General Discussion
This link should take you to the transcript.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/6845
Just watched Sunday morning Polotics show and they explained the government bases decisions on the actual walk through numbers at man line stations, Bristol is 11 million and in Plymouth 2 million ,guess ,thats why south west is not that important to them. Looks like at the moment all they will do is keep on just making good and patching up the line,
The man tasked with looking at a inland route on bbc1 last night said it is very unlikely a inland route would be built.
Would be interesting to know if the 'Tom Worsley model' factors in major business losses due to unreliability? Also I wonder how much of a circular arguement it is that, Plymouth only has 2.6million passengers (surely long distance to Cornwall should be included in the number) and therefore gets underinvested, but that due to underinvestment and so 3hr to 4hr services (realistically!) it only gets 2.6million passengers. Not as if the ticket prices exactly help either!
Overall, am starting to get the creeping feeling that options for even a 'cheap' backup route (Oke-Tavy) is starting to look like tomorrow's 'chip paper'. My top tip for Devon and Cornwall Councils would be to pass a 'no further development on the Oke-Tavy alignment' to avoid making it even more unaffordable in the future. And that includes looking again at the Bere Alston-Tavy proposal (Kilbride) not 'buffering off' future extensions to Oke by developing on the route, and in particular at the proposed terminous.
The picture shown with this article is taken from the Teignmouth end of the railway. Note the houses to the back of the picture situated on the cliff. These houses (and the cliff!) are protected from the sea by the railway. No railway, no coastal defences, no cliffs, no houses?
My argument from the start has been the wall and line at the moment protect lives and property and if we lose the coastel line we will eventualy lose that protection. So if folk agree with that statement we should then consentrate on getting NR to future proof the wall as they are doing with the HOLE forget about barriers and extras just a good strong wall to withstand the ravages of the sea.
@Lynne - happily, all the indications are very positive that this railway will be kept, long term whatever the cost, because there are so many good financial (and iconic) reasons to do so. the worst that may happen over time is that the steepest parts of the cliff behind the wall (in the above picture) may slip to become a little more battered back to a more natually stable angle (unless comprehensively stabilised). this would probably be more to do with oversaturated cliff top ground conditions than wave action. the '£1.75m mansion picture' (in your other discussion) is an entirely different situation as the toe of the cliffline has no sea wall and the undercut caves are self explanatory. which by comparison illustrates your 'no railway, no coastal defences, no cliffs, no houses?' point perfectly.
HHere's an interesting view of the cliffs on Holcombe Head - shows what the sea will do over time with no seawall protection. The bbreccia sandstone is quite soft & will soon erode away.
and am I right in thinking Neil that those cliffs have one of the Dawlish/Teignmouth coastal railway tunnels running inside? If you look to the extreme left of the picture, about half way up, it looks like the nose/backend of a train that is just about to enter/has just left the tunnel.
They say a picture speaks a thousand words............
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetables-and-travel/storm-damage/dawlish/ some latest pics from Network Rail they all have dates on them( not in order) so you can see the progress
@neilh - do you (or anyone else for that matter) know if those cliffs have any protection from the sea? cos if not, shouldn't it be the case that they should have, given as they've got the railway running inside 'em(!) and the plainly obvious erosion the sea has already caused.
The cliffs have no protection i often sail round them but how would you protect them as i have said more than once its just not financially viable to protect every metre of the coast even if it has a railway running along it.
Would a breakwater help? That proves my point you want a breakwater to protect Boat Cove to Red Rock and now one to protect the cliffs where does it end? What we could do is increase the basic rate of tax and ring fence it for flood protection anybody up for that?
What I am asking Leatash, is if a breakwater would help protect the cliffs that have the tunnels going through 'em (is it two or three tunnels between Dawlish and Teignmouth?) on this one and only rail route in and out of the south west. And if not a breakwater, then what?
There are 5 Tunnels: Kennaway tunnel 209 yards long.
Coryton Tunnel 224 yards long.
Philo tunnel 55 yards long.
Clerks Tunnel 66 yards long.
Parsons Tunnel 512 yards long.
And on we go the point is whatever the reasons we are at a point in time with non predictable weather it could be worse next winter we cant protect everything why not just build a breakwater from Lands End to Dover and then on to Hull and on and on its not financialy viable. It would cost billions are you prepaired to pay more in tax because that what it comes down to. Another solution stop all benifit payments for 12 months to pay for it and how stupid does that sound as daft as building a never ending barrier where do you stop because it would be they have a barrier why cant we have one. The cliffs could be protected with concrete and steel wouldnt look great but its the cheapest option or thousands of tons of boulders, another cheap option but any of these solutions will open up a minefield with the RSPB and others because of nesting birds some rare sea grass etc etc. The truth is everybody including me want a solution but are we prepaired to pay for it would you give up your state pension pay 10% extra tax no we wouldnt and why because we somehow have this idea that goverment will pay for it but they are cutting budgets for flood defence and flood protection. How about sending no more money to Syria, Pakistan, India etc etc ??? thoughts on a postcard prefrably a Dawlish one to David Cameron you know the address
But I'm not talking about building a never ending barrier around the whole of the British Isles, am I? I'm talking about how to protect cliffs that house tunnels that have trains running in 'em on the one and only rail line in and out of the south west.
@leatash, i should think we will be long gone before the sea breaks through to the tunnels, and by then i should think life as we know it now will not excist 
@Clive - do you have any thoughts about how these cliffs, housing the one and only railway line to/from the further south west, can be afforded some protection from the damaging effects of the sea?
This link http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Teignmouth-Dawlish has some very interesting photos and info.
Lynne We have to accept that the line is eventualy going to be damaged beyond repair lets just say what we have witnesed this winter is the start of worse to come it may get 4 or5 times worse it could get 10 times worse. So we should be looking at lives and property not the line its not in the least important it can be diverted inland away from the coast so you may have to travel a few hundred yards more to catch a train. All we will do by trying to save our piece of nostalga is put of the inevatable BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IT COULD BE A MONTH A YEAR OR MAYBE 40 YEARS BUT IT WILL HAPPEN . Roberta is right those cliffs could last another 30 to 50 years lets concentrate on a wall to protect lives and property and a line away from the sea so it stays open and is not affected by climate change. For the life of me i dont see the importance of keeping the coastal route as long as we have a station within walking distance does it matter, not a jot as long as we have a train service. A interesting fact i heard on the local news was that only 6% of visitors to the South West use the train they wont care where it goes as long as they get to their destination on time with no hold ups
@Lynne - great photos etc. i would agree with roberta's comment about timescale. i don't think it's a point of great concern in the overall scheme of things.
I would consider the cliffs to be of benefit in providing natural beach spoil protection further along. If many years from now the tunnel was eventually affected you could initially concrete line the tunnel, then if that becomes too encroached upon simply convert it to a cutting and eventually when the waves lap that provide a sea wall then. But for all that to happen we are probably talking about 150years+_50years or so, at a guess. The tunnel ends (portals) would probably be the most vulnerable part of the headland and would be protected as part of the sea wall of the open stretch. (Ref. picture in your link of the 'rock armour' protecting 'Headland at Smugglers Lane' shows that NR have already thought ahead on this point).
Anyway, I think other areas will be far more dominant in their needs before all that. If it's saving the headland itself that's of concern, then I think that would be a big ask to get money for - am not aware of headlands generally getting protected particularly as this one appears to be fairly free of houses. Also, headlands can mean that they are relatively a bit stronger than the adjacent coves.
Thanks for your inputs. I was trying to establish how vulnerable the tunnels are/would be, over what period of time this vulnerability crisis might occur, and what, if anything, could be done to protect them.
From Anne Marie Morris's (our MP) column in this week's Gazette;
"I met with staff from contractor BAM Nuttall, and we discussed different options for reinforcing the sea wall. The main priority now is for a proper survey to establish exactly what is possible in terms of a break water. This survey needs to happen as soon as possible, so that informed decisions can then be made. I will be pursuing this with ministers in the coming weeks".
@Lynne - sounds as though happily for dawish the 'sixth' option of breakwaters is being taken very seriously.
@Clive - Then again estimates on erosion can vary considerably year to year, see link below on Sussex cliffs!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26373624
You would probably need to look at records for this year in particular to see the worst that can happen in one year for Dawlish.
Would agree with breakwaters being a game changer to keep wave action away (or diminish it) from the sea wall proper.
To state the obvious it's all down to money again as to how comprehensive the solution is. Virtually anything is possible with enough money. All of the below miles of new artificial islands are protected by sea walls and/or breakwaters - money no object in Dubai of course when selling to loadsa millionaires.
The irony is that we can't seem to countenance the economics of planning 100-150 years hence for a railway line that was opened in 1846. Even more ironic is that Isambard Kingdom Brunel's civil egineering skills were derived from his less celebrated father, Isambard Marc Brunel. He pioneered underwater tunnelling and his visionary but occasionally unprofitable ventures once resulted in a stretch in debtors prison. He was born in 1769!!
Managing Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk for the Exe Estuary – Draft Strategy Aug.2013. Submitted to DEFRA I believe. Can’t find anything online concerning DEFRA’s response
http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/LIT_8599_8565ab.pdf
Sections 9-12 (pages 13-16) cover Powderham Banks and the Kenn Valley, Starcross and Cockwood, Dawlish Warren, Dawlish Warren to Holcombe
Off course Brunell wanted to build the wall 3ft higher but the land owner at the time refused so we have what we have now all because someone didnt want to be overlooked so he knew then it wasnt high enough.
@leatash and that covenant must now be removed as soon as possible otherwise the same will happen again.
NR do know about this. I don`t know if they can get the covenant removed. @ Webmaster I am stil having keyboard problems.