underground plans for Bristol update.

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-64965693

That won't be easy though since the WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) lacks the council tax precepting powers which the other combined authorities have.  It would appear that South Gloucestershire Council will not agree to the introduction of such powers.

It seems we reached the stage of everyone blaming everyone else in March, then. That looks like the end of councils running buses, never easy when routes cross territorial borders.

[WelshBluebird]

It seems we reached the stage of everyone blaming everyone else in March, then.

Good to see them keeping the old Avon traditions alive!

[johnneyw]

An apprentice transport planner and volunteer analyst for Enroute has come up with an alternative suggestion for a Bristol mass transit scheme that requires much less tunneling and disruption than current proposals do.
It's more than just another crayonista's evening in the pub bright idea but doesn't pretend to be the finished article either.....will anyone pick it up though?

Article link below:


https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/alternative-plan-bristol-underground-use-9253365

[Red Squirrel]

It's good to keep the debate going.

Essentially as far as rail goes he's not a million miles from Bristol Rail Campaign's tram-train thoughts.

However using the Midland line through Fishponds is far from low-hanging fruit - it's a very well-established park as well as being a walking and cycling route. And a northern curve at Narroways, through the nature reserve and allotments, seems challenging too.

[Phantom]

An apprentice transport planner and volunteer analyst for Enroute has come up with an alternative suggestion for a Bristol mass transit scheme that requires much less tunneling and disruption than current proposals do.
It's more than just another crayonista's evening in the pub bright idea but doesn't pretend to be the finished article either.....will anyone pick it up though?

Article link below:


https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/alternative-plan-bristol-underground-use-9253365

Weren't the original plans for the Metro system in Bristol based on the same thing?
But got scaled back from an actual metro system to buses being used on less routes

[Red Squirrel]

Most plans for a Bristol and Bath area 'metro' have been based on the heavy rail network (including disused parts). The 'Future4West' plan is unusual in that it seems to be based on different corridors, starting as it does with the premise that it is not possible to expand capacity along existing rail corridors. This premise rules out tram-trains, which is in my view a huge mistake.

Most other plans, such as the enroute post, ATA's plans from the 1980's and Bristol Rail Campaign's 'Plan for Rail' use the heavy rail network as a basis - though things that might have seemed possible in the 80's (like using the old Midland Main Line) clearly aren't possible now!

[Chris from Nailsea]

Most plans for a Bristol and Bath area 'metro' have been based on the heavy rail network (including disused parts).

Portishead, perhaps? 

[Noggin]

An apprentice transport planner and volunteer analyst for Enroute has come up with an alternative suggestion for a Bristol mass transit scheme that requires much less tunneling and disruption than current proposals do.
It's more than just another crayonista's evening in the pub bright idea but doesn't pretend to be the finished article either.....will anyone pick it up though?

Article link below:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/alternative-plan-bristol-underground-use-9253365

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!

[Red Squirrel]

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

...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?

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.

[Noggin]

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

...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?

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.

That makes a lot of sense, particularly if the planned road running of the tram trains in Cardiff work out well. 

[TonyK]

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.

....

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!

Filton Bank being "under study" for electrification does, though, confirm the inbuilt inertia within rail projects. At the same time as it was being completely rebuilt, electrification was on the way the BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains). All the bridges (except Lawrence Hill) were adapted or replaced, and the line was completely shut while the work was going on. The cost of adding in at least the foundations for electricity gantries  at the same time would have been miniscule in terms of the overall project, but it wasn't done. Chance like that are too often missed, even if the wiring into Temple Meads would have had to have waited for.

Tram network has always seemed logical to me, having "grown up" in a much smaller place that has one. It would be a big job, but not impossible, to thread major routes through the city. Unfortunately, I let my grandson have my crayons, and haven't seen them since, so I can't show you exactly how, but it has all been demonstrated begore.