Washout at Dawlish

[Gary H]

Getting fed up of some of the "comments" on here now by uninformed people.

The coastal line IS to be repaired.

ONE DAY an inland route WILL have to be built and surprisingly, nobody has mentioned electrification. YES it WILL take time to work out a route by then all train/staff requirements would be filled what with IEP/cascades etc.

Comments about customer numbers have been largely wrong as anybody catching the current TT unit from PLY at around 1415 will tell you.....

Both Cornwall and Devon numbers are amongst the fastest growing in the country so any talk of single line or closure is @~#% !!

There are plans to dual the last bit of A30 through Bodmin Moor. AND Long Rock depot is planned to see MORE work even BEFORE IEP....... .

 

For those who don't follow my posts, I am resident in Kernow and rail user andFGW employee with some responsibility !!

Yep, nail-on-head Paul.

Passenger numbers down here are certainly increasing year-on-year for all the doubters on this thread!

There is hardly enough rolling stock to carry them as it is!

[deltic17]

 

 

But what would an extra sea defence further out do the beach and therefore the tourist trade? It is incredible how much a small change, such as extending a pier a few extra metres out to sea, can have on the shoreline. A sandy beach can disappear over a few years, if the measures are not carefully thought out. That wouldn't help the local economy for sure.

=======================================================================================================

 

That crossed my mind too - the beaches around Dawlish are not the biggest in terms of amount of sand available from what I recall - so they can't build a wall too far out otherwise the beaches will virtually disappear which would make it pointless going to the seaside there in any case.

 

I'm no structural engineer for sure but maybe a 2nd (outer) wall would give much more strength and not have to be built to far out to spoil the current lovely seawall effect.

 

Having said all that I'm sure NR will just fix the current situation and leave it at that!

[RJS1977]

Didn't he need somewhere level-ish for the atmospheric?

No, quite the opposite - the reason Dainton and Rattery Banks are so steep is because Brunel never anticipated that they would be operated by locomotives!

[Gruffalo]

I can't see anything but the seaward route being rebuilt. Residents get all wibbly-wobbly when the news of a railway scheme near them gets going.

 

"What'll it do to the value of my holiday home", etc, etc.

 

Putting a block ship in, and scuttling it, is a non-starter. Firstly, the view. "We can't possibly have that! What'll it do to the value of my holiday home?" Etc, etc. Then there's the ecological survey. It'll cost hundreds of thousands to find there's a rare sea urchin living just off the mean low tide level, so no-go. Finally, the mechanical properties of the scuttled vessel. How long will it last? Will parts from the vessel be washed up on the beach? Will the rock strata underneath the wreck sustain the mechanical properties of the vessel?

 

My deepest respects to the engineers involved on this. I reckon there's over a years total work on this project, Getting the track back in is relatively simple. It's the long term repairs that will take the time, especially as the damage extends landward, past the boundary fence.

 

Ian

Ian I made the scuttling suggestion knowing that this was never a long term solution, simply a stop-gap to provide a bit of a breakwater to protect the weakened section AND I assumed it would be relatively easy to remove - lets face it, the Mary Rose was safely lifted after resting on the seabed for 400 years. There is a weakened section of some 80 meters to protect and this would also protect the engineers who are tasked with getting it working again. Community survival surely would count more than a rare and as yet undiscovered sea urchin - which was probably dredged up by inshore fishermen anyways.

[Re6/6]

I bet it made a bang when it went!

Just 60 feet of that track is just over 10 tons!

Indeed it did Gary!

[Andy Y]

If this railway is so vital then we should fix it in days, not weeks (this was done back in the 50's).

 

I'd suggest we leave the civil engineering to the experts.

 

I'd dearly love this topic to be kept sensible and not be a breeding ground for fatuous comments about the value of Cornwall and its transport links to the rest of the nation and vice versa.

[Adrian Wintle]

Ian I made the scuttling suggestion knowing that this was never a long term solution, simply a stop-gap to provide a bit of a breakwater to protect the weakened section AND I assumed it would be relatively easy to remove - lets face it, the Mary Rose was safely lifted after resting on the seabed for 400 years. There is a weakened section of some 80 meters to protect and this would also protect the engineers who are tasked with getting it working again. Community survival surely would count more than a rare and as yet undiscovered sea urchin - which was probably dredged up by inshore fishermen anyways.

 

The main issues that I can think of off the top of my head are :

 

1. Keeping the scuttled ship stable in the first place

2. Keeping it intact enough to be removed when required

3. Possibility of enviromental damage when the bottom tanks break open

4. Possibility of dangerous/damaging surge between the hulk and the seawall

5. Possibility of scour around the hulk causing an adverse effect on the seawall foundations.

 

Adrian

Edited February 6, 2014 by Adrian Wintle

[Cornish Triang Paul]

Ditto post 293 !

[MarkC]

I notice from some of the photos of the beach at low water that there are some groynes exposed. Now, have they been maintained in recent years, or has an edict been issued by the EA/EU to let them break up? Just curious, as they don't appear to be very substantial compared with some I've seen elsewhere.

[RJS1977]

 

 

I can't afford to travel by train in my area because the fares are so high. My son commutes from here (Three Bridges) to London which costs him over £4000 annually (more than £5000 before tax) consequently he can't afford to buy a house.

 

 

By my reckoning, Three Bridges to Victoria is 68.75 miles return or thereabouts.

As there are 365 days in a year, less 104 Saturdays & Sundays, eight bank holidays and say 25 days' leave, that means he's travelling about 15000 miles a year (or slightly over halfway round the world!). So £4000kpa works out at around 25p a mile.

 

I believe the RAC currently estimates the cost of motoring at over 50p/mile (obviously dependent on vehicle) by the time wear and tear, depreciation etc have kicked in - some of my my colleagues get 45p/mile motor expenses and complain it's not enough! So I'd say he's getting pretty good value....

 

(And FWIW I live within walking distance of my office and can't afford a house either!).

 

Sorry to go Off-Topic.

[deltic17]

Par to Newquay off-season is hardly comparable to Paignton  >> NA  >> Exeter locals, let alone the procession of Inter City services that (normally) use the line

 

Whilst on holiday at Dawlish Warren in summer 2012 we used the train a lot and it was excellent - the only problem I experienced from Paignton/Torquay/NewtonAbbot/Teignmouth/Dawlish/Exeter/Exmouth was that the trains were so popular that it was virtually impossible to find a seat at all. Mainly 2 car class 142's and the odd 4 car but they simply needed more trains the demand was so high and that was exactly what a Guard on one of the trains told me. Fares were very reasonable too as someone else pointed out above. Fingers crossed they can get the railway back together ASAP to help the SW region and hopefully they can expand the service too. For me it is an iconic stretch of mainline.

[skipepsi]

I notice from some of the photos of the beach at low water that there are some groynes exposed. Now, have they been maintained in recent years, or has an edict been issued by the EA/EU to let them break up? Just curious, as they don't appear to be very substantial compared with some I've seen elsewhere.

I think they are from an earlier time and supposedly the beach has lost a lot of sand in the last few years someone mentioned a depth of 12 foot

[robmcg]

 

 

 

But what would an extra sea defence further out do the beach and therefore the tourist trade? It is incredible how much a small change, such as extending a pier a few extra metres out to sea, can have on the shoreline. A sandy beach can disappear over a few years, if the measures are not carefully thought out. That wouldn't help the local economy for sure.

=======================================================================================================

 

That crossed my mind too - the beaches around Dawlish are not the biggest in terms of amount of sand available from what I recall - so they can't build a wall too far out otherwise the beaches will virtually disappear which would make it pointless going to the seaside there in any case.

 

I'm no structural engineer for sure but maybe a 2nd (outer) wall would give much more strength and not have to be built to far out to spoil the current lovely seawall effect.

 

Having said all that I'm sure NR will just fix the current situation and leave it at that!

 

 

The long-term beach attraction for the tourist trade would have to go with and beyond the landscaped boulders/landfill, somewhat further out than the railway and houses, but this is for the residents to approve.  In the short term it will be boulder and fill anyway, to re-instate the railway.

 

The groynes used may have worked in the past, they are almost certainly inadequate, and as Andy says, it's a job for the engineers. The probability is more and worse storms and king tides so conventional groynes with existing shorelines are not a very much of a solution on their own, it would have to be a full and complex and quite 'landscape-changing' thing, in my (speculative) thinking.

[Coombe Barton]

Dawlish Groynes and Riprap and erosion pix

 

• http://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/33496
• http://www.exetercameraclub.co.uk/photo_10306335.html
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Dawlish-Warren/8DLW-Granite-Larvikite-m.jpg
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Teignmouth/10TGM-Breccia-Beach-Teignmouth-Town-m.jpg
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Dawlish-Permian/13DP-Holcombe-Seaward-Tunnel-Hawtin-m.jpg
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Dawlish-Warren/8DLW-Cliff-Fall-Dawlish-2007-m.jpg
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Teignmouth/10TGM-Dawlish-Broad-Gauge-mod-m.jpg
• http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Dawlish-Warren/10DLW-Dawlish-Marine-Parade-Splash-m.jpg
• from http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Teignmouth-Dawlish

[Coombe Barton]

I think they are from an earlier time and supposedly the beach has lost a lot of sand in the last few years someone mentioned a depth of 12 foot

See the image I've posted above for other commentary

 

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg-Teignmouth/10TGM-Dawlish-Broad-Gauge-mod-m.jpg

[Gary H]

By my reckoning, Three Bridges to Victoria is 68.75 miles return or thereabouts.

As there are 365 days in a year, less 104 Saturdays & Sundays, eight bank holidays and say 25 days' leave, that means he's travelling about 15000 miles a year (or slightly over halfway round the world!). So £4000kpa works out at around 25p a mile.

 

I believe the RAC currently estimates the cost of motoring at over 50p/mile (obviously dependent on vehicle) by the time wear and tear, depreciation etc have kicked in - some of my my colleagues get 45p/mile motor expenses and complain it's not enough! So I'd say he's getting pretty good value....

 

(And FWIW I live within walking distance of my office and can't afford a house either!).

 

Sorry to go Off-Topic.

This is quite correct.

I was listening to a piece on TV a few weeks ago when the fair increases were announced. It was proved very obviously that one particular commuters 5 grand a year season ticket worked out cheaper than taking the car to work and its not hard to see how that is!

[Coombe Barton]

And apparently they're going to repair the groynes at the Warren

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/147932.aspx

Edited February 6, 2014 by Coombe Barton

[Talltim]

The main line ain't exactly busy. I do question whether it might be worth rebuilding the Dawlish bit as single track.

 

Ed

 

Please refer to the second sentence of my original post.

Surely the sea wall is the expensive bit? Single it and you would still need the sea wall Edited February 7, 2014 by Talltim

[MarkC]

I think they are from an earlier time and supposedly the beach has lost a lot of sand in the last few years someone mentioned a depth of 12 foot

Well that won't have helped in getting the waves breaking further out. It does seem to me that there are many small things which have all come together at once to cause this problem.

[deltic17]

Having read some of the sentiment and speculation here (apologies if already suggested) I think the most likely result will be, and should be, a large, that is, huge amount of rocks and fill deposited on the seaward side of the existing railway, completely transforming the existing appearance, so that the sea defence is perhaps 50 metres out.

 

Rebuilding the line a bit higher, and a bit better, and of course re-instating the viability of the many houses involved.

 

We do similar here in NZ with king tide/storm damage, it's rather less pretty than seaside boulevard stone walls but is the only thing that will work in a sensible cost way.

 

Whilst the above comments are probably well meant from NZ, anyone closer to the action will know you can't just build out into the sandy beach as that would remove the bucket and spade summer holiday brigade from attending the seaside at Dawlish (ie much of the tourist trade).

Also rebuilding the line a bit higher? whilst I understand what you are saying that isn't too practical as the line would have to drop down to head under the tunnel at the west end of Dawlish.

[MarkC]

And apparently they're going to repair the groynes at the Warren

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/147932.aspx

[Gruffalo]

The main issues that I can think of off the top of my head are :

 

1. Keeping the scuttled ship stable in the first place

2. Keeping it intact enough to be removed when required

3. Possibility of enviromental damage when the bottom tanks break open

4. Possibility of dangerous/damaging surge between the hulk and the seawall

5. Possibility of scour around the hulk causing an adverse effect on the seawall foundations.

 

Adrian

Adrian, clearly you and others disagree with the suggestion and that is fine. A little more thought did go into my initial post and I answer your points in what I hope is a constructive and not aggressive manner thus:

re Point 1 - anchor chains stretching out to seaward only have to resolve the issue for a relatively short time.

And Point 2 - Yes, it would be better if it didn't break up in situ I agree but it is worth a try. The container ship that went aground near Bridport a year or two back was as exposed as this location and that stayed relatively intact through a winter IIRC.

Then Point 3 - When I initially made it, I suggested that a ship that was about to be broken up was used - there are a few in the Tees area at the moment I believe that are already clean and gas-free (no oil residues remaining). NR need say 6-8 weeks, this would buy that long. 

Point 4 - yes, but unlikely to exceed the danger from the present situation.

Point 5 - yes, that is possible but already scour seems to have removed a lot of the beach and seawall foundations and the rest of these foundations need some help ASAP to avoid that extending.

 

We all want something that allows a speedy restoration and THEN a real solution.

[robmcg]

>>well meant from NZ, anyone closer to the action will know you can't just build out into the sandy beach as that would remove the bucket and spade summer holiday brigade from attending the seaside at Dawlish (ie much of the tourist trade).<<

 

As I said, it is for the residents to judge how it is done. My comments from NZ are only because we have similar erosion/storm issues.  We have recently had a washout not quite as bad in Wellington, a major 2-track electrified line, and I would not for a moment suggest that what fixed that would be the best for Dawlish.

 

 

Yes you are right, higher would be a couple of feet ...  not overly important compared to the sea defence.

 

As to boulders-on-sand, of course it is not as simple as that, as any sea-defence civil engineer will say.

 

The tourist trade might want nice sandy beaches to walk, that is not incompatible with landscaped boulder and wall defences.  It would require a mind-shift about how Dawlish looks, perhaps.

[MarkC]

Gruffalo, I suspect you're thinking of the so-called 'ghost ships' at Tees - they're long gone now.

[Coombe Barton]

From the references I've posted it seems that the longshore drift is to the north and East at the Warren end, and to the south at the Teignmouth end of this bit of coast. So there's a bit of a vacuum when it comes to the source of the sand that's drifting somewhere in the middle. But sand comes and goes. At Westward Ho! a few years back they woke up one morning to lovely shiny mud where they're lovely sandy beach used to be. It came back.

 

The source of the sand at Dawlish is the cliffs, but people are now trying to prevent their erosion. Someone's going to lose here, they all can't win.