Dawlish Diversion Route

[Kris]

Nice shot of Meldon recently uploaded to Flickr.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96859208@N07/13959436460/in/photostream/

That's a lovely photo.

[MarkAustin]

One point I would like to add is that any diversionary route would need to be at least as quick as the rail replacement buses between Plymouth and Exeter/Tiverton Parkway, otherwise it will a longer and bigger pain than it is already. The only saving grace it would save the transfer from train to bus and back.

 

SS

Actually, no. There's a great deal of evidence that ordinary passengers intensely dislike changing trains in general, and changing to a Rail Replacement Bus in particular, and will choose a longer and slower journey in order to avoid this.

 

Mark A

[MarkAustin]

The combined population of Dawlish and Teignmouth is 28,300, that of Tavistock and Okehampton, 18,400, so the difference isn't that huge and Tavistock is growing fast.

 

By comparison, two towns situated on the main line but (currently) without stations, Wellington and Cullompton, muster 38,000 between them but their residents have to travel to Tiverton Parkway or Taunton (comparable to the distance BETWEEN Dawlish and Teignmouth) if they wish to use rail services. 

 

If NR spend a billion or so on an inland bypass which shaves 10 or 15 minutes off the Exeter-Plymouth journey, the coast route will inevitably end up as a sprinter/pacer only branch outside the holiday season with, at best, half the expresses in the main summer period. If electrification ever came to pass, the exposed coastal route would become something of an embarrassment.    

 

Any of the bypass routes, with a higher line speed and in-cab signalling (though the existing line will get the latter eventually) permitting closer headways, would have more capacity than the existing line.  Rising sea level (even if it happens at only half the rate predicted) mean that NR will be forever chasing a moving target on the sea wall. The current political climate is fairly pro-railway but there is no guarantee that will last. The most likely result of a major sea wall outage in the future, would be that Dawlish and Teignmouth would get to share a nice new Parkway station on the inland route.

 

If I were a resident of either town, I'd be very wary what I wished for.

 

 

John

But, as has been pointed out before, unless we are prepared to abandon all the buildings at Dawlish at rail-level, the sea wall needs to be maintained by someone. If the railways stop using Dawlish, some-one, i.e. the County council will have to, and I think that were this to be proposed they'd have all sorts of reasons to keep the line open just to keep it off their books.

 

Mark A

[Ramblin Rich]

If the 'inland Dawlish/Teignmouth' route was adopted, there could be no station at Teignmouth itself as the route tunnels around the back of the town - Dawlish might be possible. I would think/hope that the current route would still be kept for local and stopping trains as the towns would definitely suffer from lack of a station, especially the commuter traffic to Exeter - the A379 is definitely not a fast road and the inland routes to join the A380 dual carriageway are also not the best. Trains beat the buses hands down for speed of journey to Exeter (I only wish there was a station nearer to where I live!).

[brianusa]

Resurrecting this topic for a bit, surely we're talking two different schemes here.  One; the return of a line from BA to Tavistock and Two; the rest to Exeter as a secondary route.  Or whatever you want to call it.  For some time now as we all know, some powers that be have pondered number One and number Two has cropped up due to Dawlish and whose verdict is supposed to be revealed this Summer, I believe.

 

Many pros and cons have been revealed herein as well as some wishful thinking.  The naysayers have made good points and are probably correct but Tavvy still has a terrible traffic problem all the way into Plymouth and eventually as the Cap'n foretells, that part may happen.  Then surely plugging the gap makes some sense; I know, Meldon................!

 

Brian

 

I am always amazed how many expats contribute to these forums from miles away!

[Gwiwer]

 

 

surely we're talking two different schemes here

 

Probably four different schemes all told.

 

1.  Extension of the existing service from Bere Alston back to Tavistock.  Currently I understand under active investigation with the parties concerned.  An all-new site will be required for the station at Tavistock as the former site lies beneath relatively recently-built council offices and in any case lacks decent car parking options.  The viaduct itself I believe is not considered a problem as it has been maintained as required through the years of closure.  

 

2.  Exeter (Cowley Bridge) - Coleford Junction on the current Barnstaple line may require re-doubling and resignalling to accommodate more trains; currently it sees only one per hour in each direction most of the time.

 

3.  Coleford Junction - Meldon is in private hands and would require repurchase as well as significant works to restore it as part of a through route.  Currently it carries the Dartmoor Railway's seasonal trains between Sampford Courtney and Meldon and the Devon-sponsored summer Sunday Exeter - Okehampton shuttles.  Both would have to cease in order to allow a full passenger service and regular freight operations.  To restore a daily passenger service to Okehampton would require significant works; to reinstate it as a secondary through route rather more works.

 

4.  Meldon - Tavistock.  Requires major works and re-purchase of lands from multiple owners and will require the closure of a popular footpath and National Cycle Route between Meldon and Lydford unless that can be diverted to one side of a reawakened railway as happened at Bitton on the Bristol Suburban Railway.  Very significant works required to Meldon Viaduct.

 

The Tavistock scheme may produce trains within a few years and should certainly bring benefits; to do so without affecting the Gunnislake service might be a challenge and there may be a need for double track over all or part of the route.  Regular Exeter - Okehampton services have already been looked into and as I understand it determined to be unviable as things are today.  Even the local buses, some of which speed along the A30 for the most part almost keeping pace with cars rather than dawdling through villages, are not always very busy.

[Captain Kernow]

1.  Extension of the existing service from Bere Alston back to Tavistock.  Currently I understand under active investigation with the parties concerned.  An all-new site will be required for the station at Tavistock as the former site lies beneath relatively recently-built council offices and in any case lacks decent car parking options.  The viaduct itself I believe is not considered a problem as it has been maintained as required through the years of closure.  

 

The new line, which is now officially a Devon County Council scheme, will terminate short of the viaducts, there are currently no plans to run over them (the whole matter of distance from the town centre has been extensively debated, but I believe that the business case only supports putting the station in the planned location).

 

2.  Exeter (Cowley Bridge) - Coleford Junction on the current Barnstaple line may require re-doubling and resignalling to accommodate more trains; currently it sees only one per hour in each direction most of the time.

 

Yes, but this would only really be considered in the event of the Okehampton line becoming a through route again. Timetable studies proved that you could fit an Okehampton service in with the Barnstaple services, certainly at the level proposed by Devon & Cornwall Railways a few years ago, before it got dropped.

 

3.  Coleford Junction - Meldon is in private hands and would require repurchase as well as significant works to restore it as part of a through route.  Currently it carries the Dartmoor Railway's seasonal trains between Sampford Courtney and Meldon and the Devon-sponsored summer Sunday Exeter - Okehampton shuttles.  Both would have to cease in order to allow a full passenger service and regular freight operations.  To restore a daily passenger service to Okehampton would require significant works; to reinstate it as a secondary through route rather more works.

 

As far as I know, the line from Meldon to Coleford Jct is still up for sale by Aggregate Industries. The original price tag, including the quarry (but bizarrely, not the quarrying rights) about 3 years ago, was £5m. It's interesting that the media never picked up on this during the recent Dawlish problems.

 

4.  Meldon - Tavistock.  Requires major works and re-purchase of lands from multiple owners and will require the closure of a popular footpath and National Cycle Route between Meldon and Lydford unless that can be diverted to one side of a reawakened railway as happened at Bitton on the Bristol Suburban Railway.  Very significant works required to Meldon Viaduct.

 

Yes, we've mentioned the work required on Meldon Viaduct a few times, and it is indeed understood to be considerable. Don't forget that Tavy Viaduct at the other end also needs work, if it is to carry heavier trains at higher speeds.

 

The Tavistock scheme may produce trains within a few years and should certainly bring benefits; to do so without affecting the Gunnislake service might be a challenge and there may be a need for double track over all or part of the route. 

 Ah, if you mean St Budeaux to Bere Alston, there is a cunning plan that avoids the need for this....

[Glorious NSE]

We like cunning plans...

 

[roundhouse]

2 x class 153's splitting at Bere Alston??

[Gwiwer]

 

 

 if you mean St Budeaux to Bere Alston, there is a cunning plan that avoids the need for this....

 

Thank you Baldrick!  

 

I'm not party to the Devon CC scheme for a Tavistock railway beyond what is in the public domain via this and a few other sites.  My understanding is that an hourly service is thought to be the desirable minimum.  Factor in the continued operation of the Gunnislake branch and at the least an additional platform face at Bere Alston to act as a crossing loop would be required.

 

If a better-than-hourly service became justified on the basis of demand then dynamic (i.e. long) loops may be required in addition.

 

To re-open the entire route as a viable secondary option and to offer at least an hourly path for a full-length long-distance train on top of an hourly Tavistock service would require a very cunning plan indeed if more substantial stretches of double track were not provided.

 

I am reminded of the critical pressure under which the former LSWR main line finds itself west of Salisbury and which has had additional loops effectively redoubling by stealth over some lengths to cope with the increased and increasing demand and now once again an hourly service each way.  

 

It might be pasty-in-the-sky or it might be a long-term aim but if those services could eventually be taken farther west via Okehampton and Tavistock to Plymouth ......... but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime I'm afraid.

[Captain Kernow]

The cunning plan is only in connection with the reopening to Tavistock, not right through to Meldon!

[NXEA!]

The cunning plan is only in connection with the reopening to Tavistock, not right through to Meldon!

Cap'n I appreciate there might be a need for confidentiality, but if there isn't, is there any chance you could hint/or reveal at what that might be? IIRC Kilbride's original proposal was for a 2-hourly Tavistock service with a 2-hourly Gunnislake service continuing, although to be honest 2-hourly is a bit naff. Is this the case still?

[brianusa]

As in many recent rail replacement projects, passing sidings or even wholes stretches of track have been necessary.  With regard to all or part of this particular line there is space already at existing stations for passing sidings, even the economy kind as at Penryn.  It may cost a mil or two but look what it did for the Falmouth branch!

 

Brian.

[Captain Kernow]

Gents - the business case will only support what it supports. The operational details haven't been finalised yet, so I really can't make the details known just yet, sorry.

[Gwiwer]

Appreciate that Cap'n.  IT will be a joy to see trains back in Tavistock again for starters.  Let's hope the "business case" isn't one of the shoot-in-the-foot variety which prevents enhancements later due to short-term cost savings.

[NXEA!]

Gents - the business case will only support what it supports. The operational details haven't been finalised yet, so I really can't make the details known just yet, sorry.

Thanks anyway Cap'n! I was looking through the Kilbride document and to be honest I think the timetable could be a lot more ambitious. Kilbride reckon a 153 can do Tavistock-Plymouth in 27 minutes each way with a stop at Bere Alston, with the Gunnislake picking up the intermediate stops.

 

I came up with this little mock-up timetable. I reckon you can timetable it so Tavistock runs hourly and Gunnislake 2-hourly with trains crossing between St Budeaux Junction and Plymouth. Doesn't take into account interaction with mainline services, connections or the current signalling mind you, but more what you could achieve on the line without any proper infrastructure enhancements such as passing loops.

 

To Plymouth:

 

xx.18 Tavistock

xx.27 Bere Alston

xx.40 St Budeaux Junction (Pass)

xx.45 Plymouth

 

xx.11 Gunnislake

xx.22 Calstock

xx.29 Bere Alston a.

xx.31 Bere Alston d.

xx.36 Bere Ferrers

xx.44 St Budeaux Victoria Road

xx.46 St Budeaux Junction (pass)

xx.47 Keyham

xx.49 Dockyard

xx.51 Devonport

xx.55 Plymouth

 

From Plymouth:

 

xx.48 Plymouth

xx.53 St Budeaux Junction (pass)

xx.06 Bere Alston

xx.15 Tavistock

 

xx.58 Plymouth

xx.02 Devonport

xx.04 Dockyard

xx.06 Keyham

xx.07 St Budeaux Junction (pass)

xx.09 St Budeaux Victoria Road

xx.17 Bere Ferrers

xx.22 Bere Alston a.

xx.25 Bere Alston d.

xx.32 Calstock

xx.43 Gunnislake

 

Obvious flaws are turn around times are tight at Plymouth/Tavistock/Bere Alston and the fact that the Gunnislake unit lays over for half an hour in Gunnislake instead of Plymouth, but apart from that I think there's potential to give Tavistock a better frequency post-opening if a little bit of imagination was applied.

[Fat Controller]

Could the loop serving MoD Ernesettle be made fit for passenger traffic?

[roundhouse]

I would much rather see the island platform at Bere Alston along with a replica concrete fottbridge plus the loop platform so it starts to look more like it did pre closure.

 

Ok I will stop dreaming now

[Not Captain Kernow]

It is not just the track that counts as proper infrastructure enhancements, the signalling for that timetable would be very costly!

[Captain Kernow]

There are other bodies involved in the specification for the train service, including DCC, FGW and the DfT...

[NXEA!]

Fair enough! I'm not knowledgable with the cost of infrastructure side of things so I was sort of thinking out loud. Shame that 2-hourly is all that can be done for the cost that Kilbride want to expend, but its better than no train service at all mind you! Just a thought - could Kilbride and Network Rail open the line with 2-hourly timetable initially and then apply for EU funding for infrastructure enhancements under the 'Assisted Area' umbrella? 

[TheSignalEngineer]

Obvious flaws are turn around times are tight at Plymouth/Tavistock/Bere Alston and the fact that the Gunnislake unit lays over for half an hour in Gunnislake instead of Plymouth, but apart from that I think there's potential to give Tavistock a better frequency post-opening if a little bit of imagination was applied.

 

It is not just the track that counts as proper infrastructure enhancements, the signalling for that timetable would be very costly!

 

Without providing loops or lots signals for consecutive trains in the same direction that service is about 25 minutes per hour too great between St Budeaux Jn and Bere Alston. Two minutes delay to the Tavistock train at 8am and you are stuffed for the rest of the day

 

Many years ago when planning PTE/CC service enhancements around the country we were advised that for a robust service

1) don't plan to occupy a single line section, especially with station stops, for more than about 40 minutes per hour - we stretched it to 52 minutes at peak times on one scheme and that was a bit dodgy for reliability,

2) allow a total of 12 minutes for the two turnbacks at the ends of a trip with 3 minutes each for any intermediate reversals.

[brianusa]

It would seem from all this discussion that we have solved the whole thing!  All it needs now is for the Cap'n and his merry men to descend on the line and work wonders!!  NR should be thanking us all for solving their problem!!!

 

Brian

[Siberian Snooper]

I've just seen on Spotlight news, what appears to be a softening up process for no action in any form of alternative to the current seawall route, the West/Mid Devon and the Teign Valley are pretty much ruled out and new routes around Dawlish are probably to dear to implement.

 

SS

[Ramblin Rich]

BBC website version http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28127840

(Sorry, using tablet so can't link properly)

Not stating who the 'sources' are though, so no one's owning up to killing this off....!

 

Edit- clever software formed the link anyway