Campaign for Tavistock reopening

[whole diary]

[signalman]

Hi Everyone my first post but I have been following this project for years

Just seen BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Spotlight news and planning permission has been granted for the houseing development but a proposed opening of 2022.This scheme is certaintly crawling along.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hello, signalman, and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum! 

Thanks, too, for your useful update on this long drawn out project: hopefully, matters will continue to at least trundle along ... 

[civ-eng-jim]

Can never understand how a double track formation, with plenty of room for a single track railway and a cycle way, can take so long to reopen. 2019??? Unbelievable Jeff No wonder not everyone takes proposed English re openings that seriously as it stands, and I for one, want this one to really happen

There are many factors why the line to Tavistock cannot accommodate either a double track or a cycle track alongside a single line, despite being a former twin track line.

When the line was first built, I doubt there was much in the way of track & land drainage. There's evidence within the tunnel of some drainage. Within the cuttings, it is proposed drainage runs are installed on both sides of track to prevent flooding. The pipework and catchpits take up considerable space.

Secondly, there was little or no provision for maintenance staff to walk the track in a place of safety while trains run. It is proposed a safe cess walkway will be installed along the entire length of the route.

Additionally the steep rock faces in the cuttings are unprotected. A rockfall would spill onto a twin track railway and could result in derailment and serious injury. To put protective netting along all faces would cost millions. By only reinstating a single track, the alignment can be designed so it lies away from potential rock fall zones, minimising the amount of rock netting required.

It is cheaper for Devon CC to provide a cycleway on an alternative alignment away from the railway than it is to rock-net the whole route. There is however one area where it may run adjacent the track.

The delay to any major engineering scheme is more down to planning and finance rather than technical reasons.
 

[TonyK]

civ-eng-jim,

A warm welcome to the Coffee Shop, and my thanks for an insightful post, which explains much. Especially for me, a barrack-room / armchair civil engineer. Your point about it being cheaper to relocate the cyclepath away from the rail alignment hadn't occurred to me.

[34104]

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Moves-reopen-old-railway-line-near-Plymouth-step/story-24546284-detail/story.html

[John R]

This could equally have been posted on the inappropriate photo thread. Picture of a Pendolino on a 4 track electrified railway. 

[JayMac]

This could equally have been posted on the inappropriate photo thread. Picture of a Pendolino on a 4 track electrified railway. 

It could and it was. 

[Plymboi]

Is this project DOA with the talk of reopening the whole route from tavistock to okehampton being discussed map by government.

[Red Squirrel]

Is this project DOA with the talk of reopening the whole route from tavistock to okehampton being discussed map by government.

The Tavistock scheme should be at GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 3 now, looking for GRIP 4 by the end of 2016.

The through route via Okehampton isn't in the GRIP process, and will only be rebuilt if there is a significant shift in strategy - which is not to say it won't happen, but one has to hope that this possibility won't blight the Tavistock scheme.

Having said that, the MetroWest project probably succeeded in delaying Portishead (which was at GRIP 3 as a standalone project) by a couple of years...

[trainbuff]

I believe that the Tavistock reopening will go ahead in any case. I hope the 'Northern Route', as Government are calling it, will be built but the feasibility study will feed into CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) (2019-2024). It will not be started till at least 2019, unless there is a really massive and rapid change in Government strategy,so by then the Tavistock route will be under construction if current time scales continue. The section is planned to be open by 2020.

Should the Northern Route be rebuilt it will in effect be an add on to the Tavistock and Meldon sections, though this is not to say that either of these portions will not be upgraded. Dependent on what form the through route is to be built as.

I hope that helps

[TonyK]

Is this project DOA with the talk of reopening the whole route from tavistock to okehampton being discussed map by government.

The Tavistock scheme should be at GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 3 now, looking for GRIP 4 by the end of 2016.

The through route via Okehampton isn't in the GRIP process, and will only be rebuilt if there is a significant shift in strategy - which is not to say it won't happen, but one has to hope that this possibility won't blight the Tavistock scheme.

Having said that, the MetroWest project probably succeeded in delaying Portishead (which was at GRIP 3 as a standalone project) by a couple of years...

Hmm. I have read elsewhere that the planned Portishead to Bristol Temple Meads failed to progress past GRIP 3 because of its standalone status. It failed to prove the cost / benefit ratio needed to get it off the starting blocks, and slipped back to GRIP 0. The decision was taken to start again on the whole of Metrowest Phase 1, which has rapidly (in railway terms that is) got to GRIP 3, with GRIP 4 due for completion by autumn 2015. MetroWest scores more than the sum of its individual parts in BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) terms, with services from Portishead to Bath and Severn Beach giving better use of rolling stock than a mere shuttle service between BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) - PHD. 17 minutes each way does not fit into a clockface service.

So the delay in reopening Portishead is in part due to MetroWest. In greater part, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), it demonstrates the folly of having a slapdash piecemeal approach to major transport projects, with no joined up thinking. Thus, North Somerset made their abortive solo bid for funds, then, having lost that, spent over ^100,000 on clearing vegetation in 2013, only to watch it grow again, ready for a second clearance beginning next month.

I don't think Tavistock is likely to suffer similar "blight", for the reasons Red Squirrel and trainbuff put forward. Until the big issues at Dawlish, the thought of reopening the whole route via Okehampton was far from the mind of Government. Despite the noise since, I don't think it has got much nearer the front of the mind. Tavistock to Bere Alston is around half the distance of Portishead to Parson Street, and I think the logistics of integrating services into existing traffic are easier to deal with. Subject to a good business case - it has half the population of the Portishead line within its catchment - I can't see why it would need to wait for a decision on Okehampton, although passive provision for the connection would have to be made.

[Red Squirrel]

If the 'Northern Route' were reopened, wouldn't it involve extensive rework to the Tavistock section to get it up to main line standard? I'm guessing they'd have to close it for what could be an extended period while this was done.

P.S. PHD, eh? Do you have access to informed sources, or is that a guess?

[trainbuff]

If the 'Northern Route' were reopened, wouldn't it involve extensive rework to the Tavistock section to get it up to main line standard? I'm guessing they'd have to close it for what could be an extended period while this was done.

P.S. PHD, eh? Do you have access to informed sources, or is that a guess?

I think that this is fairly obvious.
Route Availability (RA), which is mainly based on axle weight but not exclusively, is a number system. The higher the number the higher the axle weight that can be carried WITH NO SPEED RESTRICTION.

This is currently RA4 on the section from St Budeaux to Bere Alston. And I would suggest it probably will be to Tavistock as well.

From Meldon to Exeter it is RA6.

HST^▸ (High Speed Train) power cars fall into the RA5 bracket so some strengthening would be required to raise the RA. Incidentally class 220/221/222 are all RA4. Could FGW^▸ (First Great Western) cope with ALL the 222's instead of the few older HST sets? I am sure that would get a lively response and maybe its own thread as I play Devil's Advocate!

How long the necessary closures would take to strengthen depends on what is constructed. Dual track or single over sections such as the Tavy and Tamerton Viaducts for example. These structures would probably need some strengthening

And of course the Sleeper is Loco hauled. Class 57's have an RA6. Though it would travel at reduced speed if RA was 'upped' to only RA5.

Of course, Network Rails cost of ^875m was for double track all the way round and included costs to upgrade the current sections of the 'Northern' route, including the cost of closure of portions of the line to upgrade.

[TonyK]

P.S. PHD, eh? Do you have access to informed sources, or is that a guess?

Hedging my bets! I will also take a punt on AVG, ASD, PLL, SLF, and HRF. I'm struggling with Corsham.

[grahame]

[I'm struggling with Corsham.

YEY or NOW?