Dawlish News
About time - I also noticed a huge pile of bricks nexct to the Pirates chest......maybe someone's finally decided to tidy it up....?
It's excellent news that the lower level section of the seawall path is going to be raised to the same height as the rest of the seawall. I know it's going to cause us some disruption to the rail services from/to Dawlish, but the short term pain will definitely be our long term gain.
Hoorah for some good news .......
Brunel was right, and with the reversal of the compromise forced on him by Mr Powell all those years ago we will have a much stronger protection for the line. I suspect the initial work may appear unsightly, but Network Rail will no doubt apply solutions to this to make it more in keeping with the general appearance.
You may find that this path heightening is just the first useful step of more radical longer term plans.
I would be very interested if anyone knows which, if any, of the expert wall proposals this improvement will fit into (see my rough summary of the May 'Seawall' lecture at the ICE).
If it is to simply match up Sea Lawn with the rest of the seawall then it doesn't fit any of the solutions presented?
If the answer is none of those presented, then it may only be just a short term fix to just get us through the next winter or two?
Most of the major solutions for the wall over a far longer length than this, seemed to have a significant impact on the amenity value of the pathway. Some for the better, but not all of them.
The key point was for stakeholders to get involved in the choice of the major solution - has this process started yet?
@Mrs C - absolutely do realise that, which is why 'stakeholder' involvement is so crucial. i.e. the 'wall redesign' schemes (basically shed loads of concrete) could mean that the pathway may have restricted views if such a wave reflection reprofiling scheme makes the wall higher than the pathway and it may be somewhat more continuous, hence blocking some access points. alternatively, a two tier scheme would provide a wide unrestricted view/path along a new lower level but would bury a strip of beach under concrete as the downside.
@Lynne - i'll rescrutinise for more specific clues, but i think 'stakeholders' primarily means organisations/departments providing the construction money, plus people who may have their lives or businesses affected - hopefully including those who enjoy the beautiful walk along the path such as mrs c et al.
Have looked again at the 'seawall lecture' and the best I could find on 'stakeholders' is as follows:
Ensure appropriate stakeholder involvement:
There are amenity implications here.
There is a management plan for the frontage.
In the UK we have a structured plan which is usually lead by the Local Authority and the Environment Agency.
“The stakeholders here have very different priorities. The ones responsible for the works, for the defences (presumably Network Rail) have a very different set of priorities. They are not the same as what other stakeholders have, so we need to make sure that those other stakeholders get involved and have some influence on what is being done.”
Clive’s Personal view – ensure locals are comfortable with the profile of any new wall proposed (it will not necessarily be the same profile/solution everywhere so may need to be judged on a location by location basis).
At the moment the pathway is essentially on top of the wall so seaward views from the path are unrestricted. The major solution could, and I emphasis could, mean that the wall profile is built up to a level on the seaward side of the path such that views and/or access becomes more restricted than at present. This is type of issue that I think is hinted at by ‘different set of priorities’.
Of course as per the letter to AMM, we will not know for 18months what the ‘best’ (cost/technical) seawall solutions are deemed to be. The 'seawall lecture' simply presented possible standard options that typically would be considered. The letter doesn’t outline any of these? (I wonder if any MPs walked 2 blocks down the road from the H. of P. to the ICE to see the lecture!)
Anyway, converting the seawall into a 21st century defence (i.e. in plain speak and at the risk of overstating, but to put it bluntly, some sort of ‘Berlin wall’) would be a good option for protecting the railway but could be at the expense of the current amenity value of the pathway, access to the beach, and amount of usable sandy beach adjacent to the wall. Hence, the need for stakeholder involvement which should (no must!) include the views of local folk on this site!!
Letter to AMM from Network Rail dated 1st April. Therefore predated the ICE lecture which took place early May.
Totally agree local people need to be involved in final decision as to how the sea is kept at bay (sorry, terrible pun).
The seawall walk is integral part of Dawlish's USP. For the seawall to lose its seaviews for those walking along it would be a terrible, terrible blow not only for Dawlish but also for the Warren.
Can only hope the necessary engineering works and the tourist needs of the local economy can both be accommodated.
Fear not, today's engineers are very clever and creative in producing appropriate and robust solutions. (Possibly one reason why HR Wallingford need 18months for their analyses as coastal engineering can have unforseen hydrology outcomes if not thoroughly assessed.) Also Dawlish seems to have a very good relationship with NR. The real trick is to give design engineers a very clear remit of what is required by ALL (and from the outset) and of course the appropriate budget to achieve the desired construct !
Well I feel sure I am not the only one to have been making noises both publicly and privately for the need for any long term resilience work, whether sea wall improvement or breakwater or both, to have secondary functions aiding the tourist economy as well as the primary function of protection the railway from the sea.
and talking of budgets. Have a read of this http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/MPs-say-transport-8216-inequality-8217-hurting/story-21176498-detail/story.html and this http://www.51m.co.uk/south-west-wont-even-get-hs2-hand-me-downs-rail-boss-told/
...only 11 days left to Network Rail's High Level Report...here's to hoping it contains something deserving for everyone...
At least they have decieded to take the proper option. They will have to raise it though, first rough seas we have it will come over and onto railway line. Somebody said a while ago, if I`m not mistaken, to make it absolulety safe it will have to be raised 15 feet. They will have to make it stronger as well. Still i`m not a local, only a outsider looking In.
@Clive - i queried the report's absence on the last day of june. got told that a report will be going to the dept of transport the end of this week. that's all i know. (except that i had been told some weeks back, via grapevine, that nr were only going through the 'let's look at the alternative/additional options' scenario in order to keep lots of south west mps happy. financially these other routes are non starters - or so i was told.)
Remind me. How much is HS2 estimated to cost? And now Osborne is going on about an HS3 as well.
@Lynne - £50b and counting?
The question being openly asked now in civil engineering circles is whether the proposed design is the right answer but to the wrong question. Namely that it is the wrong route with a lack of connectivity into existing lines and its speed is creating a high price environmetally and cost. i.e. much as an HS2 is definitely needed, for that price, get it right!!
@roberta - thanks - so there we have it. wall's quickly up again so why bother? the west country is a bit of a soft touch anyway. just go through the motions and say it's all too costly and undeserving to do any real investment in rail services west of bristol.
How can anyone justify spending 50b+ to cut journey times by 20 minutes when the NHS is desperate for money and folk cant get treatment for some cancers because of cost we need to slow down a little and look at what is important.
I am not a financial expert, but I believe planners see HS2 as an investment rather than an expenditure, i.e. there is a clear financial return to be had, unlike with the services folk actually need.
(Curiously when a road gets built there is less Joe and Jane public scrutiny of the cost.)
The plan follows the French philosophy of, 'if you are are going to the trouble of building a new mainline, then best make it a fast one'.
Which is not entirely a transferable philosophy because the French have only half the population density so its much easier for them to build straight lines.
Anyway, it is not primarily about the 20minutes, it's about capacity which has already virtually run out. Having said that Manchester happily stands to be the biggest winner with journey times down fron 125minutes to 65minutes.
One long term issue for most folk is that they will not be able to pay the premium fares that it will inevitably have attached to it.
A bit like in the 'West Britain', there was an article last week about the Cornish railways and the sleeper service and the writer boasted how it always supports it by travelling on it as often as possible.
Which of course is a very noble thing until you realise that the author is an MP - so no, I doubt very much that 'he' is supporting it, but rather the taxpayer of the expenses bill.
Would be my 'magic carpet of choice' as well if someone else would just kindly foot the bill for me !!
They talk about the North/South divide, what about the West. The one fast train from Paddington to Plymouth (barely 30 miles more distance) is 3 hours, with the rest running between 3hr 20m - 3hr 40m. And no motorway beyond Exeter. Yet the Chancellor giddily proposes HS3 between Manchester and Leeds to reduce the current 49 minute journey! Not that it'll ever happen Gideon, canny northerners will know it's a 'vote winning' empty gesture.
Technically speaking there are two 'fast' trains to Plymouth, the 'Cornish Riviera' and the 'Royal Duchy', both at 3hrs dead.
But I won't split hairs because in true FGW style there is only the 'Cornish Riviera' that does the return trip in 3hrs!!
(Or take out a mortgage for one of the two morning business trains to London at 3.07hr).
Talking of comparisons how about the 7.04 Newcastle to London, Flying Scotsman, in 2.36hr - similar distance as London to Penzance!!!
@Lynne - the 'let's look at the alternative/additional options' scenario
I wonder, is the belief that it keeps SW MPs happy per see, or that it keeps the MPs happy because they in turn then believe that they are then empowered to pass on the charade to keep their constituents happy?
I suspect that NR would genuinely love to have a hassle free shiny new line (why wouldn't they like operational reliability and flexibility) but are cynical that there is not much chance of it happening.
Put simply who is kidding who and who believes there are any genuine intentions anyway? Or is everyone kidding everyone, apart from voters who have lost belief in any of it?
I personally suspect there is very little hope of any major expenditure on the cards.
I reached that conclusion the day Mr C & co made such a publicity stunt the day the line reopened to give weighty headlines (plus cynically) that all was well with the world again if nothing more was to happen apart from a bit of extra 170year overdue patch up at 'Sea Lawn'.