Dawlish closures - November 2018

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Not forgetting of course that a mackerel only has to sneeze for CrossCountry to stop their Voyager services running along the sea wall.

[RichardB]

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) need to look at the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 1935 plan for an inland route. As I see it from Google maps a line could be constructed from a location near Powderham Castle and Estate to rejoin the current line to the east of the Devon Expressway for the run into Newton Abbot. From the satellite image such a route would mainly be through agricultural land. The current route would be retained for local services and Summer Saturdays holiday traffic and if weather closes the line in future local services could still be run Exeter - Dawlish Warren and Newton Abbot - Teignmouth with RRB^▸ (Rail Replacement Bus) between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.

The issue is that the Dawlish route is fine 95% or so of the year and it would be terrible if services not calling at the intermediate stations were routed inland via a new route while it is still possible to run via the sea wall.  There is a thought that an inland route would be quicker - which it would - but how much time can you realistically save on a journey that currently takes 17 mins (EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) - NTA^» (Newton Abbott - next trains))?  Three minutes?

If you don't use the inland route all the time, it becomes a very expensive insurance policy with not much purpose when Dawlish is OK except to create more capacity for freight.

For me, we need a funded long term solution for Dawlish keeping it the main line for as long as possible (which could be 100 years or more) while also providing an additional diversionary route for as much of the traffic as possible when Dawlish can't be used.  This additional route needs to have its own year-round useful traffic.  That points to Okehampton, a valuable route in its own right and providing a second route for Plymouth and Cornwall.  The first bit of what I have written above is of course NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s strategy - the second bit of course isn't.

[broadgage]

After giving the matter some thought, another possibility occurs to me.

What about moving the rail line offshore on a solid sea wall or harbour wall. To avoid the creation of a stagnant landlocked lagoon, provide culverts under this structure and install water turbines to generate electricity from tidal flows.

This would provide a sheltered bay, ideal for leisure activities and protected against storm driven waves.
The existing sea wall though still required to protect sea front property, would be much less liable to damage.
The electricity produced though not paying the whole costs of the structure would partly offset these costs.

This sea wall could carry a double rail track, and a public footway for sightseeing and angling.

[JayMac]

The issue is that the Dawlish route is fine 95% or so of the year and it would be terrible if services not calling at the intermediate stations were routed inland via a new route while it is still possible to run via the sea wall.  There is a thought that an inland route would be quicker - which it would - but how much time can you realistically save on a journey that currently takes 17 mins (EXD^» (Exeter St Davids - next trains) - NTA^» (Newton Abbott - next trains))?  Three minutes?

If you don't use the inland route all the time, it becomes a very expensive insurance policy with not much purpose when Dawlish is OK except to create more capacity for freight.

For me, we need a funded long term solution for Dawlish keeping it the main line for as long as possible (which could be 100 years or more) while also providing an additional diversionary route for as much of the traffic as possible when Dawlish can't be used.  This additional route needs to have its own year-round useful traffic.  That points to Okehampton, a valuable route in its own right and providing a second route for Plymouth and Cornwall.  The first bit of what I have written above is of course NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s strategy - the second bit of course isn't.

That maybe okay for someone like yourself living in the far west.

Would you feel the same, if you lived in Torbay, having to use rail replacement buses, or not being able to travel at all because alternative transport isn't available, whenever the sea wall route is disrupted?

Bear in mind just how poorly planned and implemented the rail replacement bus service is currently in Bristol. And that's in a large city, and where the disruption was long term planned for.

[RichardB]

That maybe okay for someone like yourself living in the far west.

Would you feel the same, if you lived in Torbay, having to use rail replacement buses, or not being able to travel at all because alternative transport isn't available, whenever the sea wall route is disrupted?

Bear in mind just how poorly planned and implemented the rail replacement bus service is currently in Bristol. And that's in a large city, and where the disruption was long term planned for.

Obviously I can't say, because I don't live in Torbay.  However I can't imagine people there would want trains diverted away from the sea wall route when things are running normally and the line is available for traffic (as it is 95% or so of the time). 

[JayMac]

A DAL wouldn't divert trains away from Torbay. They'd still call at Newton Abbot then on to Torquay and Paignton.

The DAL would be used for long distance services from London and the North, keeping the same calling patterns as they do now. Local services and the handful of semi-fasts that call at Dawlish and Teignmouth would continue to use a rationalised sea wall route. Those locals and semi-fasts could use the DAL too in times of sea wall disruption, keeping the timetable largely unaffected, save for Dawlish and Teignmouth.

In times of disruption along the sea wall it is then only Dawlish that has to be provided with alternative transport. Teignmouth can be served by a shuttle from Newton Abbot.

No need then for long distance services to reverse at Exeter, go on a long detour across north and west Devon, then reverse again at Plymouth to continue to Cornwall. 40+ minutes added to the journey. With a DAL, Plymouth and Cornwall get a modest journey time improvement, along with the resilience a new line to modern standards, between Exeter and Newton Abbot, would bring.

The GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) knew what they were doing in the late 1930s.But for Adolf's intervention we wouldn't be having this debate today.

[RichardB]

"The DAL would be used for long distance services from London and the North, keeping the same calling patterns as they do now."

"No need then for long distance services to reverse at Exeter, go on a long detour across north and west Devon, then reverse again at Plymouth to continue to Cornwall. 40+ minutes added to the journey."

I've picked out a couple of bits from your last post.  I think there would be a very big  outcry once people realised that a DAL would mean the end of their main line trains running via the sea wall whatever the conditions at Dawlish.  I don't think it has registered yet that this is what a DAL would mean.

Okehampton wouldn't be much of a journey time penalty.  Even NR^» (Network Rail - home page) in their 2014 report said that they estimated a non-stop Voyager would be able to do Plymouth - Exeter via Okehampton in 53 mins, only 4 mins longer than the time via Dawlish.  With multiple unit trains, the time for the train crew to change ends at Exeter and Plymouth wouldn't be much more than current station dwell times. 

BNM, you and I are pretty much both sides of the additional route discussion.

[JayMac]

I think there would be a very big  outcry once people realised that a DAL would mean the end of their main line trains running via the sea wall whatever the conditions at Dawlish. 

Why? The view? Half the passenger aboard look at cliffs. And I'm sure folk would rather they had a train to their destination all the time, rather than a nice view in fair weather, and a bus during disruption. The vast majority of passengers are travelling for a reason other than the view out the window.

Once again, I'll reiterate, I'm not against the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) reopening to provide rail services to parts of North and West Devon. I'm just against promoting it as a diversionary route.

I'm somewhat surprised that the rose tinted brigade seem happy to sacrifice rail access for upwards of 400,000 people during disruption just so they can once again trundle serenely around the northern edge of Dartmoor.

[RichardB]

I think there would be a very big  outcry once people realised that a DAL would mean the end of their main line trains running via the sea wall whatever the conditions at Dawlish. 

Why? The view? Half the passenger aboard look at cliffs. And I'm sure folk would rather they had a train to their destination all the time, rather than a nice view in fair weather, and a bus during disruption. The vast majority of passengers are travelling for a reason other than the view out the window.

Once again, I'll reiterate, I'm not against the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) reopening to provide rail services to parts of North and West Devon. I'm just against promoting it as a diversionary route.

I'm somewhat surprised that the rose tinted brigade seem happy to sacrifice rail access for upwards of 400,000 people during disruption just so they can once again trundle serenely around the northern edge of Dartmoor.

Actually, yes, the view.  As I said, there would be an outcry.  And no, it wouldn't be a trundle. 

 

[REVUpminster]

That maybe okay for someone like yourself living in the far west.

Would you feel the same, if you lived in Torbay, having to use rail replacement buses, or not being able to travel at all because alternative transport isn't available, whenever the sea wall route is disrupted?

Bear in mind just how poorly planned and implemented the rail replacement bus service is currently in Bristol. And that's in a large city, and where the disruption was long term planned for.

Obviously I can't say, because I don't live in Torbay.  However I can't imagine people there would want trains diverted away from the sea wall route when things are running normally and the line is available for traffic (as it is 95% or so of the time). 

Torbay just want a train to get them to Exeter on the quickest route.

The South Devon Highway has made Torbay a commuter town for Exeter with thousands of homes built round the ring road and Edginswell near the planned Devon Metro station (no money to build it). The Devon Metro seems to have been put back, maybe until Exeter Depot (under construction) has been enlarged. No 158's yet but more 150/2's seem to have arrived. The train is slower than the car but difficult parking in Exeter makes the train viable.

Torbay is a misundrstood area. It is not full of retirees. It has the largest primary school in Devon at Oldway (700 pupils); Boys Grammar School, Girls Grammar school, and a mixed Grammar school. The continually expanding South Devon college with branches in Newton Abbot and Kingswear and links to Plymouth University. This has made the area attractive to families.


There are high tech companies (old employees of Nortel going it alone). The college, only half the site built, is building a new high tech centre as is the council constructing a high tech building (known as EPIC)  with up to 16 laboraties for small companies.

On the Nortel site is a Range store and a M&S food hall, and three other units,  under construction with free car parking and 300 hundred homes earmarked on the old Nortel car parks. Nortel used to employee 5000 people and when it closed it killed Paignton.

Unfortunately in the town centres the luddites have the upper hand and they are very run down.

[RichardB]

Just a PS -

If it came to it, once the sea wall improvements are fully funded, and the Government did agree to also fund a diversionary route as belt and braces for those few days it is needed (which, of course, are still too many), there would be a discussion about whether a new main line or a route which would also put a lot of people back on the rail network would be the best thing to spend the money on.

One thing we know for sure is that the money won't be there for both and, of course, as yet, we don't know what the final scheme (and hence ask) for the sea wall is going to be. 
 
I agree with REVUpmister that Torbay is much misunderstood. 

[ellendune]

If it came to it, once the sea wall improvements are fully funded, and the Government did agree to also fund a diversionary route as belt and braces for those few days it is needed (which, of course, are still too many), there would be a discussion about whether a new main line or a route which would also put a lot of people back on the rail network would be the best thing to spend the money on.

But sea levels are rising and storms are getting more frequent. Low lying areas will start disappearing by 2040 (not long). If you do spend the money on the sea wall improvements you have paid for half of the diversion!

[Southernman]

One extra consideration is that Dawlish & Teignmouth still require a protection from the sea so the seawall will have to be maintained, whether there is a railway there or not.

Guess the Government would rather that expense continue to fall on the railway (funded from passengers) rather than the taxpayers and avoiding the hassles involved when repairs and flooding occurs.

[TaplowGreen]

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) need to look at the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 1935 plan for an inland route. As I see it from Google maps a line could be constructed from a location near Powderham Castle and Estate to rejoin the current line to the east of the Devon Expressway for the run into Newton Abbot. From the satellite image such a route would mainly be through agricultural land. The current route would be retained for local services and Summer Saturdays holiday traffic and if weather closes the line in future local services could still be run Exeter - Dawlish Warren and Newton Abbot - Teignmouth with RRB^▸ (Rail Replacement Bus) between Dawlish Warren and Teignmouth.

The issue is that the Dawlish route is fine 95% or so of the year

For me that pretty much nails it - not because I agree with doing nothing, but I've seen a figure of £450,000,000+ quoted elsewhere for the avoiding route - let's say a round half billion (allowing for the inevitable overspend, this is a railway project, remember?) for something which is needed, at worst, for a few days a year in a really bad year, and is a "nice to have" for the rest of the time - try justifying that to other areas of the Country who are crying out for essential investment - as  I say, I don't disagree with the concept, but a bit of real world/cost/benefit may need to come into it?

[ellendune]

The issue is that the Dawlish route is fine 95% or so of the year

For me that pretty much nails it - not because I agree with doing nothing, but I've seen a figure of £450,000,000+ quoted elsewhere for the avoiding route - let's say a round half billion (allowing for the inevitable overspend, this is a railway project, remember?) for something which is needed, at worst, for a few days a year in a really bad year, and is a "nice to have" for the rest of the time - try justifying that to other areas of the Country who are crying out for essential investment - as  I say, I don't disagree with the concept, but a bit of real world/cost/benefit may need to come into it?

1) The do minimum option is the figure for improving the resilience of the existing route is between £398,000,000 and £659,000,000 sets that in context.

2) Its a few days a year now, but with sea level rise (between 0.5m and 1m by 2100) and increased storm surges due to climate change those few days a year will become longer and longer - the long closures of 2014 will become much more common.

One extra consideration is that Dawlish & Teignmouth still require a protection from the sea so the seawall will have to be maintained, whether there is a railway there or not.

Guess the Government would rather that expense continue to fall on the railway (funded from passengers) rather than the taxpayers and avoiding the hassles involved when repairs and flooding occurs.

Now that is a much better argument!

But how much of the railway needs to be protected to protect the town?  How much would that cost.  Let that be assessed using the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management appraisal guidance (FCERM-AG) to see how much of the cost can be justified to protect those towns. Then we can put a true figure on what is required to protect the railway.