That is your opinion, which you are free to express here, ChrisB. I [c/sh]ould not comment however ...

The projects mentioned all seem to me to be longer term aspirations. Most of them are very, very long shots with a good justification they could happen in the very very long term.   There have been "flying elephants" that have landed before - you never know.  But I do net see how the benefits will outweigh or even come close to the costs and negatives in a lot of the cases under current rules and on their list

Before (m)any of those listed, improvements we might expect to see (not a full list and vaguely in the Westbury sphere):
Capacity enhancement, Westbury station and Westbury to Chippenham
Capaciry enhancement, Castle Cary to Dorchester
Capaciry enhancement, Yeovil to Exeter
Electrification, Chippenham to Bristol Temple Meads and to Quarries
Electrification, Newbury to Taunton and Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove
Saltford, Wilton Station and Stonehouse (London Road) stations
Re-opening to daily service Taunton to Minehead
Re-opening Barnstaple to Bideford
Re-opening Okehampton to Tavistock and Bere Alston

I help set up meeting in West Wilts too, and typically plan their start time to suite train arrivals.  Here is a table of arrivals for lunch a for the meeting at 2 p.m.

Arrivals (for 13:00 and for 14:00) from:
12:01 and 13:01   Cardiff, Bristol and Bath
11:52 and 13:55   London Paddington
10:53   London Waterloo
12:47   Exeter and Taunton
11:48 and 13:55   Swindon
11:07 and 13:03   Weymouth
12:12 and 13:14   Southmapton and Salisbury

Personally, I would have plumped for a 14:30 meeting start to suite the train from Cardiff (14:01), Portsmouth (14:14), Swindon (13:55), and Paddington (13:55) - you're never going to get all of them good at Westbury, arrivals from the routes via Castle Cary are poor.

Yes, I was thinking along those lines.  Also, even though they are heading for a big defeat, the less seats they lose the better for them. 

As we’re often reminded, it’s not a massive political issue, but there’s an apt saying that Tesco coined a few years ago…

A certain Pink Floyd album cover comes to mind with this lot.

Graham - indeed, one can see where he got all his useless ideas from!

Surely they know they’re finished regardless of this dispute? 

Edit:  Thinking about it. You could be right!  Burden someone else with the financial settlement.

These days the narrator at 8 min 33 secs in, would find himself up before the Patronising, middle class white male complaints board !

Politically beneficial to settle just before an election?

ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) have today received an approach from the RDG^‡(resolve) to discuss a framework for reopening talks.  No fresh offer has been received though.

Fingers crossed.

The agenda shows that it might be an amusing meeting to attend - To view the number of limp kites being flown and pink elephants in view.

Tend to agree with most of what you say, noggin.


The aspiration to extend Platform 1, and potentially add a Platform 0, hasn't gone away - but it's not a costed plan yet.

As to which trains would use these platforms: Given that the relief lines from Filton to Temple Meads (and, eventually, Parson St) are all to the north-west of the mains, it might make sense to keep these platforms for local services to Henbury, Severn Beach and (again potentially) Cardiff.

This also fits rather neatly into any scheme to extend these lines to Central Bristol using tram-trains. Friary, Victoria St, Bristol Bridge and Baldwin St no longer have through traffic, so a surface tram-train line should be feasible.

I have to say that I wonder if he's read the various Network Rail long-term planning docs, knows whats happened in the last few years and what work is in the pipeline?

He might not like the speed of progress, but there's all sorts either going ahead (Portishead & Henbury lines), under study (Filton Bank electrification, Narroways Junction remodeling and extra track) and on the wish list (4-track south of Temple Meads, 4-track between Parkway and Westerleigh etc), all of which expands capacity, resilience and the business case for extra infill stations like Lockleaze, reopening the Thornbury branch etc.

The proposals seem to me like a very extravagant way to relieve Temple Meads, get heavy rail into Broadmead and justify reopening the old Midland line for rail, at a time when the city's economic centre of gravity is moving east towards Temple Meads and St Philips.

Firstly, if one wanted to relieve Temple Meads, surely the answer is to return to the plan of building new platforms on the north side for GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and Cross-Country terminating services?

In terms of expanding the heavy-rail network, I'd argue that it's best thought of as an asset for longer-distance journeys, with expansion focused on what could remove the greatest number of car-miles, whilst having social benefit by giving access to education, employment and cheaper housing. On that basis, beyond the items listed above, it would make far more sense to be planning lines now to Clevedon and Midsomer Norton/Radstock to be built in the 2030s, whilst starting immediate planning for a heavy-rail connection into Bristol Airport from both north and south, which could at least in-part be financed by the airport's owners. One other thought is could Dyson be persuaded to bankroll a branch off the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) to Malmesbury, with a station at Chipping Sodbury included in the scheme? 

As for Bristol itself, seems to me that money would be far better spent on a tram network, sure there probably has to be considerable on-street running, but much of the rest of the world manages that perfectly well so surely we can too.

And converting the cycle-path to rail or building metro stations under Clifton? Good luck with that, the NIMBYs will keep you busy for years!