Washout at Dawlish

[Captain Kernow]

As l understand it an early suggestion/plan was that there would be around 30 metres (or maybe more) outwards extension of the sea wall with wave suppressing concrete casting similar to Torcross which has protected the village much better now except in the most violent storms.

 

 

This is exactly right. I've not been aware of this debate on this thread until recently, otherwise I'd have commented sooner.

 

This announcement, for a mere 400 metres of railway development (bear in mind that the Sea Wall section alone from Dawlish Warren to Teignmouth is effectively 4 miles), simply seems to be yet another attempt to solve the problem of the cliffs, nothing more.

 

It won't do anything to stop Voyager services being cancelled during high seas, and from what little I know about the IEPs, I wouldn't hold your breath about them not getting affected either, certainly some rather senior people when I was still working just didn't know whether salt waves would affect them or not!

 

What John has alluded to above it the little-known fact that a completely new sea wall was under active, albeit discreet investigation by Network Rail in the years leading up to the February 2014 storms. This aimed to remove the problem of storm conditions once and for all, by taking the wall itself a few yards further out from the railway, with a modern, reinforced concrete wall with effective 'wave returns' built into the design.

 

The new wall would also have been a bit higher, to protect the railway (the railway itself would have stayed more or less on it's existing alignment), but not so high as to prevent the sea from being seen from passing trains.

 

This scheme wouldn't have addressed the issue of the cliffs, but at the time the major cliff falls of March 2014 hadn't happened, although the risks were certainly known about and some work had already been done, especially between the tunnels, to reduce the risk to trains and install a warning system that fed back to Exeter Panel (which is still operational, with a protocol that I used to 'own' on behalf of the Operations team, in conjunctions with the Earthworks Engineer).

 

It's no secret locally that the MP for Teignbridge, Anne-Marie Morris, has long favoured a breakwater virtually the entire length of the exposed Sea Wall sections, something that would break up the force of storm waves before they got anywhere near the railway. I personally could envisage something that was just about submerged at high tide only, perhaps constructed from these 'tetrapod' concrete thingeys. I was never convinced that there was any appetite for that amongst the senior NR suits, and that they just 'played along' with the MP to keep her quiet.

 

I'm not sure what the ultimate 'solution' will look like, but I've always been convinced that it won't look like a train ride via Okehampton.

 

One thing that has come to mind since the February 2014 storms, is that NR has since gained a lot of experience in the engineering aspects of reinforcing the existing wall by using pre-cast concrete 'L' sections, and back-filling with more reinforced concrete.

 

The moving of a short section of railway 30 yards out to sea seems like a flight of fancy to me, I don't believe the vast price tag, and I suspect that the eventual, pragmatic solution will be more heavy duty earthworks on the existing cliffs, perhaps more mass earth removal and stabilisation works.

[Siberian Snooper]

There is to be a statement in the house, about £10 million pounds investment in Dawlish seawall defences, this afternoon.

 

 

Edit for duplication

Edited November 17, 2016 by Siberian Snooper

[Ramblin Rich]

BBC story headliine suggests £10m "pumped into saving line" whereas the main story says it's really only to fund further planning....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-38012833

[royaloak]

£10m on paperwork, just what we need!

[brushman47544]

A breakwater might help protect the sea wall again strong waves, but what would it do to the beaches as tourist attractions if it was placed where people would normally swim or whatever? People using the beach could in injured if hidden under the water at high tide. Places such as Dawlish need tourists, so would local businesses be happy if they lost income because tourists went elsewhere?

 

The beaches don't belong to NR as far as I'm aware, so I hope they wouldn't be allowed to install something like that without local agreement.

[Siberian Snooper]

I see this as a tactic to avoid the need for an inland route, as promised by the last PM.

[Geoff Endacott]

If they make the beach big enough the Dawlish line will become an inland route.

 

Geoff Endacott

[Siberian Snooper]

If they make the beach big enough the Dawlish line will become an inland route.

 

Geoff Endacott

And put king Canute in charge.

[Ron Ron Ron]

A breakwater might help protect the sea wall again strong waves, but what would it do to the beaches as tourist attractions.....

.....so would local businesses be happy if they lost income because tourists went elsewhere? .............

 

 

 

In the case of HS2, we are being told that NIMBY's concerns should be set aside in the name of the "national interest".

Surely the same should apply here?

 

 

.

[Captain Kernow]

In the case of HS2, we are being told that NIMBY's concerns should be set aside in the name of the "national interest".

Surely the same should apply here?

 

 

.

In fairness, when it comes to beach sand levels and the ability of a beach to act as a tourist attraction, you have to be very careful not to upset the balance of nature on a permanent basis.

 

Although there may be an element of nimbyism with regard to 'land take' at the top of the Teignmouth cliffs, in order to grade them back to a more manageable slope, the notion of building the railway further out to sea (and also the breakwater idea), could have a serious impact on the 'geological structure' of the beaches in the area. Should these beaches disappear, then the whole tourist industry of Dawlish and Teignmouth could be affected, which could in turn affect many jobs and livelihoods.

 

To my mind, the politicians have carefully timed the 'release' of this information about the £10m to coincide with the public sessions that NR are holding along the coast in the South West, talking about how seriously they take 'resilience'.

 

NR clearly see the main priority (and presumably main risk) as the stability of the cliffs on the Parsons Tunnel to Teignmouth stretch, and if so, then it's fair enough that options to deal with this are considered. However, if this means diverting a relatively short stretch of the line out to sea, on whatever structure they feel they can design that will withstand the worst storms that the future can throw at us, then to me this smacks of desperation and a reluctance to seriously tackle the cliff stability issue.

 

I'm not sure off the top of my head what the 400m diversion 'out to sea' in the Sprey Point to Parsons Tunnel area would do to track geometry, and, therefore, to maximum permissible line speeds, but it doesn't feel like the right solution, especially as it would wipe the beach out in that area, which locals from Teignmouth have already gone on record as expressing concern about, with regard to the rest of the beach in front of the town of Teignmouth itself.

 

The suits in NR are also crowing about how wonderful this £10m is, but if you think about it, it's money that would have had to have been found anyway, if any kind of serious evaluation of future solutions was to be undertaken.

 

On the local BBC news tonight, one of the Chief Suits from Swindon slipped into the interview that (a) physical work won't start until 2020/2021 and (b) could last up to 20 years.

 

So does that mean that there will be a minimum of 20 years of disruption while they undertake these infrastructure works on what is already a 'live' main line railway?

 

And this from the same NR Route that is presiding over the GWML electrification?

 

I know from personal experience that:

 

(a) the current Sea Wall is already pretty robust, especially following the works over the last 2 years. This is also based on knowledge of the considerable foundation strengthening works completed approx 15 years ago (most Wall failures have been 'from the bottom up', unlike that of February 2014, which was 'from the top down').

 

(b) the current configuration of the Wall will not, however, prevent individual days or short periods of consecutive days of closure or partial closure following severe storms, due to the fact that ballast can get displaced, the track can get flooded and debris can get thrown up onto the line by the storm. This all takes time to clear.

 

© No amount of physical works on the existing railway alignment can prevent the suspension of Voyager services during 'high seas', including conditions that are no where near severe enough to be considered a 'storm', but is merely 'lively seas', and which does not affect the operation of HSTs or Sprinters. I've yet to see any firm confirmation that the new IEPs won't also be affected by sea water like the Voyagers, unfortunately (this despite asking when I was still working - no one seemed to know)

 

(d) My gut feeling is that the solution to the Teignmouth to Parsons Tunnel cliffs issues will be a compromise - further spoil and rock removals, the loss of some 'garden areas' by households at the top, some re-grading where possible, and more physical features like the fences, to contain any falls that do happen. This, plus monitoring equipment to alert Operations if anything does endanger the safe running of the railway

 

Other than that, I don't really see what more can be done, without massive, massive civil engineering works that would permanently alter the whole character and appearance of the area, possibly affecting beaches etc.

 

As such, I think that the Grown Ups already know that:

 

i) they have to keep the Sea Wall route open anyway, to serve South Devon, but that there will be times when they won't be able to prevent closure, because they won't ultimately want to bite the bullet and (i) p1ss so many people off in the Dawlish and Teignmouth areas by wrecking the tourist industry there for years to come (by the construction works alone, let alone the implications for 'beach amenity') and (ii) they won't like the price tag for a really robust engineered solution

 

and also:

 

ii) the only really conclusive way to ensure a permanently-available rail link to Plymouth and Cornwall will be a new route of some kind (whether via Okehampton or a new tunnel through the Haldon Hills). The actual route is really not the point here (although it would be nice to re-link Okehampton with Tavistock and Plymouth), because I don't believe that they will ever stump up the money for this kind of work.

 

 

But it does amuse me to see them trying to be so earnest and positive about what is really a very minor development in the on-going saga of this piece of railway. They were always pretty good at that.

[Gwiwer]

£10m in the overall scheme of things doesn't buy much in 2016.  Perhaps a few management lunches and a good bottle or two of frobscottle.  Even as money put up for talking it won't stretch far.  

 

As CK has mentioned we are faced with a multi-facetted problem scenario which isn't going away any time soon.  Encroaching seas, worsening storms, eroding cliffs, Voyagers and possibly IEPs which can't cope with anything more than a flat calm sea at high tide .....

 

Perhaps some different decisions would have been taken through history with the benefit of knowledge but we have acquired that knowledge as time has gone by.  

 

I feel that we are in the position now of having to maintain at any reasonable cost the sea-wall route, acknowledging that the cost will be very high per passenger-mile of use, and of proofing our trains against expected conditions.  If the IEPs prove incapable of coping with high seas in addition to the Voyagers then what is to provide the service between Exeter and Plymouth on perhaps 50 days and as many partial-day interruptions through a year?  A design issue which came to light long after the Voyagers were lines on a piece of paper (or more likely on a screen) should not be repeated with the IEP trains.  

 

Yes there will be days when the route is closed as there always have been.  But the number of them can be kept to a minimum through close monitoring of conditions and intensive maintenance regimes.  Which costs big money of course, but nowhere near as big as a new tunnel route near the coast nor or reawakening the LSWR route.

[TheQ]

In fairness, when it comes to beach sand levels and the ability of a beach to act as a tourist attraction, you have to be very careful not to upset the balance of nature on a permanent basis.

 

 

Tell that to the government about the coast of  Norfolk, we are always losing sand, so what to do HMG do... issue licences for lots of money to dredge off our coast. They say it doesn't make any difference... So where do they think the sand is coming from to fill in the holes?

 

 Their best easiest thing they could do down there is to find out where the errosion is coming from and block it like this...

 

My house is actually in the picture in the long distance beyond the reefs

Edited November 18, 2016 by TheQ

[Captain Kernow]

£10m in the overall scheme of things doesn't buy much in 2016.  Perhaps a few management lunches and a good bottle or two of frobscottle.  Even as money put up for talking it won't stretch far.  

 

As CK has mentioned we are faced with a multi-facetted problem scenario which isn't going away any time soon.  Encroaching seas, worsening storms, eroding cliffs, Voyagers and possibly IEPs which can't cope with anything more than a flat calm sea at high tide .....

 

 

After writing my previous comments last night, one possible (albeit expensive) solution to the cliffs problem occurred to me, which would be to construct an 'avalanche shelter' as per that at Ffriog on the most vulnerable sections.

 

This would surely be cheaper than the madcap notion of actually putting the operational railway further out to sea to avoid cliff falls?

 

Don't forget that Parsons Tunnel was actually extended at the Exeter-end in the 1920s, in the same manner, due to the risk of cliff falls.

[Fat Controller]

After writing my previous comments last night, one possible (albeit expensive) solution to the cliffs problem occurred to me, which would be to construct an 'avalanche shelter' as per that at Ffriog on the most vulnerable sections.

 

This would surely be cheaper than the madcap notion of actually putting the operational railway further out to sea to avoid cliff falls?

 

Don't forget that Parsons Tunnel was actually extended at the Exeter-end in the 1920s, in the same manner, due to the risk of cliff falls.

The 'avalanche shelter' idea might also reduce the water-ingress on Voyagers and others. 

[Gwiwer]

The 'avalanche shelter' idea might also reduce the water-ingress on Voyagers and others. 

 

Yes it might in that specific location.  But looking at where the sea breaks over the tracks in lively conditions, including immediately west of Dawlish station, would require far more than a "storm shelter" at Parsons Tunnel.

[Dunsignalling]

The two sources of potential damage, by storm or cliff-fall, will need different solutions and once more draw attention to the sea wall being a damn silly place to put a railway from the get go,

 

It probably wouldn't have been built there but for the needs of the abortive atmospheric railway and rising sea levels plus increasingly frequent severe storms will place ever greater stress on both the railway and the cliffs that loom above it.

 

The avalanche shed idea seems much more practical (and cheaper) than pushing the railway further into danger given that moving it inland would require much tunnelling and acquisition of developed land which would take many years and cost a tremendous amount.

 

Sooner or later. however, the line will be severed again for a prolonged period, almost certainly before any "Plan B" to parallel it is likely to be devised, let alone built.

 

The former LSWR route is the line that dare not speak its name for almost everyone within NR. No, it wouldn't serve Torbay and the South Hams other than through a lengthy detour via Plymouth but Plymouth and Cornwall matter too and it would at least offer a partial solution that would serve them, albeit a little less rapidly and maintain the tiny shred of credibility that rail retains for freight traffic in the West Country. The coastal line is pretty slow anyway and I suspect that most of the difference would be incurred by reversals at Exeter and Plymouth. 

 

If Plan B is always road transport, what does that say about rail travel? That it may be desirable, but we can do without it if we have to? The more often it gets disrupted, the better the alternatives look and the more the coach operators will want the business permanently.

 

During the last occurrence, plenty decided to make the whole journey from London to Plymouth and Cornwall by coach rather than mess about changing en route, even though it took longer overall. At least the Dartmoor route would challenge that. 

 

John

Edited February 17, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Captain Kernow]

If anyone wants to attend one of the remaining 'public consultation' sessions that NR is holding in the South West, details can be found here:

 

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/railway-upgrade-plan-proposed-for-line-between-exeter-and-newton-abbot

[The Stationmaster]

After writing my previous comments last night, one possible (albeit expensive) solution to the cliffs problem occurred to me, which would be to construct an 'avalanche shelter' as per that at Ffriog on the most vulnerable sections.

 

This would surely be cheaper than the madcap notion of actually putting the operational railway further out to sea to avoid cliff falls?

 

Don't forget that Parsons Tunnel was actually extended at the Exeter-end in the 1920s, in the same manner, due to the risk of cliff falls.

 

I do wonder if the 'move the railway a bit further from the cliffs' is actually a sort of Trojan horse in that NR know it will not get a favourable public response so they can then come up with what they really want to do which is either cutback and concrete the cliff face or build a very substantial avalanche shelter.  Either  of which might actually deal with the problem rather than simply steering clear of it (until there's a really massive fall involving a couple of houses as well).

 

And I have to say I still remain very sceptical of any effort to try to reopen the route north of the moor.  Apart from the problem at Tavistock (but it wouldn't be the first time houses have been demolished to build a railway or road) I can't really get my head round the continuing operational costs it would create and how they would be met in order to create the necessary base for emergency diversions.  And it does nothing to resolve the Torbay access which means the coastal route, or a totally new one between, say, Powderham and Hackney, would still have to be maintained and engineered for resilience against changes in sea level and potentially increasing frequency of storms. Overall it looks to me as if the best answer in terms of finance is always going to be to improve the coastal route although logically a new inland route would obviously be far more resilient.

[bgman]

If anyone wants to attend one of the remaining 'public consultation' sessions that NR is holding in the South West, details can be found here:

 

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/railway-upgrade-plan-proposed-for-line-between-exeter-and-newton-abbot

 

Thank you for the info, I may well attend the Exeter meeting purely on interest.

[brianusa]

Here's my usual two bobs worth of unreality on this subject!  What is so difficult of routing London trains on the old SR line through to Plymouth obviating any reversal at Exeter?  As there are no loco hauled trains nowadays, what's the problem?  We have heard about drivers having to change ends and how it would interfere with timing and pathing but is that so insurmountable?  Torbay, Newton and others would have connections, belatedly perhaps but better than no service at all.  There's no freight to speak of; the clay traffic is happy to stay in Cornwall.  But as the repairs at Dawlish are good for umpteen years why worry!

 

Brian.

[bgman]

Thank you for the info, I may well attend the Exeter meeting purely on interest.

It's in the diary

[Captain Kernow]

Here's my usual two bobs worth of unreality on this subject!  What is so difficult of routing London trains on the old SR line through to Plymouth obviating any reversal at Exeter?  As there are no loco hauled trains nowadays, what's the problem?  We have heard about drivers having to change ends and how it would interfere with timing and pathing but is that so insurmountable? 

It's not really a major problem at all, Brian, not operationally. HSTs are allowed 7 minutes (in a platform, 10 minutes if there is no platform) for the driver to change ends. The minimum allowance for a Sprinter is 3 mins, although more is normally allowed, where possible.

 

The main objection is the fact that the Okehampton route would only be used in the above way, by diverted through trains, on a relatively few days per year, thus requiring a daily local service to be operated by GWR (with XC also having some trains routed that way), in order to maintain route knowledge.

 

Of course the local service may attract some kind of financial support and could easily become a 'Community Rail' route, but the price tag for putting it all back in the first place is very high, as compared with the financial returns, especially if the coastal route could be made more 'resilient' for a portion of the cost of the Okehampton route (although admittedly a fairly high portion of that cost).

[Captain Kernow]

But as the repairs at Dawlish are good for umpteen years why worry!

 

 

Reading between the lines, the higher risk, as probably perceived by NR currently, is the state of the cliffs between the tunnels and Teignmouth. The works done in 2014 and subsequently have only addressed part of the problem, there is still a lot to do there, in order to be able to almost 'walk away' and stop worrying about it. That seems to be where the main thrust of investigations/researches are being concentrated.

 

Lesser storms than those of February 2014 would still have the capability to cause damage to ballast (by displacement), flooding the track and throwing up debris on the track, all of which may equate to a line closure for a day or so, in order to clear it all. It is unlikely that a storm of that (moderate) severity would cause any kind of serious structural damage to the Wall itself.

 

A repeat of one of the February 2014 storms could, however, cause structural damage that would result in a longer line closure, although I still think that we would be looking at a matter of a week or so, rather than months, as based on my personal observations of damage caused to areas away from the main breach, in February 2014. Remember that the historical mode of Wall failure was from the bottom up, but now that the foundations have been strengthened, the main risk is to the public walkway and remaining sections of stone-built parapet. Damage to either (especially the stone-built parapet) would almost certainly affect the operation of the railway (although I could envisage a scenario where stone-built parapet walls are damaged, but that the underlying structure is sound, and the Up (Reversible) line reopening for a limited service sooner than the Down line. It really would depend on the circumstances.

[brianusa]

Thanks Cap'n.  This is basically wishful thinking on my part, a common affliction amongst rail enthusiasts.  The powers that be will do whatever they come up with for better or worse.

 

Brian.

[phil-b259]

 

The former LSWR route is the line that dare not speak its name for almost everyone within NR. No, it wouldn't serve Torbay and the South Hams other than through a lengthy detour via Plymouth but Plymouth and Cornwall matter too and it would at least offer a partial solution that would serve them, albeit a little less rapidly and maintain the tiny shred of credibility that rail retains for freight traffic in the West Country. The coastal line is pretty slow anyway and I suspect that most of the difference would be incurred by reversals at Exeter and Plymouth. 

 

 

You are labouring under the common misconception that re-opening railways has something to do with NR. Well it isn't - and won't be whatever people / enthuasts / the press like to say.

 

NRs obligations - as laid down in their license to be a network operator are solely to maintain and enhance the current railway infrastructure they control. Thus enhancing the robustness of existing routes by building new grade separated junctions (as at Norton Bridge), new diveunders at Bermondsey  or moving the railway alignment to get round an issue be it mining subsidence in Northumberlansd or unstable cliffs at Dawlish - even if additional land purchase is required - is what they do. Reinstating a long stretch of railway a considerable distance from the problem area, which will not solve the problems is not remotely within their remit as the owner of the current network.

 

Building new railway lines is a competence that lies outside of NRs remit - it is up to the DfT to get a project together and pass the necessary legislation through parliament to allow construction to happen. NRs involvement in such a project depends on the stance of those leading the project and must take into account the cost of the extra maintenance liabilities adding extra infrastructure to look after has on NRs internal resource base.

 

If you have a look at the two most recent large scale railway building projects this all becomes clear. The borders railway was originally going to be constructed (and maybe owned) by a 3rd party with NR only being involved with regards the interface between the two systems at the Edinburgh end. Once the sponsors found they had problems with this setup, the project was redesigned and NR invited to take it over the construction and subsistent operation of the line. NR thus enervated into a commercial agreement with the project sponsors to deliver a specific scheme and take absorb it into the national network upon completion. At no stage was the decision to go ahead with the construction anything to do with NR - that competence laid solely within the Scottish Government in Holyrood.

 

By contrast HS1 (even its owners had to be bailed out by Railtrack at one stage) remained totally separate from NR. NRs only involvement in the promotion of the line was on the interfaces between the two systems with the infrastructure remaining separately owned. NR did win the management contract to operate and maintain the railway on a day to day basis - but this is a commercial contract and as such is separate from NRs obligations to the national network.

 

Thus IF there is support for re-opening the Oakhampton - Tavistock railway then people need to stop telling NR to do it - because its not in their remit to do so. Instead you need to focus on putting together a suitable consortium of groups to lobby the DfT to fund its reconstruction as a stand alone project. NR may of course pledge to support it on a technical basis - as they have done for the Borders railway or HS1 / HS2 but the fact remains their involvement is subordinate to the overall scheme - not the key driver for it in the first place.

 

 

I do wonder if the 'move the railway a bit further from the cliffs' is actually a sort of Trojan horse in that NR know it will not get a favourable public response so they can then come up with what they really want to do which is either cutback and concrete the cliff face or build a very substantial avalanche shelter.  Either  of which might actually deal with the problem rather than simply steering clear of it (until there's a really massive fall involving a couple of houses as well).

 

It could be that NR know they might face some hostile reaction to any lengthy avalanche shelter along the coast from the environmental / NIMBY / I don't want anything to change after I moved here / I'm worried it will negatively affect my house price brigade. Thus, as you say, why not propose something worse then offer up the preferred solution as a compromise. Its a tactic that has been used with some degree of success before with road schemes.