Okehampton-Tavistock. Discussion on reopening and potential use as a diversionary route

[whole diary]

[Andy]

Reopening the line between Tavistock and Okehampton (I'm taking it for granted that Bere Alston-Tavistock will reopen) would have more benefits than just providing a diversion route.

Although, as already mentioned many times, it runs through relatively sparsely populated country, it would provide a much closer railhead for a wide catchment area spanning North Cornwall and North and West Devon. generating new custom and reducing road/bus journeys.

Okehampton services sharing the Exeter-Yeoford stretch would, I imagine, reduce overcrowding on Barnstaple services, too.

I'd be interested to read what kind of service would be best for this route. How would a regular service pattern consisting of a Tavistock-Plymouth commuter shuttle interconnecting at Bere Alston with a Gunnislake-Exeter service compare with a Plymouth-Exeter service connecting with a Bere Alston-Gunnislake shuttle?   
   

[Umberleigh]

By the time such a link could be reinstated there will have been a cascade of suitable 3 car dmus to operate an hourly Exeter to Plymouth service.

However, if this route proves faster and more reliable than the coastal one, perhaps rebuild it to mainline standards and operate the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) line as a secondary line and all high speed services to operate via Okehampton.

[JayMac]

The reversal would add a considerable amount of time to through services though. That reversal can be taken out though if through services from Waterloo were considered, but that won't be as quick a journey to Plymouth as is currently offered (when everything is open!) by the route from Paddington.

I'd prefer to see an inland route built, to modern high speed standards, between Exeter and Newton Abbot. Something the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) were set to do in the late 1930s, before the Second World War put the kybosh on the plans.

[Red Squirrel]

I'd prefer to see an inland route built, to modern high speed standards, between Exeter and Newton Abbot. Something the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) were set to do in the late 1930s, before the Second World War put the kybosh on the plans.

I can see the benefits of this, but it's hard to imagine it getting off the ground - I'm guessing you'd have to put pretty much the whole thing in tunnels to appease the environmental lobby, which would cost a few orders of magnitude more than reopening the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) route.

[wabbit]

One direct effect of faster connections from the West Country would be to increase the amount of people who would shift from cars to rail, but if that was linked in with new housing developments, served by rail, you could have a viable series of routes both sea side and inland. It needs a properly joined up approach from local government and NR^» (Network Rail - home page). Fingers crossed!

[AMLAG]

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) in its 'Situational Awareness' Briefing note issued on 5/2/14 with regards to the Dawlish Sea wall major incident, states it has no plans to promote re-opening of the former main line from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton & Tavistock and mentions a few negative facts such as rebuilding of a Viaduct at Okehampton  (possibly this is a reference to Meldon) and that the disused former railway land is in multi ownership .. ignoring the fact that over 10 miles of infrastructure are now resurrected and maintained as a cycle track in the hands of one owner.

Well so be it.. the Government is now reviewing all options and it may think otherwise - just as Devon County Council does with regards to reopening Bere Alston to Tavistock and some may be surprised to learn that it is DCC^» (Devon County Council - website)  NOT NR who is now acquiring the disused railway trackbed,land and infrastructure to enable this to be done.

A quick 'back of a fag packet' calculation shows the potential population to be served by a re-instated Exeter/Okehampton/Sourton Parkway/Tavistock/Plymouth alternative & diversionary rail route to be significantly greater than the population to be served by the far more challenging 30+ miles of railway currently being re-instated by the Scottish Govt. between Galashiels & Edinburgh for opening in 2015.

[Umberleigh]

I imagine the M5 was built on land owned by a multitude of owners, ditto every bypass, dual carriageway and motorway built ever. Oh, and HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). And I'm sure a new viaduct at Meldon would cost less than ^42bn. Seriously NR^» (Network Rail - home page), what feeble excuses.

[JayMac]

I can see the benefits of this, but it's hard to imagine it getting off the ground - I'm guessing you'd have to put pretty much the whole thing in tunnels to appease the environmental lobby, which would cost a few orders of magnitude more than reopening the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) route.

The whole of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) isn't going into tunnels to appease enviromentalists. No reason why an inland route has to do so. Branch off at Exminster, head due south to the left of Malmhead, then head south west to the south of Ashcombe and Ideford Common, following the river valley (Dawlish Water?) and then run parallel to the A380 into Newton Abbot. Sparsely populated land and possibly only a need for tunneling under the Powderham estate and to the west of Kenton. Around 15 miles of new build. Compared with a similar length of rebuilding between Okehampton and Tavistock, but without the need for services from London Paddington to Cornwall to reverse twice.

Does anyone know of the cost per mile of new build double track railway versus reinstating and upgrading 50 year old abandoned permanent way to modern double track standard? Remembering that the latter would have to go through the centre of Tavistock. I imagine the cost difference is pretty marginal.

A thorough cost/benefit analysis of all options should be carried out. My preference is for an inland 'GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)' route, but if reinstating Okehampton - Tavistock/Bere Alston and upgrading the existing stubs to modern mainline standards comes out as the considerably better value for money option, then I'm happy for that to be the alternative route to Plymouth and Cornwall. Won't help Torbay though.

[Lee]

Is there a consensus on a viable route through Tavistock?

Anyone?? Or are we just drawing an undetermined line on the map through the town at this stage?

[AMLAG]

Re-instatement through Tavistock via the former Southern (Tavistock North stn) route..a few houses to demolish; none of significant/historic/listed value....nothing like on the scale of the Galashiels/Edinburgh re-instatement though.
A new bridge (concrete?) would be needed over the Tavistock/Callington road ..was one of the very few steel bridges between Meldon and Bere Alston ..cut up for scrap.
Partial reduction in size of the West Devon Borough Council offices built so shortsightedly by them (!!) on railway formation and mainly in the old Upside Goods Yard.
WDBC like most Councils, is now constantly down sizing/outsourcing/combining functions with other Councils etc and in any case(if they survive) may have to vacate to smaller premises for their shrinking staff.

[34104]

Is there a consensus on a viable route through Tavistock?

Anyone?? Or are we just drawing an undetermined line on the map through the town at this stage?

I'd have thought there was only one possible route and that would be the one that was used before 1968.For sure there has been some encroachment on the line-infill at the back of Kelly College,the WDBC offices and housing on the site of Tavistock North station and a bungalow across the line near the broken bridge over Callington Road.There would doubtless be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from parties affected [understandably so,to be fair] but any CPO action would be rather minor compared to the works carried out in rebuilding the Borders railway.I can't really think of any other way that Tavistock could accomodate any reopened railway,open to suggestions of course.

[Lee]

Would a new station be built in the centre of Tavistock, and if so, in which precise location? Would a station also still be built at the site earmarked in the current Tavistock-Bere Alston proposal.

In the Borders scheme, how many people have been forced out of their homes in centres of population comparable to Tavistock, and what has their reaction been to that?

[34104]

Would a new station be built in the centre of Tavistock, and if so, in which precise location? Would a station also still be built at the site earmarked in the current Tavistock-Bere Alston proposal.

In the Borders scheme, how many people have been forced out of their homes in centres of population comparable to Tavistock, and what has their reaction been to that?

Good question actually,in all truth it would be better to have a station closer to Tavistock town centre than the one proposed in the current plans.I suppose the ideal site would still be Tavistock North,the down platform and buildings of which still exist-couldn't see any reason why it shouldn't become a working station again if the appropriate clearance took place.As for the Borders railway,not sure how many but it was a substantial number and people did get upset;


http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/38527-borders-railway-progress/page-5

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=59833&page=2

[chopper1944]

Wasn't there a limitation on the type of locomotive able to cross meldon viaduct?
Would a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) be able to cross it or any of the proposed new trains to be made available
Following electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)?

[trainbuff]

Wasn't there a limitation on the type of locomotive able to cross meldon viaduct?
Would a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) be able to cross it or any of the proposed new trains to be made available
Following electrification of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line)?

There were weight restrictions. Up until the 1960's for instance, only unrebuilt Bulleid pacifics could us the route. Rebuilds weighing more. Meldon was strengthened in the 1960's though. It has been used more recently than that though and retained track as a railhead on the former up line till the 1990's. Used as a headshunt for stone trains!!! I cant think of anything heavier. The former up line was used as a road to take stone to the building of Meldon Resevoir.

I think part of the argument about closing the line in 1968 was about weight concerns on this viaduct. Though as seen before often reasons put forward were disingenious to say the least. Of course it now carries a cyclepath and footway and was made safe to carry only that weight when the charity that owns it renovated. It would need looking at again to check weight limits