provide an uninterrupted service down here when there's bad weather at Dawlish.

 

Given the fleet life expectancy of the Voyagers (30 - 40 years?) and the fact that the salt water problem became known almost immediately following their introduction, I remain nonetheless disappointed that a fairly major modification wasn't even considered. They (Virgin, then XC and the leasing company) have farted around with computer re-sets, which doesn't ultimately make the units safe and robust to operate during storms, otherwise XC wouldn't cancel services when there's just 'heavy spray' (ie. the kind of conditions that doesn't affect other types of rolling stock and doesn't even warrant the sending of any NR staff to the area).

 

There has always been a marked reluctance on the part of Virgin/XC/the leasing company to spend any serious money solving this problem, and when you couple this with the eager willingness that XC display to start terminating trains short and cancelling services at the slightest sign of a problem (not just Dawlish), then you have the makings of a nightmare scenario for the poor old passengers.

 

There is a marked reluctance on the part of XC to mess around with diagrammed workings too much. When I worked in Western Region control, we had such a good level of flexibility with the HSTs, that we could step sets up and change diagrams around to suit emerging circumstances, fairly easily. These days there aren't sufficient 'spare resources' to do that (sets, train crews and probably control staff with sufficient time on their hands). I wouldn't denigrate the work of anyone who works in XC or any other Control office these days, though, but I'd firmly say 'rather them than me'.

 

Yes, that kind of thing was a lot easier in BR days!

 

The point I was making is we know XC services suffer from significant overcrowding on many routes that don't go anywhere Dawlish. Buying ADDITIONAL new trains would solve the salt water issue AND go some way to addressing the complaints about chronic overcrowding on the core XC network by allowing the replaced Voyagers to strengthen services elsewhere.

 

However yes, if you are seeking to replace the Voyagers on a like for like basis, then yes I agree that replacement of the Voyagers is not a viable proposition for a good couple of decades or so yet.

[gismorail]

Anyone know what the sea has been like over the last 12hr showed some big waves hitting the south coast Devon area on the news .?

[PhilJ W]

Anyone know what the sea has been like over the last 12hr showed some big waves hitting the south coast Devon area on the news .?

Depends a lot on the wind direction. The winds were SW but as Dawlish faces SE it would not have received the full force of the storm.

[Oakydoke]

Video from the night of the 20th into the 21st has been posted on YouTube.

It's dark and there's rain and spray on the camera lense, so the video isn't terribly clear.

[Re6/6]

..........They don't seem to give a damn unlike FGW/GWR who seem to be a little more customer focused.

Are they not one of the TOCs who hasn't ordered any new trains during their franchise, unlike GW's new 800s?

Edited November 22, 2016 by Re6/6

[Captain Kernow]

Depends a lot on the wind direction. The winds were SW but as Dawlish faces SE it would not have received the full force of the storm.

Yes, you can get quite high winds from the SW or W, and it won't affect the Sea Wall or the operation of trains. Also depends on the time of high tide, the height of that tide, air pressure and also what we refer to as 'ocean dynamics'. These are the five factors that are used to determine the Sea Wall weather forecast, which is provided to NR every 12 hours, all throughout the year.

[Siberian Snooper]

The seawall is ok, but there are 7 washouts from Cowley bridge and north thereof. Lunchtime Spotlight news shows the Barnstaple line swinging in the breeze where the ballast has been washed out.

[Captain Kernow]

The seawall is ok, but there are 7 washouts from Cowley bridge and north thereof. Lunchtime Spotlight news shows the Barnstaple line swinging in the breeze where the ballast has been washed out.

That bit of flexible track was actually at Cowley Bridge Jct itself, and seems to be in 'the usual place'.