Dawlish Avoiding Line - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Indeed, but pax demand will be the key as there will still be concern about over provision of capacity.

[JayMac]

Of course we have the possible future option (beyond HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and beyond the current funded IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) build) of 2x 5 car bi-mode IEPs that could potentially split en-route to serve both different stopping patterns and different destinations.

[Red Squirrel]

Of course we have the possible future option (beyond HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and beyond the current funded IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) build) of 2x 5 car bi-mode IEPs that could potentially split en-route to serve both different stopping patterns and different destinations.

Bude, anyone?

[ChrisB]

Of course we have the possible future option (beyond HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and beyond the current funded IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) build) of 2x 5 car bi-mode IEPs that could potentially split en-route to serve both different stopping patterns and different destinations.

I like that idea, but will HMG?

[paul7575]

In that case,whoever "he" may be is talking ill informed and possibly politically motivated and biased trash.

Here's his CV:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/careers/schemes/graduate/career-journeys/patrick-hallgate/

I think you just scored a spectacular own goal.   

Paul

[Super Guard]

A transport expert has said it would be "very difficult" to get a second railway line into the south-west of England approved, despite the main link at Dawlish being destroyed by storms.

Tom Worsley, who set up the model used by ministers to decide which schemes get the go ahead, said it might be possible if the alternative was cheaper than maintaining the coastal route.

But he added the cost was an issue.

The government said Network Rail was assessing the options.

'Big hurdle'
On Wednesday, Network Rail announced it was considering five route options after the South West link was destroyed.

Mr Worsley, from the Institute for Transport Studies, said: "New railways are very expensive, more land would have to be purchased and there would also be issues about the stations the new route would serve and whether some towns would be bypassed."

Transport spending in the south-west of England is ^212 per person, the lowest of any region in England.

Continued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26407806

[Lee]

In that case,whoever "he" may be is talking ill informed and possibly politically motivated and biased trash.

Here's his CV:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/careers/schemes/graduate/career-journeys/patrick-hallgate/

I think you just scored a spectacular own goal.   

Paul

We dealt with this earlier in the topic, Paul.

While we are not disputing his excellent pedigree and acheivements, the general consensus is that he got it wrong on this particular issue, and I think even he may look back and slightly regret how he put it at the time.

[Southernman]

Just to add my comments. I would agree with a previous thought that:-

a) Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth to be re-opened as an alternative route for local services (also opening up new opportunities for West Devon/North Cornwall residents). This line can also be used when the existing route is closed (weather/engineering/incidents). No, it won't be as fast as the existing line but does keep passengers and freight from Plymouth and Cornwall on trains.

b) Safeguard a chosen alignment for a Dawlish avoiding line from development but do not actually construct it. I cannot see the sense of building a line that MAY not be required in the short or medium term! I doubt that the existing line would survive the construction of an avoiding line - simply a duplication. In any event the seawall at Dawlish needs to be maintained. By safeguarding a chosen route you keep the options open without incurring much of the expenditure.

c) Only by re-opening the Okehampton route will an independent line (apart from short stretches at either end) to Plymouth/Cornwall be achieved. Any Dawlish avoiding line will not do this. What we don't know is whether the recent violent storms will repeat regularly or infrequently. Some comparison must be possible with the success of the Settle and Carlisle Railway and the re-opening of the Borders Railway both of which run through sparsely populated countryside.

[ChrisB]

While we are not disputing his excellent pedigree and acheivements, the general consensus is that he got it wrong on this particular issue

Hmmm - four members posting isn't a 'general consensus', unfortunately.

[ChrisB]

And three of those options, C1^▸ ((on coaches) National route restriction), C2, C3, are along the lines of what I'd like to see

Looks as if those options involve serious money - tunnelling appears to be involved

See page 12 of this report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_14_dawlish_jmo.pdf

Alternative route options (1)
^
We need to be thorough and provide long-term solution for the railway. Currently we are taking views and exploring all options.
^
Suggested options include:
a) Reinstate the Okehampton line (between Plymouth-Exeter, via Okehampton), which closed in 1967
b) Create a new line connecting existing freight lines from Alphington (near Exeter) and Heathfield (near Newton Abbot)
c) Options between Newton Abbot and Exeter (with new tunnels) ^ but current level of trains via Dawlish route could be maintained
i) Exminster ^ Newton Abbot
ii) Starcross ^ Newton Abbot
iii) Dawlish Warren ^ Newton Abbot
d) Make the coastal railway more resilient

[Tim]

Just to add my comments. I would agree with a previous thought that:-

a) Exeter-Okehampton-Plymouth to be re-opened as an alternative route for local services (also opening up new opportunities for West Devon/North Cornwall residents). This line can also be used when the existing route is closed (weather/engineering/incidents). No, it won't be as fast as the existing line but does keep passengers and freight from Plymouth and Cornwall on trains.

b) Safeguard a chosen alignment for a Dawlish avoiding line from development but do not actually construct it. I cannot see the sense of building a line that MAY not be required in the short or medium term! I doubt that the existing line would survive the construction of an avoiding line - simply a duplication. In any event the seawall at Dawlish needs to be maintained. By safeguarding a chosen route you keep the options open without incurring much of the expenditure.

c) Only by re-opening the Okehampton route will an independent line (apart from short stretches at either end) to Plymouth/Cornwall be achieved. Any Dawlish avoiding line will not do this. What we don't know is whether the recent violent storms will repeat regularly or infrequently. Some comparison must be possible with the success of the Settle and Carlisle Railway and the re-opening of the Borders Railway both of which run through sparsely populated countryside.

Southernman,   I agree with your analysis completely and would add that with an alternative route in place, it will be easier to close the seawall route for the length of time needed to strengthen it against further weather.  From looking at the reports and photos it appears that NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/Bam Nuttal are putting back a section of line in a much more robust from that that which was washed away.  Thousands of tonnes of reinforced concrete replacing a garden retaining wall backfilled with soil and sand. 

[ChrisB]

Southernman,   I agree with your analysis completely and would add that with an alternative route in place, it will be easier to close the seawall route for the length of time needed to strengthen it against further weather. 

You do realise that any alternative route won't materialise overnight, and may be at least a year+(++?) before whichever is ready? I suspect that this strengthening may come first....

[Lee]

While we are not disputing his excellent pedigree and acheivements, the general consensus is that he got it wrong on this particular issue

Hmmm - four members posting isn't a 'general consensus', unfortunately.

Added to a large number of those present at Saturday's meeting it is.
 
Happy to test it though. If a deluge of forum members  come forward and sincerely agree with the Hallgate assertion that going via Okehampton will add a near-extra hour to the London-Plymouth journey time, then I will respect that view.

[ChrisB]

As pointed out earlier above - the assertion isn't that any longer, but "an hour longer than the 3 hour regular journey time requested by Plymouth Business"

[Tim]

Southernman,   I agree with your analysis completely and would add that with an alternative route in place, it will be easier to close the seawall route for the length of time needed to strengthen it against further weather. 

You do realise that any alternative route won't materialise overnight, and may be at least a year+(++?) before whichever is ready? I suspect that this strengthening may come first....

My guess is that an alternative route would take 4 or 5 years. 

How are they going to strengthen the seawall route without lifting the track?  They might do some patching and strengthening, but they can't pump thousands of tonnes of concrete under the track without lifting it for an extended period of time can they?