Glorious NSE Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why do people keep talking as if this is still the bad old days of the 1980s...(70s, 60s...) - we have a system being invested in at a rate that many watchers (myself included) have never seen before in their lifetimes... Sorry, re-reading that after getting home from work and it sounds like i'm in training to be a grumpy old man.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sorry, re-reading that after getting home from work and it sounds like i'm in training to be a grumpy old man.... Well, maybe, Martyn, but the facts were right, even if you now regret the sentiment. Far more money being invested than since long before I joined in 1966. And if you want grumpy old men re Dawlish, the disgraceful Facebook page I saw, from a cadre of retired railway staff sneering at all those brave souls in their orange, made your remark sound positively uplifting. Too many years sitting in the messroom quoting Conditions of Service, I'm afraid. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Siberian Snooper Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2014 I've just watched the local spotlight news, just a brief glimps of the Captains crew at Dawlish, but an interview with the PM at Laira depot, where he said that as far as alternative routes were concerned that the government would look at all of the alternatives before making any decisions. It would also appear that HST power cars are being moved by road, unable to tell if they are coming in or out or both. Several large pumps form the Netherlands have been shipped in to help pump out Somerset. If there is no further rainfall (fat chance, there's more forcast) it would take about 26 days to do the job. Best of luck to the Captain and his crew. SS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapford34102 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 it sounds like i'm in training to be a grumpy old man You a grumpy old man ? Never Martyn ! Your point though is well made. Having kept up with all this there is then perhaps a glimmer of a silver lining in all these storm clouds. My personal view, tongue firmly in cheek, is third rail from Worting Jn to Penzance :-) Stu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Ain't hindsight wonderful, especially through rose tinted (beer?) glasses. Some of the opinions expressed appear to be from know(sod)alls. I'll read CKs opinions and believe them anytime, because he and the rest of the poor sods are actually out there doing something, not sitting and expressing often dubious views. Dennis 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sounds rather like a call to get any prospective stakeholders "on message" to me. Good that the National Park seems positive about it, as they would have the clout to put a rather large spanner in the works if they wanted to... I think the rolling stock supply issue should ease (though i'm certainly not holding my breath for anything "shiny and new") with the multitude of electrification schemes, I doubt they can get anything done in under a couple of years at an *absolute minimum*, and the various bits of new wiring should be cascading a steady supply of 15x/16x by then. I read that last line as 15xx/16xx.....even though I'm not a fan of the GWR that does sound more appealling! Stewart 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 According to this story Network Rail is now denying the LSWR route has been chosen to replace the Dawlish route: http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Network-Rail-reveals-alternative-South-Devon-rail/story-20595943-detail/story.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 That's correct - the mooted reinstatement of the Okehampton route is not "Replacing" the Dawlish line. They made that very clear from the start in the BBC article... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yet again, a journalist hasnt worked out that the Okehampton route is not designed to replace the Dawlish route, but to act as a diversion for Plymouth and Cornwall traffic when the Dawlish line is out of action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 One phrase the PM came out with at Laira was "faster and more resilient" lines and promising studies (which implies no action during this Parliamentary term!). I don't believe the LSWR route could compete on being faster. It will be interesting to see the study outcomes although I imagine that will be some time. Now the Thames is doing it's worst, the political focus will probably move away from the SW.... The enthusiast in me want to see expansion and development down here (faster trains, electrification, freight etc), but realistically the short term development will be reinstatement at Dawlish with improved storm protection. All the best to those involved in that work, you have our greatest admiration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Yet again, a journalist hasnt worked out that the Okehampton route is not designed to replace the Dawlish route, but to act as a diversion for Plymouth and Cornwall traffic when the Dawlish line is out of action. Except that the story is now that the Okehampton hasn't even been chosen as a diversion route, and that "a further study will be conducted to look at the pros and cons of alternative routes". In other words, politics entered the equation. The realities are that the Okehampton route has no financial case as a diversion route. Devon County Council (in the Devon Metro document) makes it clear they have no desire to fund yearly costs of the Okehampton rail route, and there is no way that Network Rail can afford to pay the yearly costs of maintaining a line that is used at best a week a year, and that is assuming that the TOCs can even be bothered to deal with the hassles that the Okehampton line would impose. Central government won't fund that yearly costs, they have made it clear they want to decrease rail subsidies (excepting capital costs) and have the fares pay more of the costs, and it is hard to have fares pay for Okehampton when there are no trains running on it. Any route that is opened (either new or re-opening) will have to have a reasonable daily usage that can cover the yearly costs of maintaining the line. North Devon does not have the population to support a rail line without subsidies, which leaves running Plymouth and Cornwall based services over the line all year. This is certainly possible, mainly by chopping Exeter off the line and running a bypass connection at Cowley Junction (which may have the added benefit of eliminating the flooding there as an issue for Plymouth/Cornwall services). Exeter could then have a parkway station, or be serviced only be services from Waterloo, though I doubt Exeter would be happy about this. A likely side effect of this though would be that the Dawlish line would become economically unviable given the very high cost of maintaining the Dawlish segment, likely ending all south devon rail services. The only way to have either a replacement for the Dawlish line, or a second line that is viable economically without creating an uprising in Exeter and South Devon, is to do a variation on the GWR plans. The wild card in all of this is who is responsible for maintaining the Dawlish sea wall even if there are no trains. If Network Rail is stuck with it, the cost difference between a sea wall with trains vs a sea wall with no trains may not be significant, and may change the economics of the various options. I wish the above wasn't true, but there is no way to get around the economics of the issue. For use today the LSWR Devon line is badly located, both in going through lowest density part of the county and having useful access to Exeter in today's single railway (and it would be interesting to know if the Southern Railway viewed it as a mistake with hindsight as it would appear that it would have struggled financially even back then). Now if someone can come up with a plan to move 150,000+ people into the North Devon area in the next decade.... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Sounds rather like a call to get any prospective stakeholders "on message" to me. Good that the National Park seems positive about it, as they would have the clout to put a rather large spanner in the works if they wanted to... I think the rolling stock supply issue should ease (though i'm certainly not holding my breath for anything "shiny and new") with the multitude of electrification schemes, I doubt they can get anything done in under a couple of years at an *absolute minimum*, and the various bits of new wiring should be cascading a steady supply of 15x/16x by then. If (and I consider it quite a big if) this really goes ahead, I'd reckon services out to Tavistock could be up and running in a couple of years with the formalities and planning for the rest of it going on simultaneously. The full route might be achievable in a couple more years and, as you say, from 2017 there should be plenty of DMUs ripe for refurbishment being displaced by electrification schemes. The WR line will remain the primary route for two reasons: the greater population that it serves and the fact that the sea wall is needed in its own right. Retaining the railway on top of it means NR will continue to pick up the tab for maintainance (do they pay for all of it or are the EA/local authorities also involved?). NR are doing the smart thing in trying to get potential stakeholders for their 'Plan B' on board (1) as early as possible and (2) while the present difficulties are still in the public consciousness. It might also help forestall governmental flip-flopping of the kind that moved Crossrail into a whole different century! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Another point that needs to be considered for any alternate route. Many on this thread have pointed out that the trains in Devon and Cornwall are already overloaded. That means any alternate route needs to be able to handle the current service levels (at least of Exeter - Plymouth ignoring intermediate stations). If you can't run a full service level, then the TOC is going to be turfing people off trains onto buses anyway, at which point it may as well be everybody so there is less confusion. In other words, a "cheap" re-opening of a single line with passing sidings is unlikely to be very useful during a diversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why can't BOTH routes run regular services? The main line as current AND the Okehampton route, maybe the Okehampton route taking trains from Waterloo to avoid the reversal at Exeter. Is there much commuter traffic from the towns into Plymouth? Andi 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 If (and I consider it quite a big if) this really goes ahead, I'd reckon services out to Tavistock could be up and running in a couple of years with the formalities and planning for the rest of it going on simultaneously. Services to Tavistock are already going ahead, being paid for by Devon County Council with capital cost help from property developer(s) in Tavistock. Loose timetable is aiming for 2016 services, though funding issues could slow this down. The full route might be achievable in a couple more years and, as you say, from 2017 there should be plenty of DMUs ripe for refurbishment being displaced by electrification schemes. The problem with this is that I am sure there are lots of areas around the UK looking at the DMUs and demanding that they absolutely need them, so Devon / Cornwall will be one of many looking at using them, and Devon wants them for upgrading existing overloaded services and not for running marginal new services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Except that the story is now that the Okehampton hasn't even been chosen as a diversion route, and that "a further study will be conducted to look at the pros and cons of alternative routes". In other words, politics entered the equation. The realities are that the Okehampton route has no financial case as a diversion route. Devon County Council (in the Devon Metro document) makes it clear they have no desire to fund yearly costs of the Okehampton rail route, and there is no way that Network Rail can afford to pay the yearly costs of maintaining a line that is used at best a week a year, and that is assuming that the TOCs can even be bothered to deal with the hassles that the Okehampton line would impose. Central government won't fund that yearly costs, they have made it clear they want to decrease rail subsidies (excepting capital costs) and have the fares pay more of the costs, and it is hard to have fares pay for Okehampton when there are no trains running on it. Any route that is opened (either new or re-opening) will have to have a reasonable daily usage that can cover the yearly costs of maintaining the line. North Devon does not have the population to support a rail line without subsidies, which leaves running Plymouth and Cornwall based services over the line all year. This is certainly possible, mainly by chopping Exeter off the line and running a bypass connection at Cowley Junction (which may have the added benefit of eliminating the flooding there as an issue for Plymouth/Cornwall services). Exeter could then have a parkway station, or be serviced only be services from Waterloo, though I doubt Exeter would be happy about this. A likely side effect of this though would be that the Dawlish line would become economically unviable given the very high cost of maintaining the Dawlish segment, likely ending all south devon rail services. The only way to have either a replacement for the Dawlish line, or a second line that is viable economically without creating an uprising in Exeter and South Devon, is to do a variation on the GWR plans. The wild card in all of this is who is responsible for maintaining the Dawlish sea wall even if there are no trains. If Network Rail is stuck with it, the cost difference between a sea wall with trains vs a sea wall with no trains may not be significant, and may change the economics of the various options. I wish the above wasn't true, but there is no way to get around the economics of the issue. For use today the LSWR Devon line is badly located, both in going through lowest density part of the county and having useful access to Exeter in today's single railway (and it would be interesting to know if the Southern Railway viewed it as a mistake with hindsight as it would appear that it would have struggled financially even back then). Now if someone can come up with a plan to move 150,000+ people into the North Devon area in the next decade.... Most of the network in Britain is subsidised to a degree. The re-opened service to Corby is subsidised, most London commuter services are subsidised (I think the GE main line is about the only major commuter route were the TOC is paying a premium not recieving a subsidy - the Cambridge line doesn't wash it's face) . The Waverley route will be subsidised, the Settle and Carlisle passenger service is subsidised, the Waterloo-Exeter route is subsidised, the Barnstaple line and the Gunnislake branch are subsidised. Extending the Gunnislake line from Bere Alson to Tavistock will result in a subsidy, though it seems Devon CC may hope the subsidy will be less than now, someone else will pay the capital cost and they would certainly get a lot more transport "bang" for the revenue subsidy buck I don't think anyone for a moment believes that Devon CC is going to be expected to fund the approx £400 million capital cost of reinstating Exeter -Okehampton-Plymouth - any more than Boris Johnson is funding Crossrail. The question is whether national government may now be interested enough in "resiliance" and improving transport in the SW to fund the capital cost of a second route (as it has decided to fund electrification from Bristol and S. Wales to Paddington, or Manchester/Blackpool , or various other things). If central govt now comes to the party to fund the capital cost, Devon CC might well be more interested in chipping in towards revenue - but the overall rail subsidy comes from central government funds - it isn't paid by local authorities (Scotland and Wales recieve block grants from Westmister) As for some of the comments in that newspaper report, they're deep into the realms of hysteria and absurdity. Since Plymouth is the main traffic objective in the SW, the idea that anyone is going to re-route London trains away from Plymouth and send them through Launceston onto a high speed route to the middle of nowhere (well' central Cornwall anyway) is literally incredible. Or should be to a sane person . Nobody is suggesting closure of the railway through S Devon - that would be crackers . Resiliance means having a second route between Exeter and Plymouth which generates local transport benefit and can act as an emergency backup. It doesn't mean leaving rail services west of Exteter still hanging by a single thread - just a different thread Nobody is suggesting that the route be rebuilt so it can be mothballed for 50 weeks a year. The suggestion is that diversionary use might be the extra benefit that tips a desirable rural reopening scheme with a high capital cost over the edge into happening - and that circumstances may now have arisen in which national government is interested in chipping in to see it happen Edited February 10, 2014 by Ravenser 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Devon County Council (in the Devon Metro document) makes it clear they have no desire to fund yearly costs of the Okehampton rail route Got a source for that? For example - DCC show building a new station in Okehampon as a "priority" during 2011/12 (see the link) - and IIRC it was a "priced option" on the FGW refranchise document? http://www.devon.gov.uk/devon_metro_briefing.pdf Okay that's not "Here's a cheque, start on Monday", but it's a heckuva long way away from "We've no desire...." , and there is no way that Network Rail can afford to pay the yearly costs of maintaining a line that is used at best a week a year Erm, It's used more weeks per year than that already! , and that is assuming that the TOCs can even be bothered to deal with the hassles that the Okehampton line would impose. Any sources for a new line being opened and TOC's refusing to have anything to do with it? Central government won't fund that yearly costs, they have made it clear they want to decrease rail subsidies (excepting capital costs) and have the fares pay more of the costs, and it is hard to have fares pay for Okehampton when there are no trains running on it. Why would they (re)build a line to not run trains on it? Bonkers. ....likely ending all south devon rail services. We're doomed!!! It's 1985 all over again... Edited February 10, 2014 by Glorious NSE 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Another point that needs to be considered for any alternate route. Many on this thread have pointed out that the trains in Devon and Cornwall are already overloaded. That means any alternate route needs to be able to handle the current service levels (at least of Exeter - Plymouth ignoring intermediate stations). If you can't run a full service level, then the TOC is going to be turfing people off trains onto buses anyway, at which point it may as well be everybody so there is less confusion. In other words, a "cheap" re-opening of a single line with passing sidings is unlikely to be very useful during a diversion. The Waterloo-Exeter route seems to have been rather useful during the current blockades and mayhem. I trust you are aware that it is only "a single line with passing sidings" west of Salisbury? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Although I think as part in increasing the resilience there may be a case for an extra loop or two between Yeovil and Exeter.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 if the sea wall is rebuilt then that's it, no more rebuilding of diversionary routes, buses are cheaper if they cant rebuild the sea wall then it might get interesting 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 Although I think as part in increasing the resilience there may be a case for an extra loop or two between Yeovil and Exeter.... The dynamic loop at Axminster has helped in that but moving the Down main starter at Honiton undid some of the benefit. Splitting of the single line sections at Crewkerne and Feniton has also created advantages where consecutive trains are required to travel in the same direction. There are two further additions that would really help: (1) extending Honiton loop west by 2-3 miles making it dynamic like the one at Axminster - this is feasible now I no longer have to pull the points at the Exeter end! (2) extending the double track eastward from Pinhoe to the shortly-to-be-built new station at Cranbrook (Broad Clyst). However, I understand that the clearance under the M5 may not conform to current requirements for new double track. John 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Henriksen Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The Waterloo-Exeter route seems to have been rather useful during the current blockades and mayhem. I trust you are aware that it is only "a single line with passing sidings" west of Salisbury? But that was planned in advance, so customers could plan accordingly. You don't exactly plan in advance for something at Dawlish cutting your capacity in half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 According to this story Network Rail is now denying the LSWR route has been chosen to replace the Dawlish route: http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Network-Rail-reveals-alternative-South-Devon-rail/story-20595943-detail/story.html As I said earlier - I will wait until I see a statement from NR. I learnt a long time ago, especially after being grossly misquoted by a local 'paper, not to trust or take at face value anything said by the media many of whom do not even understand the nuances of what might be contained in even a written press statement which they publish word-for-word and then add comments about. (and my son trained to be, and for a while was, a broadcast journalist - he at least did try to be scrupulously accurate even if his local broadcasting station chief didn't like it) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted February 10, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2014 if the sea wall is rebuilt then that's it, no more rebuilding of diversionary routes, buses are cheaper if they cant rebuild the sea wall then it might get interesting Buses are cheaper, but it is seldom possible to get hold of enough of them at short notice to adequately handle the amount of passengers/luggage off well patronised HST services. Bus/coach companies (quite reasonably) won't release vehicles and drivers until they have covered their own requirements. This often results in a lack of availability while (for instance) school services are running. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) But that was planned in advance, so customers could plan accordingly. You don't exactly plan in advance for something at Dawlish cutting your capacity in half. I don't think anyone planned the situation yesterday , with the GW route out north of Exeter due to a blockade plus flooding in Somerset and FGW trains being diverted via Westbury and Yeovil, the Waterloo -Exeter route out at Gillingham with flooding and trains diverted from Salisbury up to Westbury and then back onto the route at Yeovil , and the Yeovil/Exeter section only just reopened after a landslip at Crewkerne with a speed restriction in place. East of Exeter there are multiple routes, resiliancy and work-arounds . West of Exeter there aren't It hasn't just been Dawlish - though that's the worst weather disaster to hit the railways in the SW. What must be hardest for those on the ground trying to restore services is that the blows keep raining down on them , with multiple additional route blockages needing to be dealt with and the problems deepening and extending. (On top of the above the Bristol and Exeter route is now unprecedentedly flooded at Bridgewater, and likely to be out of action for a while with severe damage to signalling equipment, and at the other end of the route the whole of the first 50 miles out of Paddington under threat in the Thames valley and that situation likely to deteriorate throughout the week with sustained additional rain ) After a week of enormous effort from those on the ground and the situation still getting worse not better it must be pretty disheartening Edited February 10, 2014 by Ravenser 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now