Although news reports created visions of unexpected disaster when flooding destroyed the rail track at Dawlish in January, for many of us who have used the line it didn’t come as a surprise.
In the build up to the storms there were constant delays, rail works and packed out carriages; calls were being made for Network Rail to accommodate the rise in passengers and to increase the frequency of trains.
Since the mass abandonment of railway infrastructure in the 1960s to make way for roads, commuters only have access to one track running between London Paddington and Penzance. Whilst big cities have enjoyed generous funding, the West has been largely left out.
The Twitter and Facebook pages were filled with complaints as Network Rail came under the scrutiny of passengers and MPs alike. Tickets were refunded and commuters were put on tightly-squeezed hourly rail replacement bus services as the rail operators worked around the clock to get trains running again.
On the 4th of April, two weeks ahead of schedule, the line at Dawlish was reopened; yet, this hasn’t stopped the general feeling of locals that more should be done to prevent this from happening again.
As recent years have shown, the UK is experiencing an increase in flood events, and, with the main line running through more than one coastal area one suggestion was to build a new, alternate line that ran much further inland.
Image of the damaged Dawlish railway taken for the Daily Mail, February 2014
However, as Tom Worsley, the man who designed the method used by Ministers to decide what goes ahead explains, ‘new railways are very expensive, more land would have to be purchased and there would also be issues about the stations the new route would serve and whether some towns would be bypassed.’
A Daily Mail article from February suggested that Ministers were considering opening two old lines as alternatives to the coastal route. Although both would’ve had to have been renovated and adapted for modern trains and rebuilding the Dawlish section of the line took less time and money, it still raises the point that much of the rail infrastructure needed for a south west revamp already exists.
With many people in the west having to rely on bus services, congestion in towns and cities rising and with an increase in families unable to afford cars, a commitment to rebuilding and reinforcing the old local railway would be a huge benefit to the area.
As the Government develop plans for the new high-speed railway line linking London with Birmingham and the North, the idea for a South West revamp is not a ridiculous notion.
The proposed HS2 will cost £42.6bn and won’t be ready until at least 2026. With the HS2 rail’s construction, many towns and villages will have to be adapted and demolished to make room. The sheer size of the project goes to show how much the Government are willing to spend to achieve faster transport; so why has nothing been done to support the South West line before now?
The London to Birmingham line is served by a much larger majority of people than the Bristol to Penzance line. It makes economic sense to spend more money on improving it, especially if it sees a larger financial profit. As Professor Jon Shaw of Plymouth University states, ‘we’re going to have a lot of competition [for funding], we’ve got a big hurdle to overcome to convince the Government we need the money first this time instead of it going elsewhere.’
Perhaps there needs to be a change in the attitudes of ministers towards the way that the South West line is viewed. Birmingham and London are financial, business hubs which serve millions more than the stations of Plymouth and Exeter; yet, the South West has a lot of potential.
From its innovative companies to its aspiring Universities and tourism - the South West is thriving. However, with a limited line it is still closed off from much of the country.
Westminster needs to take Dawlish as a warning: if the UK wants to keep up with other countries in Europe, the South West should be treated as fairly as the rest.
