General Discussion
As per per the below article, and photo why did NR ever claim the line to be resiliant?? The wall at the breach was patently obvious as the location that something bad would happen (says 'Mystic Clive') due to low beach, complete lack of defences, thin stone wall and rubble backfill. Frankly it beggers belief to me how much surprise and hand wringing about the weather there has been at such a predictable outcome.
"Brunel never wanted to run the line along a sea wall as he foresaw problems with the sea. He wanted to run it inland, but due to environmental reasons-including protests from landowners- and cost limitations, he had to defer in agreeing to a new route next to the sea and through tunnels.
In the first year of operation in 1846 the first breach in the line. In that year Brunel personally inspected 8 breaches in the line. In a space of 15 years from 1853 the line was breached continually, with many other breaches since. There were also great storms locally in 1817 and 1824, the latter described as an ‘extreme hurricane’.
Perhaps the most significant event in the lines history was 1901 when part of the sea wall was rebuilt 5 metres further out into the sea. It was noted this had a dramatic effect on lowering the beach levels. Sand is an extremely good ‘soft defence’ and we mess with levels at our peril. The groynes along the beach that gather sand around them have been left to decay all along this part of the coast as more fashionable –but less effective- methods of coastal defence are implemented.
A local resident next to the breach tells of large heavy objects sucked off the ground before hurtling sideways as the storms fury vented itself against the sea wall, the railway line, and the houses that huddle alongside it. A curious echo of the 1824 reference.
The 1901 reference is especially interesting as the remainder of the wall –badly constructed of stone backfilled with rubble-was scheduled to be re-built at that time, but never was. It was that old part that collapsed . This can be clearly seen in the picture below where the sea wall drops to just above sea level."
Surprise, surprise?
Interestingly enough (and contrarily enough), the sand at that lower level part of the sea wall has itself been at its highest level for years.
Thanks for that Mrs C., luckily so then. Points to the wall parameters being even more damning.
Anyone know what level the sand was pre-1901?
Nevertheless, to start to make a real difference to the rest of the wall another 20feet or so of depth is really needed (brilliant breach repair excepted).
I think Dawlish would be better off with a Dawlish Parkway at the back of the town. Currently there's not enough to draw any meaningful tourism - with a handful of cafes and B&Bs, it's a day out for most. Not everyone wants to plonk themselves down on the sand, and a few benches on the sea wall don't serve them. Put a station at the back of the town and locals are still served, tourists can still get here, more shops would see more passers by and the space currently given over to the railway would open up this town in a way that the Espandade does in Teignmouth. Not that I think it would happen if NR re-route via Okehampton/Tavistock, a Dawlish branch line running the gauntlet of the weather probably won't be so critical to them. Happy to be shot down in flames by more knowledgeable folk on this.
Don't think a DAL would particularly help Dawlish or tourists. Although those on that side of town may then be nearer to a station, I wouldn't bank on getting one in the near future at least. No I think Dawlish is very fortunate to have its station exactly where it is and to stay served from both directions!
Best solution is to make a really good job of a breakwater/groynes etc to push the waves well back from the seawall. This saves the town, the line and may even be good enough to permit much needed electrification in the future. This solution only has winners and no losers that I can see?
Oke-Tavy should be done for the same reasons as the soon to be re-opened Scottish 'Borders line'. Namely that a whole region (mid Devon + North Cornwall railhead) was totally deprived of a fairly well engineered mainline - certainly in terms of gradients (1:75 being perfectly reasonable for modern trains to make a good job of). That it provides an alternative emergency route is a plus of course. No not in direct competition to SD, as SD keeps fearing, that's outdated 'Beeching mentality'.
By 'alternate' that includes seawall issues, as well as more regular mundane engineering works. It's real advantage compared with an Exminster-NA fast direct line is that although it only benefits Plymouth and Cornwall (i.e. not Torbay) it does cover eventualities anywhere along the entire 50miles from Exminster to Plymouth, i.e. not just between Exminster to NA, so has at least twice the 'avoiding line' benefits in that respect.
Cost of the Borders line is coming in at around £300m. But that was for 30miles and for far, far greater engineering challenges that Oke-Tavy requires. Network Rail are very well placed to accurately cost Oke-Tavy given the perfect cost blueprint they have from all their work on the 'Borders line'.