Exeter - Newton Abbot new route?

[t***@lycos.co.uk]

i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

[alicante]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

There used to be an alternative line from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton
and Tavistock (sigh) ............... the so-called withered arm.

[Tom Cumming]

Post by alicante

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

There used to be an alternative line from Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton
and Tavistock (sigh) ............... the so-called withered arm.

That was what they were talking about restoring, but sadly its all
gone quiet in the last few years. Mind, I can imagine with finite
amounts of money that can be spent there are probably many more
important projects. I am not sure the alternative route would have
been a great deal faster than the current one, but it would mean
an alternative route when Dawlish gets flooded, as it so regularly
does.

[t***@lycos.co.uk]

Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea wall
section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it. The sea
wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

[Tom Cumming]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea wall
section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it. The sea
wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

All the services that use that stretch are reliant on public
subsidy, especially the Virgin ones - I do not think they're
exactly huge money spinners. That said though, they managed to
find the money to re-double the main line through Cornwall, which
I really never thought would happen.

[Jon Porter]

Post by Tom Cumming

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea
wall section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it.
The sea wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

All the services that use that stretch are reliant on public
subsidy, especially the Virgin ones - I do not think they're
exactly huge money spinners. That said though, they managed to
find the money to re-double the main line through Cornwall, which
I really never thought would happen.

and the subsidy level for FGW is?

[Tom Cumming]

Post by Jon Porter
and the subsidy level for FGW is?

Sorry, am I wrong? (I don't have the appropriate Roger Ford
article to hand ;) )

[Jon Porter]

Post by Tom Cumming

Post by Jon Porter
and the subsidy level for FGW is?

Sorry, am I wrong? (I don't have the appropriate Roger Ford
article to hand ;) )

Technically you are right, a subsidy is paid, but FGW pay a guaranteed
dividend back to HMG.

[Tom Cumming]

Post by Jon Porter
Technically you are right, a subsidy is paid, but FGW pay a guaranteed
dividend back to HMG.

So they give you money and then take it off you again. Right....!!

[Dave]

Post by Tom Cumming

Post by Jon Porter
Technically you are right, a subsidy is paid, but FGW pay a guaranteed
dividend back to HMG.

So they give you money and then take it off you again. Right....!!

I wonder how much the admin costs?

[Jon Porter]

Post by Dave

Post by Tom Cumming

Post by Jon Porter
Technically you are right, a subsidy is paid, but FGW pay a
guaranteed dividend back to HMG.

So they give you money and then take it off you again. Right....!!

I wonder how much the admin costs?

Ask the SRA, it's quite simple for the TOC. This is what you are given
to run the services, this is what you pay back at the end of March. The
TOC then has to cover the payment in any case regardless of the profit
(or loss) level.

[Jon Porter]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea wall
section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it. The sea
wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

Sorry but it is not crumbling , indeed it's been improved a lot over the
last four years. The cliffs had problems, mainly due to rainfall rather
than sea action, and a lot has been spent to stabilise them.

[John Ruddy]

Post by Jon Porter

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea wall
section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it. The sea
wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

Sorry but it is not crumbling , indeed it's been improved a lot over the
last four years. The cliffs had problems, mainly due to rainfall rather
than sea action, and a lot has been spent to stabilise them.

Well, considering the amount that the sea level is predicted to rise by,
the sea wall will be overflowed by about 2040.

[dwb]

Post by John Ruddy

Post by Jon Porter

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
Surely with the fact that Intercity services pass through the sea
wall section twice an hour in each direction someone could fund it.
The sea wall is crumbling fast, one day it won't be there at all.

Sorry but it is not crumbling , indeed it's been improved a lot over
the last four years. The cliffs had problems, mainly due to rainfall
rather than sea action, and a lot has been spent to stabilise them.

Well, considering the amount that the sea level is predicted to rise
by, the sea wall will be overflowed by about 2040.

Potentially negating the need for any sort of railway line at all as it
won't have any destinations to go to... ;-)

[Chris Johns]

Post by Tom Cumming
That was what they were talking about restoring, but sadly its all
gone quiet in the last few years. Mind, I can imagine with finite
amounts of money that can be spent there are probably many more
important projects. I am not sure the alternative route would have
been a great deal faster than the current one, but it would mean
an alternative route when Dawlish gets flooded, as it so regularly
does.

Yes.. far more important things - like a 140mph link for Kent commuters...
--
Chris Johns

[Stimpy]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

I believe it got as far as the line of route being staked out but then the
war intervened. Post-war the money wasn't available and, of course, both
routes 'twixt Exeter and Plymouth were soon under the control of British
Railways rather than being two competing routes.

ISTR the Chudleigh & Heathfield route was sometimes used as an emergency
'back route' when the sea wall was closed

[David E. Belcher]

Post by Stimpy

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

I believe it got as far as the line of route being staked out but then the
war intervened.

I seem to recall that a brief reference is made to the by-pass line in
"Next Station" a.k.a. "The Great Western's Last Look Forward" by
Christian Barman, which was published just before nationalisation, so
it would seem that the GWR would have pressed ahead with it not long
after WW2 had BR not been formed.

David E. Belcher

[David E. Belcher]

Post by Stimpy
ISTR the Chudleigh & Heathfield route was sometimes used as an emergency
'back route' when the sea wall was closed

Yup, the Exe Valley line was another alternative to the main coast
route, but was only coded Blue and so could handle nothing bigger than
a 43xx Mogul. In BR days, the Withered Arm fared rather better motive
power-wise, Spam Cans being the order of the day (don't know if
Arthurs and S15s were also allowed). Apparently, in BR days, SR locos
and crew used to work the odd train on the ex-GW coast route, and WR
engines and crews did likewise via Meldon Viaduct, for route knowledge
purposes in the event of one or the other line being closed; I've
certainly seen a pic of an unrebuilt Bulleid on an Exeter-Plymouth
stopper (formed of ex-GW stock!) on the sea wall route.

David E. Belcher

[David Hansen]

On 28 Oct 2004 07:43:06 -0700 someone who may be

Post by David E. Belcher
Apparently, in BR days, SR locos
and crew used to work the odd train on the ex-GW coast route, and WR
engines and crews did likewise via Meldon Viaduct, for route knowledge
purposes in the event of one or the other line being closed;

That is the case.

Post by David E. Belcher
I've
certainly seen a pic of an unrebuilt Bulleid on an Exeter-Plymouth
stopper (formed of ex-GW stock!) on the sea wall route.

GW and non-GW stock had slightly different braking systems (the GW
system was more powerful, but also more economical). As a result
crews had to be capable of operating with the foreign stock. For
example in the case of a non-GW locomotive taking over from a GW
locomotive on GW stock the strings would have be to be pulled on
every coach before the train set off. As a result locomotives and
stock were deliberately mixed.

[Roger H. Bennett]

Post by David Hansen
GW and non-GW stock had slightly different braking systems (the GW
system was more powerful, but also more economical). As a result
crews had to be capable of operating with the foreign stock. For
example in the case of a non-GW locomotive taking over from a GW
locomotive on GW stock the strings would have be to be pulled on
every coach before the train set off. As a result locomotives and
stock were deliberately mixed.

Could you explain that comment, please. I understand that GW vacuum brakes
with 25" Hg would be more powerful than the standard 21" Hg, but why were
they more economical? It is that some/all GW locos were fitted with vacuum
pumps in addition to ejectors? If so, is the saving significant?

Roger

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 16:25:26 GMT someone who may be "Roger H.

Post by Roger H. Bennett
but why were
they more economical? It is that some/all GW locos were fitted with vacuum
pumps in addition to ejectors? If so, is the saving significant?

All locomotives were fitted with a large ejector to create a vacuum.
Ejectors (suitably sized) are ideal for this application.

GW locomotives were fitted with vacuum pumps to maintain the vacuum,
rather than a small ejector. My understanding is that the vacuum
pump was more economical. The saving would not appear to be
particularly significant on an individual locomotive, but no doubt
added up across many locomotives.

[Roger H. Bennett]

Post by David Hansen
All locomotives were fitted with a large ejector to create a vacuum.
Ejectors (suitably sized) are ideal for this application.
GW locomotives were fitted with vacuum pumps to maintain the vacuum,
rather than a small ejector. My understanding is that the vacuum
pump was more economical. The saving would not appear to be
particularly significant on an individual locomotive, but no doubt
added up across many locomotives.

Thanks. I'll have to remember to point that out to our loco crews next time
they complain about the disadvantages of GW locos. :-)

Roger

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:36:30 GMT someone who may be "Roger H.

Post by Roger H. Bennett

Post by David Hansen
GW locomotives were fitted with vacuum pumps to maintain the vacuum,
rather than a small ejector. My understanding is that the vacuum
pump was more economical. The saving would not appear to be
particularly significant on an individual locomotive, but no doubt
added up across many locomotives.

Thanks. I'll have to remember to point that out to our loco crews next time
they complain about the disadvantages of GW locos. :-)

As a result of having a vacuum pump they burn less coal. Thus the
fireman has to shovel less coal. Not much less coal though.

[mb]

Post by David E. Belcher

Post by Stimpy
ISTR the Chudleigh & Heathfield route was sometimes used as an emergency
'back route' when the sea wall was closed

Yup, the Exe Valley line was another alternative to the main coast
route, but was only coded Blue and so could handle nothing bigger than
a 43xx Mogul. In BR days, the Withered Arm fared rather better motive
power-wise, Spam Cans being the order of the day (don't know if
Arthurs and S15s were also allowed). Apparently, in BR days, SR locos
and crew used to work the odd train on the ex-GW coast route, and WR
engines and crews did likewise via Meldon Viaduct, for route knowledge
purposes in the event of one or the other line being closed; I've
certainly seen a pic of an unrebuilt Bulleid on an Exeter-Plymouth
stopper (formed of ex-GW stock!) on the sea wall route.
David E. Belcher

I can confirm the use of Bulleid Pacifics on the ex-GW line. On returning
from my first visit to Newton Abbot to Exeter in 1956 the loco was an
unrebuilt West Country. Rather disappointing at the time as I was hoping
for a 'Manor' or something like that.

Very doubtful if engines like N15s and S15s would have ever been allowed
west of Exeter via the ex-SR lines. Their maximum axle loadings were of the
order of 22 tons, around 4 tons more than a Light Pacific.

[John Ruddy]

Post by mb

Post by David E. Belcher

Post by Stimpy
ISTR the Chudleigh & Heathfield route was sometimes used as an emergency
'back route' when the sea wall was closed

Yup, the Exe Valley line was another alternative to the main coast
route, but was only coded Blue and so could handle nothing bigger than
a 43xx Mogul. In BR days, the Withered Arm fared rather better motive
power-wise, Spam Cans being the order of the day (don't know if
Arthurs and S15s were also allowed). Apparently, in BR days, SR locos
and crew used to work the odd train on the ex-GW coast route, and WR
engines and crews did likewise via Meldon Viaduct, for route knowledge
purposes in the event of one or the other line being closed; I've
certainly seen a pic of an unrebuilt Bulleid on an Exeter-Plymouth
stopper (formed of ex-GW stock!) on the sea wall route.
David E. Belcher

I can confirm the use of Bulleid Pacifics on the ex-GW line. On returning
from my first visit to Newton Abbot to Exeter in 1956 the loco was an
unrebuilt West Country. Rather disappointing at the time as I was hoping
for a 'Manor' or something like that.
Very doubtful if engines like N15s and S15s would have ever been allowed
west of Exeter via the ex-SR lines. Their maximum axle loadings were of the
order of 22 tons, around 4 tons more than a Light Pacific.

The s15's were used as far as Meldon quarry, but not over the viaduct.
Singling of the line over the viaduct, and some moderate strengthening
work would have allowed heavier engines to cross, if need be.

[Andy Kirkham]

Post by John Ruddy
The s15's were used as far as Meldon quarry, but not over the viaduct.
Singling of the line over the viaduct, and some moderate strengthening
work would have allowed heavier engines to cross, if need be.

I don't think singling would have helped because it was really two
single-track viaducts side-by-side with their legs interlaced.


Andy Kirkham
Glasgow

[John Ruddy]

Post by Andy Kirkham

Post by John Ruddy
The s15's were used as far as Meldon quarry, but not over the viaduct.
Singling of the line over the viaduct, and some moderate strengthening
work would have allowed heavier engines to cross, if need be.

I don't think singling would have helped because it was really two
single-track viaducts side-by-side with their legs interlaced.
Andy Kirkham
Glasgow

Southern Region had some plans in the early 60's for just such an
exercise, it involved more interlinking of the decking as well as some
additional cross struts on the legs. The single line would be aligned
centrally. The Western region said a few years later that the viaduct
was unsafe, and beyond repair, so the line had to be closed. It still
stands to this day.

[Andy Kirkham]

Post by John Ruddy

Post by Andy Kirkham

Post by John Ruddy
The s15's were used as far as Meldon quarry, but not over the viaduct.
Singling of the line over the viaduct, and some moderate strengthening
work would have allowed heavier engines to cross, if need be.

I don't think singling would have helped because it was really two
single-track viaducts side-by-side with their legs interlaced.
Andy Kirkham
Glasgow

Southern Region had some plans in the early 60's for just such an
exercise, it involved more interlinking of the decking as well as some
additional cross struts on the legs. The single line would be aligned
centrally. The Western region said a few years later that the viaduct
was unsafe, and beyond repair, so the line had to be closed. It still
stands to this day.

I stand corrected!

Andy

[Tony Day]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

It can't come soon enough. How many years practice have they had at putting
on buses? Can they get it right? No. It's not as if they didn't get several
days warning. Horrendous queues at N Abbott this am, and not a bus in sight.
No announcements. No information. On bloke wandering up and down the queue
telling a few people in earshot that the bus is coming. Great. When? No
idea. Sheesh.

Tony

[Neil Sunderland]

Post by Tony Day
How many years practice have they had at putting
on buses? Can they get it right? No. It's not as if they didn't get several
days warning. Horrendous queues at N Abbott this am, and not a bus in sight.

In the meantime Barnstaple-Exeter services were running with no more
than the odd 3 or 5 minute delay, and AFAICT everything at the Exmouth
end running on time.

Not that I'm rubbing it in or anything, you understand ;o)

[Tony Day]

Post by Neil Sunderland

Post by Tony Day
How many years practice have they had at putting
on buses? Can they get it right? No. It's not as if they didn't get several
days warning. Horrendous queues at N Abbott this am, and not a bus in sight.

In the meantime Barnstaple-Exeter services were running with no more
than the odd 3 or 5 minute delay, and AFAICT everything at the Exmouth
end running on time.
Not that I'm rubbing it in or anything, you understand ;o)

It is true that the Exmouth line runs when most others are in chaos, but
we're still getting cancellations (which was almost unheard of before the
timetable change) - one mid morning yesterday, for instance.

Tony

[A Smart]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

Ther used to be one until Beeching closed it.

[Alan Osborn]

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

That was the old LSWR route via Okehampton and Tavistock

Seems the Beeching era closed down the wrong route
but no doubt instead of heavy seas at Dawlish
It would be snow-drifts across Dartmoor

[Stimpy]

Post by Alan Osborn

Post by t***@lycos.co.uk
i remember reading five years ago that they were planning a new rail
link between Exeter and Newton Abbot avoiding the sea wall. Does
anybody know what became of this in the end? It would've no doubt
speeded up London - Penzance journeys.

That was the old LSWR route via Okehampton and Tavistock

No, the GWR planned (and even staked out) an inland main line route in the
late 30's.