Barnstaple for Christmas?

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

How about putting the signalling cabinets on little mounds to keep them out of the water?

That would be a start.

Or on those 'steel grating' type structures supported by screw piles that they use on embankments or on the side of steep cuttings - already in use all over the place:

http://www.fliscrewpiles.co.uk/markets-railways-reb-and-loc-platforms.php 

As long as all the cable terminations were also made on the raised deck, the cable runs themselves could stay along the trackside - assuming they weren't going to float away of course...

Paul

[swrural]

I am sure we all agree that setting up a small group in a quiet room to look at all options is strongly advised?

Could one not only re-dual the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) to Yeovil (needed anyway for development at new town at Cranbrook and planned local service Exeter to Axminster) but upgrade Castle Cary to Yeovil as well and start running a decent Bristol to Weymouth (or reverse at Dorchester to Bournemouth, thus connecting directly the Region's two largest cities)?   

[paul7575]

Could one not only re-dual the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) to Yeovil (needed anyway for development at new town at Cranbrook and planned local service Exeter to Axminster)... 

It's not needed for Cranbrook though - the dwell time for the stop at the new station is already built in to the hourly service timetable. 

It's not needed for the currently planned local service to Axminster either - so it's all a bit chicken and egg isn't it.

So you are left with the business case for more redoubling being based solely on a diversionary requirement - which basically isn't going to stack up...

Paul

[swrural]

My business case was not based on diversion.  One should consider whether teh LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) route was not a better one all along.  :-)

In fact one is only re-instating what was there before and what is needed now if climate change and modal shift is to be addressed.

Yes I know about Taunton to Exeter being needed in any event (see viaduct suggestions at Cowley bridge by colleagues) but we also need a South Coast service from Plymouth to Ashford via Bournemouth.  We need connecting chords at Yeovil and Dorchester and something done at Brighton.  We need that west chord down the hill at Exeter.  Perhaps St Thomas could have a new role.  It's no worse a location than St Davids.  :-)     

The road people would bulldoze half of Britain with no more a 'business case' than theoretical time savings of motorists.

What about modal shift benefits and safety benefits of shift to rail?

My point has been there are various levels of action, strategic, tactical and operational.  The latter is about 'begging for buses', the middle one is about raising the track at Cowley Bridge somehow (I can't see how easily) and the first is the sort of blue sky stuff above.  All need attention and I suggest by different teams.

[paul7575]

... but we also need a South Coast service from Plymouth to Ashford via Bournemouth.  We need connecting chords at Yeovil and Dorchester and something done at Brighton.  We need that west chord down the hill at Exeter.

You seriously think so?  Can't think why.

Paul

[LiskeardRich]

How about putting the signalling cabinets on little mounds to keep them out of the water?

That would be a start.

I'm sure I've seen this done elsewhere, but cant think where to now.

[SandTEngineer]

How about putting the signalling cabinets on little mounds to keep them out of the water?

That would be a start.

I'm sure I've seen this done elsewhere, but cant think where to now.

This is standard practice on embankments and in deep cuttings and has been done in other areas due to flooding risk.  At Malton in Yorkshire the location cases are mounted high up (about 4 feet) on brick foundations.

[ellendune]

People keep talking about the river Exe flooding but if you look at the video for example this it is clear that the water in the river Exe (on the side of the Barnstaple line) is still below the tracks, it is the water from the tributary, that cannot get through the underbridge that is spilling over the tracks and into the river Exe, washing the ballast and the embankment out in the process. 

It seems to me therefore that it is possible that a modest enlargement of the span of the underbridge to increase the flow area might resolve the issue without the need to raise the track.

That is why I see it as a relatively simple task that does not requires a long closure of the line. 

If at other times the Exe has been the cause then further work would be necessary, but none of the photographs I have seen suggest this.  The work might include a modest raising of the line or a barrier wall along either side of both lines. 

Edited to correct spelling

[JayMac]

It seems to me therefore that it is possible that a modest enlargement of the span of the underbridge to increase the flow area might resolve the issue without the need to raise the track.

That is why I see it as a relatively simple task that does not requires a long closure of the line.  

You were however suggesting earlier in this thread raising the lines.

I'm more inclined to go with this later idea of yours. It may well indeed be easier (disclaimer: I'm not an engineer) to alter the course/improve the flow of the River Culm by concentrating the engineering solution on the river rather than the permanent (or rather semi permanent at the moment!) way.

That said, water has a nasty habit of taking the line of least resistance, so any alteration to the flow needs very careful consideration.

[Southern Stag]

There are paths and crews with route knowledge available now though, it just seems that NR^» (Network Rail - home page) haven't offered any paths for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) via Honiton.

I'd really like someone to quote an official source explaining exactly where all these spare paths are, I keep reading that a 2 tph service is possible, but I don't believe it.  (I've also read that SWT^▸ (South West Trains) won't allow it, because they are in charge of the alliance with NR - and I don't believe that either.)

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) if the normal SWT service is running, all that can be added is either an additional train in one direction each hour, or alternate directions in alternate hours.

A full 2 tph service is not possible west of Axminster - we know this already as the additional FGW additional Exeter - Axminster service (proposed in the new franchise ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender)) is constrained to be two hourly by infrastructure limitations.

Paul

I didn't suggest an hourly FGW service necessarily, although some people believe it to be possible. It may just about be if it ran fast. The Exeter-Axminster stopping services would be calling at all stations which may be a limiting factor. An FGW service every two hours is certainly possible, as 3tp2h was ran over the line on Weekends early in 2011.

[ellendune]

It seems to me therefore that it is possible that a modest enlargement of the span of the underbridge to increase the flow area might resolve the issue without the need to raise the track.

That is why I see it as a relatively simple task that does not requires a long closure of the line.  

You were however suggesting earlier in this thread raising the lines.

I'm more inclined to go with this later idea of yours. It may well indeed be easier (disclaimer: I'm not an engineer) to alter the course/improve the flow of the River Culm by concentrating the engineering solution on the river rather than the permanent (or rather semi permanent at the moment!) way.

That said, water has a nasty habit of taking the line of least resistance, so any alteration to the flow needs very careful consideration.

I have looked at more video and photographs.

Its the river Culm is it.  That's good to know.  I am very weary about altering or restricting the course of rivers for the very reason you say - that water has a nasty habit of taking the path of least resistance.  I fear that building the railway has restricted the course of the river buy putting it through a culvert that is too small.  What I am suggesting is replacing this with a much wider one to restore the capacity the river had before the railway was built. 

None of the photographs I have seen show the level in the river Exe above the railway, it has always come from the river Culm, so unless there is other evidence that the river Exe has flooded the railway there does not appear to be a need to raise the level of the railway. 

[swrural]

It's Barnsta- P- le please.   

Both the Exe and Culm are meanderings (see GE).  One would need the strategic study, for which I pleaded, before any long term decisions are made.  Stoke Canon is in the middle of the join between the rivers, and as I wrote when I commiserated with Super Guard (who hails from there) it is surprising how many very modern bungalows have been allowed to be built there (see SV) and take a wander around the village).  In similar vein, any proposal to divert or constrain water courses should be examined by experts from the EA (and NE and EH).

(SV is Street View, GE is Google Earth.  I suppose GM would be Google Maps but that is a homonymous acronym unfortunately.) 

[ellendune]

It's Barnsta- P- le please.   

Both the Exe and Culm are meanderings (see GE).  One would need the strategic study, for which I pleaded, before any long term decisions are made.  Stoke Canon is in the middle of the join between the rivers, and as I wrote when I commiserated with Super Guard (who hails from there) it is surprising how many very modern bungalows have been allowed to be built there (see SV) and take a wander around the village).  In similar vein, any proposal to divert or constrain water courses should be examined by experts from the EA (and NE and EH).

(SV is Street View, GE is Google Earth.  I suppose GM would be Google Maps but that is a homonymous acronym unfortunately.) 

Apologies late night spelling of Barnstaple - error corrected now. In my defence I got it right earlier this morning.

I am not proposing to constrain or divert a watercourse, but to unconstrain it.  Undoubtedly the Environment Agency EA would have to be involved, though 'daylighting' culverted rivers (opening them up) is considered good environmental and flood management policy these days.   The weir in the Exe seems to constrain where the two rivers join these days, though another flood span on could be inserted further upstream on both lines if the modelling showed it to be necessary.  A separate flood span would make little difference hydraulically, but would probably help keep disruption to a minimum.

[SandTEngineer]

The National Rail website now showing:
Exeter St Davids - Barnstaple
Trains between Exeter St Davids and Barnstaple are suspended. Road transport is in place but because of flooding on local roads may not serve all stations. This line will remain closed for the foreseeable future.

[TerminalJunkie]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) website now showing:
Exeter St Davids - Barnstaple
Trains between Exeter St Davids and Barnstaple are suspended. Road transport is in place but because of flooding on local roads may not serve all stations. This line will remain closed for the foreseeable future.

Where does it say this?

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/disruption says "The line is expected to be closed until at least 29th December", while http://www.journeycheck.com/firstgreatwestern/ says "Disruption is expected until 09:00 01/01".