Talk:Devon Metro

Riviera Line

The increase in frequency to two trains an hour did not increase the frequency to Exmouth which was already half hourly because the Barnstaple trains provided half the service. The Barnstaple trains were curtailed at Exeter Central to allow the Paignton trains use their path.

The origins of the half hourly Paignton service began when the European Union paid for an extra train to run between Newton Abbot and Paignton. The public timetable had an E at the top of each service. REVUpminster (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Network or project?

@Kilopylae: "Devon Metro" is the name for both the metroisation scheme and the network itself, it is used to refer to the network in local and national railway news sources, and by local government sources, both city and county (...on the Riviera Line ‘Devon Metro’ service.) councils. That is combined with the fact this article is used across Wikipedia for the Exeter suburban heavy rail network (e.g. Urban rail in the United Kingdom). As such I have partially reverted your edits, at Special:Diff/1339681156. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Devon Metro doesn't really exist and is a proposal of Devon County Council that GWR have never really taken on board still sticking to their own line names recognising that hourly services is stretching the "Metro" description a bit far. Half an hour just about qualifies?? The map could be regarded by some editors as original research. The British Rail Double Arrow logo trademark used is controlled by Secretary of State for Transport via Network Rail although the Great British Railways has adopted it. With local government changing and Devon County Council ceasing to exist there may be nobody left to promote the Devon Metro. REVUpminster (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority will inherit transport responsibility from Devon County Council and Torbay Council on 1 April 2026, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should not entirely change how we describe something in contrast to how sources describe it because there is a chance the current body organising it may not have a direct replacement body in over 2 years time. Again, sources refer to the network around Exeter as "Devon Metro". Devon Metro is a name, we refer to the Brisbane Metro as a Brisbane Metro even though it is a bus network.
I am unsure why you are changing the descriptor "suburban rail" to "regional rail", when the main function of the network is to move people from across the eastern half of the county to Exeter and back, meeting the definition of suburban rail.
We could make another map, as I cannot find any evidence towards the fare zone (that is my primary concern with it). I have never heard of a map being removed from an article because it is "original research". Regarding the double-arrow it does not qualify for copyright under UK law (expired crown copyright), and is used to refer to the National Rail network in general, of which the Devon Metro is on, so I don't see where or how your argument there applies. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed anything on the article since June 2024 and that was to avoid a re-direct. My concern with the map is it could be taken as official and not an own work. Reorganisation of local government is up in the air as the the existing authorities can't agree. The combine county authority as I see it was a way Torbay felt they could get more money. They could not fund Edginswell Station, existing planning permission runs out in November, so hope Devon County Council will pay for the station as they did for Marsh Barton.REVUpminster (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When exactly did I claim you've edited the article since June 2024? You raised concerns about the article and I countered them. That is how talk pages work.
The CCA is not just "a way Torbay felt they could get more money", it is a combined authority which will assume all transport responsibility from Devon and Torbay in a few months time. LGR will not affect it, it will continue to exist above whatever local authorities replace Devon and Torbay. Hence, your worries about who will inherit the Devon Metro are not founded.
When exactly were we talking about Edginswell? If you think you could improve the article by adding information about the station you are free to do so. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I am unsure why you are changing the descriptor "suburban rail" to "regional rail", when the main function of the network is to move people from across the eastern half of the county to Exeter and back, meeting the definition of suburban rail."

This in your reply to me above. REVUpminster (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. When I was writing that half of my reply I had mistaken you for the person I had pinged, I had read through after I had realised to remove references to that but it appears I was not quite thorough enough. Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Coleisforeditor and REVUpminster: Apologies for joining the discussion a couple of days after it had started – I very much appreciate the ping :)

Firstly: The question of whether – in reliable sources – "Devon Metro" denotes a local authority project to improve a railway network (as I believe) or whether it is a name for a railway network. I appreciate the four sources you've shared. I don't interpret the language of the DCC source in the same way. The phrase Devon Metro is used three times in the article:

  • The wording "supports our Devon Metro ambitions" is plainly aligned with the project intepretation over the network one (it doesn't say "ambitions for the Devon Metro" as one might say for the London Underground).
  • The phrase "Riviera Line 'Devon Metro' service" is more ambiguous but still favours the interpretation that the phrase refers to a scheme under which the present service is being provided (compare for example "designated a Community Rail Partnership service" in this document). The scare quotes reinforce this interpretation by making it clear that "Devon Metro" is being used as an adjective.
  • "Marsh Barton is a very important next step for the Devon Metro" is neutral between the two interpretations. The grammar might ever so slightly favour the project interpretation because it refers to "Marsh Barton" rather than "the opening of Marsh Barton" but I don't think it's worth getting too deeply into the reeds here.

The Modern Railways article does say "Devon Metro ridership" – but it feels like you are missing the wood for the trees here when the article itself is a lengthy discussion of how the project is "shaping up". It's an article about an improvement scheme, not an article about a suburban railway network.

This leaves the Exeter City Council press release. The article in an obscure online-only newspaper (that isn't obviously independent from the council? – I'd never heard of the Exeter Today before today though so take this with a grain of salt) closely follows the text of the press release so I don't think it should be considered separately. This press release is a primary source which is trying to squeeze the blood of a "look what the council has been doing!" story from the stone of a GWR passenger numbers release. Its agenda is transparent; its framing is tendentious; and its value as a source is nil.

Indeed this one primary source stands in lonely contrast to absolute avalanche of reputable secondary sources that talk about the Devon Metro project or scheme. Not to mention the various Devon Live sources cited in the article (though I'm not going to call Devon Live reputable).

It's also absolutely the standard language used by

"Devon Metro project" is in Hansard; a different MP in the same debate describes the "Devon Metro system" as "a very fine Devon county council plan".

My exegesis of the sources is therefore that REVUpminster's view that the Devon Metro "is a proposal of Devon County Council" is widely shared, whereas I am not convinced that the plural in your sentence "sources refer to the network around Exeter as 'Devon Metro'" is justified.

Secondly: Regional rail vs suburban rail. I want to start this discussion with the observation that sources do refer to the railway network in (say) Bristol and its environs as a suburban rail network – e.g. a local MP, a local campaign group, and the Mayor of the West of England. To me this reinforces the significance of the fact that I have never seen a reliable source describe the lines in Devon this way.

Several secondary sources describe railway lines in Devon as regional rail:

Railfuture states that "In 2022/23 Devon was unique in Britain outside London for its higher regional rail usage than pre-pandemic". This detailed document from a consultancy firm does speak of "the 'Devon Metro' regional service development and marketing". The same document cites "Topsham (Devon Metro)" and "Dawlish Warren" as examples of stations with "regional" services (p.7) and says of a proposed Wellington station: "However it is clear that the station would require a specified regional service. This would be a Devon Metro station not served by Intercity trains" (p. 7).

You are saying that "the main function of the network is to move people from across the eastern half of the county to Exeter and back". Firstly, if we are defining the Devon Metro as including Paignton and Barnstaple, this is patently untrue. Secondly, Axminster and Exmouth are not suburbs of Exeter. Stations like Digby and Sowton are suburban stations on a regional rail line.

Thank you again for the ping :))) – even if we have different views it's great to have a pleasant and substantial discussion about it with someone who enjoys writing about Devon's railway network as much as I do. And for what it's worth I love the map, particularly the inclusion of the GWR-supported buses.

—Kilopylae (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some early (seven years or more) maps of the Devon Metro include Plymouth to Gunnislake and a reinstatement to Tavistock from Bere Alston. It's all up in the air now if the likly government reorganisation includes just three unitary authorities; an expanded Plymouth, an expanded Torbay to include all the TQ postcodes which include Kingsbridge Totnes and Teignmouth, and an expanded Exeter to include all the EX postcodes that extend as far as Barnstaple. GWR is likly to be nationalised this year. REVUpminster (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, I apologise for my own delay, as I was waiting to access data for my response. You are very convincing but I do have a few things to say:
  • I don't get your point that the purpose of the lines to Barnstaple and Paignton aren't to move people to and fro Exeter. On Barnstaple, I see very little way to argue for this, unless you believe a significant number of people are alighting at lets say Kings Nympton? It seems to be very plainly Exeter-Crediton-Barnstaple; the other stations are in general very underutilised stops kept only as a public service to the towns where they sit, and not necessarily to benefit anyone outside the towns. Plainly put, the line is very clearly to get people from Barnstaple and Crediton to Exeter.
    On the line to Paignton, while yes there are a number of major intermediate stops, I struggle to believe that a majority of journeys are between these intermediate stations and not instead more hub-and-spoke from Exeter. We can actually prove this, as the Office of Rail and Road publishes an Origin-Destination Matrix, which shows passenger numbers between stations. The data is not the easiest to get a hold of, hence my delay, but using it I have calculated that:
    • the number of total journeys on the Riviera Line (excluding journeys between stations both in Exeter) in the year 2024-2025 is 2,264,544,
    • the number between Exeter stations and Riviera Line stations not in Exeter is 1,442,968,
    • and thus the percentage of Riviera Line journeys which are to or from a station in Exeter (not including journeys between two stations in Exeter) is 63.72%
So, I conclude that the primary purpose of the Riviera Line is to move people to and fro Exeter, which accounts for nearly 65% of journeys not including journeys within Exeter.
  • I acknowledge that the relationship between Exeter and surrounding towns is incredibly unique. However, I think you're taking the term "suburban rail" extremely literally. Our own page for suburban rail is a redirect to the more American term commuter rail. That article opens with Commuter rail or suburban rail is a passenger rail service that primarily operates within a metropolitan area, connecting the central city to its suburbs and commuter towns. Focusing on Exmouth as I agree Axminster doesn't fit the definition, while it is not a traditional commuter town (although, again our own article says in the lead that It also serves as a commuter town for nearby Exeter), we do have a somewhat good definition of the Exeter commuter area. The ONS publishes a map of what they call "travel to work areas". It does this using statistics (duh) such as the census. Exeter's TTWA includes Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbot, Okehampton, Crediton, Honiton, and Tiverton. The TTWA is mentioned in the infobox of Devon Metro, as the area which it serves. The towns around Exeter are not in the typical sense suburbs, but they are arguably something along the lines of commuter towns. The terminology "regional service" doesn't necessarily in my mind exclude suburban or commuter rail. I would be happy to instead use the terminology commuter rail, though.
  • If we are to dedicate this article to the project by Devon County Council, where should information about Exeter's commuter rail network go? Perhaps the issue could be solved by a partial rewrite of this article to more equally spread information about the network and the improvement plans, or another article such as Suburban rail network of Exeter could be made, but that seems like oversubdividing.
  • The information about Exeter Today being associated with local councils is interesting and could have implications on its usage as a source in other articles. They are a fairly prolific news source on Devon, although you may know them better under other names such as the North Devon Gazette (which is a print title), or Torbay Today (printed as Torbay Weekly), or the Moorlander (also a print title), which get better SEO and seem to quite frequently publish the same or similar articles. They also print a moderately popular magazine called Exeter Living. That could be brought further elsewhere after we're done with the Devon Metro, if you wish.
Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When the Kingskerswell by-pass was built, after 40 years of lobbying, sold on the promise of bringing jobs and prosperity to Torbay where in Paignton 5000 jobs had been lost overnight. Property prices never changed from the financial crash of 2008 for ten years and the population census between 2001 and 2011 barely changed.
When the bypass opened it had the reverse effect allowing people to commute to Exeter where all the jobs are being created and live in Torbay where thousands of houses have been built close to the ringroad and start of the Kinkserwell by pass and the population grew between 2011 and 2021 along with property prices.
The Riviera line increased to half hourly throughout the day helped by an EU grant for off peak services. This made the railway a commuter line. The promotion of Exeter shows no sign of abating and the cities population will probably exceed Torbay in the next 20 years. Exmouth has always been a commuter town for Exeter because of it's half hour service. There are hopes to increase it to 20 minutes with infrastructure changes. Axminster's proposed half hour service and Wellington and Cullompton stations could actually lead to the services promoted officially as the Devon Metro. REVUpminster (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My initial instinct – though I appreciate the strength of your counter-argument – is that 'Suburban rail network of Exeter' is not a discrete object that can or should be separated from 'Regional railway network of Devon' (or 'Branch lines of Devon', 'Rail transport in Devon'). I think the crux of the point is that we're working with different mental schemata of the subject matter. When we look at the Tarka, Riviera, Avocet, and West of England lines, I see a network of rural branch lines out towards regional centres with Exeter as the main interchange station; you see a suburban railway network for Exeter. One could frame the comparison as Norfolk vs Bristol. I see "Devon Metro" as Devon County Council branding for a series of integrated improvement projects to these rural/inter-town lines; you see it as the natural label for the emerging metro-like service on the suburban railway network.

I think we both risk venturing into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if we try to debate these categories on the merits (I may have run afoul of this with my use of the consultancy document above and comparison of the use of the term suburban rail with respect to Bristol). The "real" question is which interpretation of the Branch lines of Devon (stroke Suburban rail network of Exeter) is more like the model used in reliable secondary sources. —Kilopylae (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the confusion; Paignton is not a branch line but has main line trains to London and Manchester and proposed Lumo trains to London via Bristol when GWR is nationalised later this year. I am sure the local trains will be branded as Devon Metro one day. REVUpminster (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.