Great Western Coffee Shop

The Government's priorities for the railway are set out in the White Paper - Delivering a Sustainable Railway. This is backed up by the High Level Output Specification - a statement of what the Government wishes to buy from the railway industry over the period 2009-2014.

Priorities for this period are to continue to improve safety, improve performance and increase capacity. In respect of the latter, the Government has stated that an additional 1300 new carriages would be added to the network. Some of these will be allocated to services in the Bristol area and the city will also benefit from the investment in the Inter City Express Project which will replace the diesel High Speed Trains. However, the White Paper also states that the 'Government does not envisage changes in the pattern or level of demand large enough in the HLOS period to justify developing or opening new regional lines'.

The Government, therefore, does not include the re-opening lines as a priority. However, local transport authorities can consider whether the re-opening of a line is the best way to meet regional and local transport objectives. In Greater Bristol, the four local authorities are working together as the West of England Partnership. They have undertaken the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study to identify priorities for investment to address issues such as congestion and air quality. This study did not propose the re-opening of the Portishead line as a priority, but it remains open to the Partnership to review this and any other elements of the strategy at any time.

Real commitment needs to be given to re-opening the railway otherwise Portishead will eventually grind to a halt

To get anything to happen peole NEED to take on Board what Andrew Haines said this week about a the formation of a strategic transport authority otherwise we are going nowhere

North Somerset councillor Elfan Ap Rees said the fight was not over.

"We will continue to put pressure on them and we are revisiting earlier feasibility studies to prove the point," he said.

"We need to improve the links from Portishead into Bristol and into the north fringe. We cannot carry on with the situation as it is.

"And we don't expect to have to put money into something which at the end of the day is the fault of the government because they have failed to provide an adequate highway and transport system in North Somerset."

"We are looking at buying this land to protect the future of the railway.

"From our point of view this would be a real step towards developing a high-speed link between Portishead and Bristol.

"The British Railways Board has agreed to sell the land and has given us first option on it."

"To go by water taxi would take hours to get to Bristol whereas reinstating the railway line would be a much quicker commuting solution.

"To get from Portishead to Bristol Temple Meads would be 28-30 minutes by train taking commuters into the largest office building area in Bristol.

"If you take workers by water taxi how do they get into the town centre or to their offices elsewhere in Bristol, such as by Temple Meads?

"Also, there is the issue with cars still using the main Portishead road, the A369 to get to the water taxi service, so the roads would still be congested.

"First Great Western has told the council it will cost ^20m to rebuild the line and the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport study says ^29m.

"This sounds absurd to me when in South Wales they have built six stations and 18 miles of track for ^30m.

...was likely to cost more than nearly ^30 million...

Have I "killed" this topic?  :D

No, I think the idea of damming the River Avon, just to run a water taxi from Avonmouth to central Bristol, has been 'sunk without trace'.  ;)

Our conference last Saturday (see 'Social Enterprise and the Railways' posting) suggested the idea of using Parry People Movers on that line - having them supplied by a 'Social Enterprise RoSCo' and operated either by FGW (as the Stourbridge Town line is operated by the local TOC) or by a communuty organisation. With a bit of tweaking it would be eminently suitable. Alex Lawrie <alex@somerset.coop> was the speaker - John Parry was in the audience.

More on Alex Lawrie in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=677.msg2442#msg2442

Given the need to leave paths for the freight services (which after all were the reason and justification for the rebuild to Portbury), the most frequent the service could be would be half hourly (and I suspect even the infrastructure improvements required for that will be more than is currently envisaged.)

This upgrade would include the provision of two short double - track sections on the Portishead line , in the Ashton Gate & Pill areas , as proposed by Andrew Griffiths of First Great Western. This would allow 2 freight and 4 passenger trains (in total, not in each direction) to run on the line per hour.

Does anyone know how many freight services use the line each day? I'm always seeing car trains or coal trains at TM. Presumably they have fixed paths elsewhere on the network, so that would need to be taken into consideration too.

Not bad for a line that only reopened 5 years ago. Now if that 5 becomes 15 then surely there will be justification in reinstating the down relief as far as Parson St? I presume if a Portbury bound freight service is held awaiting an up passenger service to pass before it can enter the branch then by the time it gets going again it must block the main line for around 10 minutes in total? 

Certainly when we looked at a half-hourly Portishead service, we did so in the context of a future network that included resignalling and provision of more lines into Bristol Temple Meads.

My personal view is that Portishead should start off with a lesser frequency than that (I give an example proposal above) , prove the demand is there (which I think it quickly would) and then push for improvements as part of an overall Greater Bristol package.

I can see Lee's point off view that it would be better to go for the least costly option to get passenger services going. However with the boiling frog syndrome mentioned previously what might be ^30 million at today's prices will be ^60 million in 5 years time so go for the ultimate solution it will actually be cheaper in the long term. However, you will have to change the Treasury's mindset of requiring payback from day one so good luck

Here is the response to the Portishead petition :

Bristol City Council Press Release :

Bristol City Council is investing ^395k pa on providing more train services on the Severn Beach Line under a three year contract with First Great Western, starting on 18 May 2008.

The Severn Beach Line has enjoyed a surge in popularity over the last 10 years and now carries over half a million passengers a year. 

... and, with a similarly suitable level of 'investment', how many passengers could even now be enjoying train services from Portishead to Bristol?

Unfortunately, there has been an official view that a showcase bus route is the way forward for the Portishead corridor.

Your comments and concerns have been noted. The re-opening of the line was considered as part of the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS). The final report can be found on our website at

http://www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/transport/regtransstrat/gbsts/?a=42496.

The study looked at the problems and issues in the area and considered many options for addressing them. The conclusion of the study indicated that a showcase bus route is the recommended scheme for this corridor in the short and medium term and possibly a rapid transit scheme in the longer term. The report was presented to the partners of the study, including the four Greater Bristol authorities, to look at the findings and investigate a way forward.

We await the outcome of their deliberations.

Of course, if you were to do the same thing on the Portishead line, you would have to work out what to do with the growing number of freight trains running (and projected to run in the future) out of Portbury.

It could all be done, if the money - and the will - was there.

"Only" 6 years? I'm sure it could be running in 3 years if the funding was available.

The cost of tickets was not included in the Halcrow report, but if First Great Western becomes the line operator, as expected, tickets from Portishead to Temple Meads would probably cost about the same as the fare from Bath ^8 for an adult return."

Note the official comment:-

Spokesman for the Highways Agency Robin Miller said: "The problems experienced yesterday morning appear to be the result of the volume of traffic.

Plans to re-connect Portishead in North Somerset to the passenger rail network are due to move a step closer.

Network Rail is to carry out a study into how feasible it would be to put the line back in service and to build a new railway station.

The section under the spotlight is three miles of line from Portbury Docks into Portishead town centre.

It has remained closed since 1964 despite a vociferous local campaign to get it reinstated.

The study, costing some ^164,000, will look at potential engineering problems, any conflicts with the freight-only service which operates along the first part of the route to Portbury Docks and the cost of reopening a full passenger service.

Deputy leader of North Somerset Council Elphin Ap Rees said the study is "an important step forward" towards trying to improve the transport infrastructure of Portishead.

Maybe a Direct Service from Portishead to London Paddington 2 or 3 times a day would get people off the buses and roads because they know they can get to the capital city without having to mess around with different tickets for each mode of tranport, changing buses or parking etc.

Could this be a window for an open access operator?

Boost for Portishead to Bristol passenger railway

The prospect of passenger trains from Portishead to Bristol received support from the rail industry this week.

The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has published a report backing the reopening of some branch lines that were closed during the notorious Beeching cuts of the 1960s.

The report, entitled Connecting Communities - Expanding Access To The Rail Network, has specifically recommended 14 towns with populations of more than 15,000 where it feels there is a positive business case to reopen rail routes.

Portishead isn't included on that list, but it is specifically singled out as a case where an updated study reflecting its growing population would very likely tilt the balance in favour of reopening.

Alan Matthews, chairman of the Portishead Railway Group, said he welcomed the report. He said: "It is another step in the right direction. These train operating companies are obviously profit-driven, so the fact they are even looking at the line is a positive sign. In fact, I think Portishead is more viable than some of the others it mentions because most of the track is in place due to the freight line from Royal Portbury Docks."

Michael Roberts, chief executive of ATOC, said: "Many past studies have looked at reopening old railways, but this one looks first at the market, not the map. It starts with people, where they live and where they want to travel." He claimed the identified schemes could benefit an additional one million people not currently well served by rail.

Other towns on the list include Brixham, in Devon, Fleetwood, in Lancashire, and Ringwood, near Bournemouth.

In January North Somerset Council commissioned Network Rail to carry out a ^164,000 technical evaluation of the requirements to reopen the line. That report will be completed later this year, and is considered as stage three of Network Rail's eight-step process to open a rail line.

However, stage six is construction of the line, so the key stages are four and five, at which the government has to commit to the line reopening and funding needs to be allocated.

This latest report gives an outline capital cost of ^29 million, a figure Mr Matthews said is solid and fully takes inflation into account.

According to ATOC, the scheme currently has a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 0.6, meaning its costs outweigh its benefits. But it admits: "A number of factors mean this scheme requires further analysis with more recent data. In particular, the population has risen from 17,000 at the 2001 census to 21,000 today, with a further 2,000 planned before 2014. Traffic congestion at Junction 19 of the M5 has become chronic. These factors are likely to push the BCR over 1.0, which would justify further evaluation."

On the same day as the electrification announcement, DafT apparently gave details of its regional funding allocation allowances, which as well as the ^21m for Swindon-Kemble redoubling, includes ^25.3m towards the Portishead scheme and ^12.5m for the Bristol Metro project http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/metro/2009/08/04-one-billion-investment.html (http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/metro/2009/08/04-one-billion-investment.html)

so is that enough to reopen the portishead line!

I would be over the moon if they did

Rail report gives boost to Portishead line prospects

Rail chiefs have given new hope to campaigners in Portishead.  (The) publication of Network Rail's 10-year plan to expand rail services in the West has been welcomed by the Portishead Railway Group.

The 190-page report makes extensive mention of Portishead and shows rail bosses' thinking on how services from Portishead would fit into the network.

Portishead Railway Group chairman Alan Matthews said he is encouraged by the report. He said: "It is another piece in the jigsaw towards reopening the line. There is still a long way to go but the position has changed an awful lot in the last 18 months. I think back to then and the language used by the rail industry was very much 'if it will ever happen', whereas now they seem to be planning for 'when it happens'." He said North Somerset Council making the decision to promote the line had given the campaign credibility within the industry.

Network Rail, the owner and operator of the tracks, signals and other rail infrastructure, has produced the report, Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy, on behalf of the whole rail industry. The report presents various options for services to Portishead if the Government decides to meet the cost of reopening the line. The report doesn't just look at a service between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads, via Pill, Ashton Gate, Parson Street and Bedminster. It also considers cross-Bristol services such as options for Portishead to Gloucester or Yate, to Temple Meads, Filton Abbey Wood and Bristol Parkway, or Portishead to Westbury, Wiltshire, via Temple Meads, Bath and Trowbridge.

Other elements of the report look at major schemes at London Paddington, Reading and Swindon to cope with a 31 per cent increase in passengers on the Great Western in the next 10 years. It also suggests longer trains on services between Cardiff and Taunton, increasing space on overcrowded trains serving Yatton and Nailsea and Backwell.

Reopening the Portishead branch line is now being promoted by North Somerset Council, which earlier this year commissioned Network Rail to carry out a separate ^164,000 feasibility study into reopening the line. North Somerset executive responsible for transport, Elfan Ap Rees, said that report was 'about a month' from completion. He said: "Network Rail have certainly been carrying out very detailed work on this."

It is stage three of an eight-stage process to reopen closed railway lines, but stage six is actually physically laying tracks, so the key stages are three, four and five when decisions are made on funding and route options.

The scheme is part of a wider West of England Partnership bid to secure government funding under the government's Transport Innovation Fund. The South West Regional Development Agency has also submitted a bid for ^25 million as a contribution to the scheme as part of its medium term commitments for 2014 ^ 2019.

From the BBC:


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7855254.stm

Reopening the Portishead branch line is now being promoted by North Somerset Council, which earlier this year commissioned Network Rail to carry out a separate ^164,000 feasibility study into reopening the line. North Somerset executive responsible for transport, Elfan Ap Rees, said that report was 'about a month' from completion. He said: "Network Rail have certainly been carrying out very detailed work on this."

Bristol rail link may be worked by buses

Rail campaigners fear that plans to open the Bristol to Portishead line to passenger services could be abandoned in favour of buses.

A planning blueprint, called the Core Strategy,  produced by North Somerset Council states that the council will promote the opening of the route, but that services may be worked by buses as part of a rapid transit system.

The Greater Bristol Transport Alliance and pressure group South West Transport Network have objected to the idea of running buses instead of trains, with SWTN saying that upgrading the line for passenger use would have a ripple effect on other rail routes around Bristol.

A spokesman for NSC said said that the council are committed to introducing a transport link between Portishead and Bristol, but that there were other options apart from  ^hard rail^  and that  ^a rapid transit scheme that runs every 15 minutes might provide a much better and cheaper solution than a train service that runs every hour.^

Talks are in progress between NSC and Network Rail

A detailed report due to be completed this year is expected to reveal the exact cost of opening a passenger rail link between Portishead and Bristol.

The report will be carried out by Network Rail and campaigners are hopeful that its conclusions will be within the costs expected for such a project.

The line running from Portbury Dock into Bristol is currently used for freight trains, which run at up to 30mph. To make it suitable for passenger trains, which travel at speeds of up to 60mph, the line would need major work carried out to realign the track.

Work would also be needed to improve the drainage and tracks at Pill tunnel.

Costs to re-open the railway were estimated by Halcrow, the consultants appointed by North Somerset Council in 2008, to be in the region of ^15 million.

However, the amount of government funding the project has applied for is ^28 million.

So, although Network Rail have suggested costs could be nearer to ^24 million, this still falls within the funding figure.

Chairman of Portishead Railway Group Alan Matthews said: "When Network Rail has completed its detailed inspection and analysis, it will draw up accurate costings. Until this time I don't think anyone needs to panic about possible escalation of costs."

Accident closes part of A369 from Portishead to Bristol

One of Bristol's main commuter routes has been shut after two cars collided and an electricity pole was damaged.
Emergency services were called to the A369, near its junction with the turn-off for Pill, just after 0600 BST.
A man in his 40s was taken to hospital with chest injuries but they are not thought to be life-threatening.
An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said the road would stay closed until engineers from Western Power can inspect the damage.
He said calves from a nearby field also escaped on to the road but had since been rounded up.
"Western Power have indicated that the road may need to be closed for most of the day, while they carry out repair work," he added.
The closure on the A369 is between the Bush Lane and Sandy Lane junctions.
The police spokesman advised motorists to avoid the area if possible.
Traffic in and out of Portishead was also disrupted by a separate accident on the Portbury Hundred close to Station Road.

A ^30 MILLION passenger rail link between Portishead and Bristol has been put back years because of public spending cuts. The link would have provided a vital commuter route into Bristol and eased congestion on traffic-clogged roads in the area. But Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has told North Somerset MP Liam Fox there is no money to pay for the scheme. In a letter to Dr Fox, Mr Hammond says: "Whilst we support improvements to regional and local rail services, the Government's key priority at present is to tackle budget deficit.

Don't think that cascade was ever 'promised'. Merely an aspiration should GWML electrification go ahead.

Also, what relevence is this to the Portishead Line?

Re-opening of Portishead to Bristol rail line examined

Plans to re-open the Portishead to Bristol railway could cut the journey time into the Temple Meads station to 17 minutes.

A report from Network Rail showed that although the project cost was greater than anticipated journey time was much quicker than previously thought.

Passenger services from Portishead were cut in the 1960s although part of the line was re-opened in 2002 for freight.

The estimated cost of the project is estimated at ^38.9m

North Somerset Council spokesman said at present traffic congestion on the A369 meant some commuters spent more than an hour or more on their journey.

"This route would represent a considerable time saving for residents of Portishead and surrounding villages who currently have limited travel choices into Bristol," he added.

It is hoped as a minimum to operate passenger trains every half hour at peak times and hourly off-peak. They will run from Portishead - via a reopened Pill station - and terminate at Bristol Temple Meads.

The report also shows that there is the capacity to call at other stations - where deemed necessary - along the branch line although this would delay journey times and could substantially increase costs.

Subject to funding and planning the line could open by 2017.

Portishead Rail link moves forward

The prospects for re-opening the Portishead to Bristol rail line to passenger train services have taken a significant step forward with the publication of a report by Network Rail.

The option selection report, also known as a GRIP 3 report, is the result of a year-long study by Network Rail working with North Somerset Council on the engineering feasibility and estimated cost of re-opening the line.

Our deputy leader, whose portfolio includes strategic planning and transport, Cllr Elfan Ap Rees, said he was very encouraged by the findings.

"Network Rail has examined all the options and associated engineering implications very thoroughly and while the estimated costs are higher than previously thought, the train journey times are much better (quicker) than we had initially estimated.

"The re-opening of the line would put an end to years of commuting misery with a journey time into Bristol from Portishead of around 17 minutes.  This would represent a considerable time saving for residents of Portishead and surrounding villages who currently have limited travel choices into Bristol, with traffic congestion on the A369 meaning that commuter journeys often take an hour or more."

Passenger train services from Portishead to Bristol were cut in the 1960s, although the line to Portbury Dock was re-opened in 2002 for freight trains only.

However this is mainly a single track line and, to accommodate both freight and passenger trains in both directions of travel, will require major capacity upgrade works and completion of the line into Portishead town centre.

The GRIP 3 report takes account of the need to continue freight train operations on the line, and sets out the engineering and infrastructure requirements to operate a passenger train service.

The base project option is to operate passenger trains every half an hour at peak times and hourly off-peak, from Portishead calling at Pill and terminating at Bristol Temple Meads.

This represents the minimum level of service that the project would deliver.  The  report also indicates that there is capacity to call at other stations along the branch line subject to detailed business-case feasibility, although this would delay journey times and could substantially increase costs.  There is also potential to operate services to destinations beyond Temple Meads, subject to more detailed analysis with train- operating companies.

The engineering requirements identified in the report include:
- Upgrading works to the existing Portbury freight line to a line speed of mainly 55 mph
- Reinstatement of Pill railway station
- Replacement of the dis-used track between Portbury Dock Junction and Portishead
- A new road bridge at Quays Avenue (road over the railway)
- A new station at Portishead in Harbour Road.

The estimated construction cost of the project is ^38.9 million in 2010/11 prices.

In addition to this are costs of preparing detailed funding submissions, costs of preparing supporting information to secure powers to build and operate the project and costs associated with underwriting the operation of the train service for the first few years of operation.
 
Cllr Ap Rees warned that although the GRIP 3 report is highly encouraging and a major step forward, it is not a quick fix and he is keen to now talk with government and in particular the Department of Transport to speed up the various processes and establish a funding package for the project.

"Taking account of the major project milestones in terms of funding approval, further Network Rail processes and other approval hurdles, at present the earliest construction could probably start is late 2015, with passenger train services re-introduced in early 2017.

"While that may seem some time away and progressing the project in the current climate of government budget restrictions is certainly a challenge, five years is a typical lead time up to beginning construction for projects of this scale. At least by this time the UK^s budget position should have recovered, giving us a greater chance of success," he added.

The Portishead Rail project forms part of the prioritised programme of major transport schemes for the West of England sub-region, set out in the draft Joint Local Transport Plan 3, put together and agreed by the councils for Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire.  The final version of the plan comes into effect on 1 April 2011 and covers a 15 year period to 2026.

Even at 20mph average a train would beat the the car in the rush hour. Approx 11 miles to Temple Meads and with one intermediate stop at Pill, say 40 minutes tops. The road traffic from Portishead to Bristol is terrible - amongst the most congested commute in the west. Often 60 minutes (sometimes more) to get from Portishead to central Bristol.

Sorry to seem really dumb here folks, been away for a while, I thought the DfT had rejected the Portishead proposal? is it back in the limelight again???

I was just using the example of a low line speed in comparison to journey times by road. You don't need to trundle along the branch at any great speed to beat the time taken to commute by road.

I've no doubt that line speeds will be better than 20mph should the route to Portishead be re-opened.

Looks like another campiagn has been launched to re-open the portishead line:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/New-fight-launched-reopen-railway-line/story-12794171-detail/story.html

I am sure it would be a commercial sucess like the severn beach line is now if it was opened. I also think it would be better if the Great Malvern/Gloucester - Weymouth route was split with the services to/from Great Malvern etc running to Portishead.

Now doubt that may help reduce some of the delays which  cause problems on the route.

Looks like another campiagn has been launched to re-open the portishead line:

I met a nice lady today from (I think) Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance on a stall in the Green Forum tent at the Bristol Festival of Nature. Had a chat with her about the line to Portishead - she was most enthusiastic about the Ultra Light Rail Hybrid (Flywheel, Biomethane) Tram for Bristol with extension to Portishead. I'm yet to be convinced about ULR and heavy rail sharing the same infrastructure. Is it really feasible to have 2000+ ton freight trains and a ULR Tram sharing the same tracks?

I'd rather see conventional rail return to Portishead as it would be a lot quicker to get up and running once funding was secured. 

I've found more information about the proposals to re-open the line to Portishead, including projected costings, Network Rail's GRIP (Guide to Rail Investment Projects) process and a list of FAQs at the following link:

http://travelplus.org.uk/public-transport/train/portishead-rail-corridor (see 'related links' on the top right of that web page)

From the list of FAQs at that link you'll see that my ultra-conservative figure of 40mins for Portishead to Temple Meads was way out. Proposed journey time with one intermediate stop at Pill would be 17 minutes. Now, that pees all over the road alternative!

I know its been done in 12 minutes - by road

At 8am on a Monday morning?

Had your lead boots on did you?  ;) :P ;D

I met a nice lady today from (I think) Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance on a stall in the Green Forum tent at the Bristol Festival of Nature. Had a chat with her about the line to Portishead - she was most enthusiastic about the Ultra Light Rail Hybrid (Flywheel, Biomethane) Tram for Bristol with extension to Portishead....

REOPENING LINE WILL BE WORTH COST

I drive trains down to Portbury Dock so I can report on the condition of the line to Portishead and which trains can use it.

The has been a lot of rubbish and misinformation flying about either in emails or in letters to the local press by people who are not qualified to make such statements.

​To save time and without going too far back in history, the line from Parsons Street to Portbury Dock was completely re-laid in 2000 after 20 or so years of being abandoned.

A partnership between Railtrack, Port of Bristol Authority and English,Welsh and Scottish railway was formed to relay the line up to Portbury Junction just the other side of Pill, where the line bears left to Portishead.

A new section of line was then laid from Portbury Junction down into Portbury Docks. The reason for this all of this work was the need to connect Portbury Dock to the national rail network because it was the only UK dock not to be linked by rail.

I have always maintained that this was a massive opportunity missed and that Bristol City and North Somerset Councils should have been involved then and the line completed on to Portishead.

At the moment this line is capable of carrying both heavy freight trains and lighter passenger trains.

The freight trains weigh between 2,500 and 3,000 tons, so the line is pretty robust.

A special passenger train formed by a First Great Western High Speed Train proved this point by running the length of the line to Portbury Dock last year.

So there would be no problem running class 143,150, 153 or 158/9 trains, which currently operate the local passenger services in the Bristol area.

The current line speeds are quite adequate for either passenger or freight trains.

The signalling system between Ashton Junction to Portbury would need to be completely upgraded in order to run passenger trains.

In my opinion the signalling of the Ashton Junction to Portbury/Portishead section and the re-laying of the Portbury Junction to Portishead section are where the majority of costs will be. The current signalling system on the line is an old Victorian one, NST (No Signaller Token). The train driver in possession of the token is the only one permitted to use the line at any one time.

So only one train can use the line in any direction at any time. Most of the line is single anyway with little opportunity to double up because of the gorge. However, some sections could have passing loops extended, for example at Pill Station, where if passenger trains were re-introduced to Portishead the line would need to be realigned anyway.

The same can be said for the old Ashton Station. I am not sure which signalling system would best be suited to be introduced if the Portishead line were re-opened.

It would need to control trains running from Portishead and Portbury and regulate them along the single to Ashton and coming the other way from Parsons Street.

The Network Rail Grip Stage 3 Report on the reopening of the Portishead Line is lengthy and detailed, spanning four volumes.

The main volume is 50 pages long. This report sets out some excellent operational proposals to reopen the line with a half-hourly passenger service during peak time and an hourly service during off peak hours.

This is designed to fit in with the current freight train paths. There are also proposals to raise the speed limits and extend the passing loops at both ends of the line at Ashton and Pill to facilitate this timetable. A new, more robust signalling system is also detailed. I think that these proposals make complete operational sense under the circumstances.

The report certainly leaves no stone unturned and covers everything which would be required to introduce a frequent passenger service.

The downside of these proposals of course is that they will cost millions, probably around ^50 million. It is a real shame that these proposals were not considered back in 1999/2000 when the line was reopened to freight traffic.

The costs would then have been a fraction of what is detailed in the Network Rail Grip Report.

Having considered all of this I still think that the Government and the relevant councils should commit to investing in this project.

It will eventually bear fruit in the same way that passenger numbers on the Severn Beach line have increased by 90 per cent.

Bernard Kennedy,

ASLEF Bristol Branch Secretary

Back to the future . . . putting the Bristol Metro on the right track

It was a journey that took us back in time in order to give us a glimpse of the future ^ a future in which the dream of a "Bristol Metro" seemed almost tangible.

It was an elaborate gesture from rail operator First Great Western, as they chartered a passenger train yesterday to travel on some of the city's historic branch lines, which have not carried passengers for almost half a century.

For the eclectic crowd of local politicians, media and rail enthusiasts and campaigners, it was an extraordinary opportunity for developing momentum ^ and a "rail conference" with a real difference.

It would allow guests to travel along lines they may once have believed had been consigned to the history books but, as yesterday's journey proved, could once again be revived for public use.

The magical mystery tour in a small, two-carriage diesel train, was ultimately an elaborate way for rail operator First Great Western to get behind plans for a Bristol Metro network.

In June the Evening Post called for an Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) to be created for the Greater Bristol region, which would be able to co-ordinate the redevelopment of the branch lines.

We appealed to the four local authorities in the former Avon area to work more closely to bring about an ITA which would also be able to co-ordinate greater integration with park and rides, bus and ferry services, and also have the power to provide new rolling stock, so the Bristol area would no longer have to put up with "hand-me-down" carriages from other cities.

At the core of the proposals would be the reopening of a network of abandoned branch lines across the city ^ many of which were the victims of Dr Beeching's infamous swingeing cuts of the 1960s.

Railway stations across Greater Bristol that have been disused for more than half a century could be given a new lease of life, from Ashton Gate to St Anne's Park; Thornbury to Henbury.

Lines such as the long-lamented Portishead line, which closed to passenger trains in 1964, the Avonmouth line and the Henbury loop line would all be reopened under the proposals.

Yesterday's historic journey took us along the Portishead line, along sections of the Avonmouth line, and around the Henbury loop line.

Among those on board keen to marvel at the journey was managing director of First Great Western, Mark Hopwood.

"Today is all about demonstrating that there are many rail lines here in Bristol that are really not a million miles away from being redeveloped as passenger lines.

"As a company we have always looked to the future, and we have always been keen to work with communities for new and better transport developments.

"A system like this, which would make use of existing branch lines, would be a cost-effective and a relatively quick way of encouraging people out of their cars; taking some of the pressure off the road system in and around the city. In local transport terms this is a very elegant solution, and we just need to make the case clear to Government, to make sure suitable funding can be secured."

The stunt comes in the same week that plans to reopen the Portishead rail line suffered a set-back after a bid for ^43 million of Government funding for the project was turned down.

North Somerset Council vowed to continue to work with Network Rail on its Guide to Rail Investment Project (GRIP) studies on the feasibility of reopening the railway and look at other possible funding streams.

Colin Medus, head of highways and transport for North Somerset Council, was among those enjoying yesterday's journey.

"It was a knock-back, but it's not the end of the world," he said.

"I believe we didn't get the Regional Growth Money because we couldn't prove that enough jobs would be directly created by the scheme ^ although by reinvigorating this entire transport link, it's hard to estimate the massive effect it would have on indirect jobs."

Julian Crow, First Great Western manager for the West of England, said the funding refusal was "not the end of the world".

"This event today will hopefully demonstrate the potential effectiveness of these lines, not only to local councils and campaigners, who don't need convincing, but also to the representatives from the Department of Transport and Network Rail, who have come along today.

"We're at the beginning of a long journey with this one ^ but we believe the dream of a Bristol Metro network really can be achieved."

Inspiration for the redevelopment of the branch lines came in response to the success of the Severn Beach line, which has seen an increase in the frequency of weekday trains and a Sunday service, after a successful campaign by the Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR).

In the first three months, the reinvigorated line saw 27 per cent more passengers using the service. If similar district branch lines were reborn, it is believed the change could radically improve congestion on the city's roads.

Rob Dixon, of FOSBR, said he was encouraged by yesterday's "travelling conference".

"It was fantastic," he said. "We were hearing lots of really positive things from lots of different people who have serious influence in these matters. Apart from that, as a rail enthusiast, simply to be able to travel on these historic lines has been incredibly exciting."

The journey took us out of Bristol Temple Meads, past the existing Bedminster and Parson Street stations, and on to the Portishead line.

Moments later we were creeping through the almost mythical-seeming Ashton Gate station, which once would have echoed to thousands of football fans each Saturday.

Then it was on past the ghosts of Pill station and Portbury station, where hardly anything is left to be seen of their once busy platforms.

But it was later, as we looped back through the north of the city, and travelled into the ivy-covered Henbury station that the nostalgia truly began to kick in onboard.

"It's really quite an experience to see that," said Daniel Casey, rail campaigner for FOSBR.

"I think this sort of event brings some of the railways' magic back into what could seem like a dry subject. I hope it will really encourage greater momentum and get things moving."

Julia Dean, of the West of England Partnership, said: "Apart from anything else, cramming all these different interested parties into a couple of small train carriages is a way of forcing everybody to fight out their differences.

"Everybody here is behind the idea of injecting new life into these lines ^ it has to now be about making sure we're all pulling in the same direction in order to make it happen."

Meanwhile, today more than 40 Saltford residents will set out from the village's disused railway station to hand every household in the village a leaflet and ask if everyone over the age of 16 in each home would sign a petition supporting the reopening of the station, which closed in 1970.

The petition will be open until early December. For details, visit www.saltfordenvironmentgroup.org.uk

He said: ^Nigel and I met Norman Baker, and he was very clear. Because the Government is giving greater priority to capital projects, medium-sized projects will be pushed further up the agenda. So we will be able to be considered in 2013. We got the strong impression from the minister that the Government would look strongly on the Portishead case.

Don't be so bitter Grahame just think there will be lots of 26 year old Turbos available after 2016 when the TV gets 28 year old 319s to replace them.

TRAINS could be running on the Portishead railway line again within five years.

That is the view of a rail industry insider who says plans to reopen the line from Bristol Temple Meads to the North Somerset town are already at an advanced stage.

The expert, who has asked to remain anonymous, believes the reopening of both the Portishead and Henbury Loop lines will be included in the new franchise agreement for the Great Western rail network.

This means the rail operator which takes over the running of the franchise next year will be obliged to run trains on both lines to meet the terms of their contract.

It is understood Portishead's railway station would be built on the site of the former station yard next door to the town's Waitrose supermarket.

The only major stumbling block is Quays Avenue, a road which intersects the line just before it reaches the proposed station. It is understood this could be overcome by either creating a level crossing or building a road bridge.

The terms of the Great Western franchise will be published in April or May.

The railway industry insider said the Department for Transport was responsible for choosing whether or not the reopening of the line should be included as part of the franchise agreement.

He said the Government was keen to see a rail operator bear the cost of reopening the line, rather than see it met by the public purse.

The insider said planning for reopening of the line was carried out years ago ^ right down to working out a timetable for the Portishead service. But he said a question mark had always remained over who would foot the bill for the project.

He said: "We firmly believe the Portishead and Henbury lines will be returned into the new franchise agreement. It's the Government's intention that the franchisee funds the reopening.

"In April or May, when the main invitation tender document is published, there will be an awful lot more detail.

"I've seen documents about the Portishead line for the last three years, including a full timetable. The problem has always been government departments arguing over who will pay for it.

"There's a lot of work going on behind the scenes trying to get these projects through.

"Reopening the Portishead line is easy to do. It would be a massive success and it would be a bonus for Bristol.

"The tracks are still there and the only issue would be crossing Quays Avenue. From the railway point of view, we don't like having level crossings. The best approach might be a bridge."

As well as the Portishead and Henbury lines, the source said he believed Henbury and Hallen stations would reopen, two extra lines of track would be added at Filton Bank by 2018, and a half-hourly Bristol Metro service would run between Yate and Weston-super- Mare.

He said a shuttle rail service could be set up between Henbury station and the Mall at Cribbs Causeway.

The insider said: "I can see this happening, especially with all the traffic that builds up around Cribbs Causeway at weekends. With the airfield shutting, it will allow some sort of transport link to be built ^ that would be desirable.

"Saltford has a very good case for reopening ^ we know people are seriously looking at that, and Ashley Hill as well."

Earlier this month, the Evening Post reported that Bristol City Council had joined forces with local transport groups to campaign to bring a metro rail service to the city.

The ambition of Bristol Metro 2013 is to run trains to local stations ^ including reopened ones ^ from Temple Meads every 30 minutes.

Those behind the campaign want whichever company that takes over the running of the Great Western rail network next year to include the improvements to local services.

Until March, the government is carrying out consultations on what the new 15-year franchise should include.

Campaigners want to convince transport companies that are likely to go for the franchise to include the Bristol Metro in their bid, and to convince the government that local improvements should be included in their list of requirements for the successful bidder.

First Great Western has already announced its intention to re-bid for the franchise, despite calling time on the existing contract early last year. In the process it avoided having to pay ^800 million to the government thanks to a get-out clause included in their original 10-year deal.

There are dozens of other rail operators across the country that could potentially bid for the franchise but the list of bidders is not due to be revealed until May.

Last month North Somerset MP Liam Fox said he believed work on the Portishead passenger rail link could begin by 2015.

His optimism stemmed from a meeting he attended alongside North Somerset Council leader Nigel Ashton with Transport Minister Norman Baker at Westminster.

Passenger services from Portishead to Bristol were cut in 1964, although the line to Portbury Dock reopened in 2002 for freight trains only.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Henbury-Portishead-rail-lines-open-5-years/story-15038048-detail/story.html

Reopening Portishead rail line for passenger trains could cost ^33m

The first phase of improvements in the biggest railway campaign in the West Country would cost ^40 million, it has been claimed.

Most of that sum ^ around ^33 million ^ would go on reopening the Portishead rail line for passenger trains. The rest would be spent on doubling the track at Filton Bank and adding an extra service between Bristol and Bath.

The Greater Bristol Metro campaign was officially launched last month by the West of England Partnership, the body that represents the four local authorities in the area. They are lobbying the Government and transport companies to include a raft of local rail improvements when the Great Western rail franchise is re-appointed next year.

The Department for Transport is currently consulting on what should be included in the new, 15-year contract.

Rail consultants Halcrow have produced a two-phase plan for the improvements, and gave a presentation to partnership members at a meeting this week.

Project manager David Crockett and rail operations specialist Graeme Pollard gave estimated costs for the various proposals, and explained why certain parts were given priority over others. Providing four tracks at Filton Bank is the first step, Mr Crockett said, as it allowed other improvements to follow suit.

He said: ^It^s the key pinch point, the bottle neck on the whole system. If you don^t have Filton Bank you don^t have very much at all. It gives us capacity, but it doesn^t actually buy any services.^

Mr Pollard said the area^s railways were being held back by changes that had been made in the past ^ such as closing stations and reducing track.

The main part of phase one improvements was the reopening of the Portishead to Bristol rail line. Although various figures have been quoted over the years, Halcrow estimate it would cost ^32.9 million, including ^25 million for the track and ^7.75 million for new stations at Portishead and Pill.

Providing an extra service between Temple Meads and Bath would cost ^2.76 million because there is currently no ability for trains to turn back at Bath Spa station.

Phase one also includes an enhanced service on the Severn Beach line. The last part of phase one would see one extra train an hour stopping at Parson Street by using the Cardiff to Taunton train.

Phase two prioritises the reopening of the Henbury loop, a network of stations in the north of the city.

But, to the disappointment of transport campaigners, Halcrow^s proposal does not include the full loop yet.

The two new stations at Henbury and North Filton would cost ^21 million and provide links to the development at Filton Airfield.

Halcrow also put forward a ^station package^ of stops that could be re-opened if the business cases could be proven. This included Saltford, Ashton Gate, Corsham and Ashley Down. Mr Crockett said: ^We need to get the base level of service in first.^

Summer rail repairs planned

Network Rail plans to replace or repair sections of the track which connects Portbury Docks with Bristol at Pill Tunnel and Pill Station.

Concerns have been raised that this work, which will keep the track at standards necessary for freight trains, will have been of little use if approval is soon given for the line to be upgraded for passenger trains between Portishead and Bristol.

However, a Network Rail spokesman has confirmed the work would need to be done even if the track was later upgrade and by carrying out the Government-funded scheme this summer, this will cut ^2million off the cost of reopening the line for passengers.

The spokesman said: ^This work needs to be done. By doing it now it means it won^t then need to be done later on. This means it will complement the scheme to reopen the track as a passenger line.^

Reopening the passenger line from Portishead to Bristol, which would require a new station in Portishead and intermediate stations in Pill and Ashton Gate, is expected to cost about ^50million.

North Somerset Council and Bristol City Council hope to make a case for Government funding for the project at the next opportunity.

The recently-formed Greater Bristol Metro Rail Group is also campaigning for its creation to be included in the requirements set out to whichever company takes on the Great Western Rail franchise, which will run from April 2013.

Just to say FGW are running trains down the portbury part of the line on the 29th September during the Community Rail Festival :)

http://www.fgwevents.co.uk/communityrailfestival/

5 trains, booking in advance only and only the first 100 people will get on.

MP Liam Fox signals Portishead railway line return is on the cards

Fifty years after the infamous Beeching Report signalled its closure, the clearest sign yet that Portishead will once again get a railway line has emerged.

Dr Liam Fox, the former defence secretary and Conservative MP for North Somerset, has revealed he is more hopeful than ever before that the rail line to the fast-growing North Somerset town will reopen by 2017.

(http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275793/Article/images/17894468/4488395.jpg)
Liam Fox on the disused rail line at Portishead with former Tory transport spokesman Chris Grayling

Portishead lost its rail line in September 1964 as a consequence of a review into the viability of Britain^s loss-making branch railways by Dr Richard Beeching. Almost ever since there have been campaigns to restore it, but finally ^ it seems ^ the project just might be making headway.

Dr Fox said he has been talking to government ministers and said he is more ^upbeat than on any previous time^ about the prospect of seeing trains running to Portishead once again.

The move has come just weeks after Network Rail, the organisation which operates train tracks across the country, said that the line is a part of its business plan for the next five years. Dr Fox took part in a meeting with Transport Minister Simon Burns along with rail campaigners from North Somerset.

He said: ^We were all very optimistic following the information that the minister was able to give us. I hope that we will now see trains running in 2017 and expect that we will get a definitive announcement on dates and funding in Parliament before the summer recess.^

Bristol^s new mayor has also been pushing for the line to be reopened as part of the plans for the Bristol Metro scheme. George Ferguson wants the rail network in the Bristol area to link up with the new Rapid Transit Network system.

Money would have to be spent on upgrading the track from Portbury Dock as it is not of a good enough standard to run passenger services. The track is currently only used by freight trains which carry coal and cars from Royal Portbury Dock to locations across the country. The track was reopened in the 1990s to freight and is capable of taking trains at speeds of up to 30mph, while passenger trains operate at speeds of up to 60mph. Further work will also have to be carried at the Pill tunnel to improve drainage.

Long-time transport campaigner David Redgewell said: ^I would say that the signs coming out of central Government are looking very promising at the moment.^

MP Liam Fox signals high hopes for Portishead rail line return

THE clearest sign yet that Portishead is to get its long-awaited rail link within the next four years has come from a former Government minister.

Dr Liam Fox, the Conservative MP for North Somerset, has revealed he is more hopeful than ever before that the rail line to Portishead will reopen by 2017.
 ​
The former Defence Secretary said he has been talking to government ministers and said he is more "upbeat than on any previous time" about the prospect of seeing trains running to Portishead once again.

The move has come just weeks after Network Rail, the organisation which operates train tracks across the country, said that the line is a part of its business plan for the next five years.

Dr Fox took part in a meeting with Transport Minister Simon Burns along with rail campaigners from North Somerset.

He said: "We were all very optimistic following the information that the Minister was able to give us.

" I hope that we will now see trains running in 2017 and expect that we will get a definitive announcement on dates and funding in Parliament before the summer recess."

Dr Fox went on to say that the efforts of Portishead Railway Group, North Somerset Council and the hundreds of local residents have helped in the campaign to get the line reinstated.

Bristol's new mayor has also been pushing for the line to be reopened as part of the plans for the Bristol Metro scheme. George Ferguson wants the rail network in the Bristol area to link up with the new Rapid Transit Network system.

People living in Portishead have been campaigning for more than a decade to get the line reopened to passenger trains.

Money would have to be spent on upgrading the six-mile section of the track from Portbury Dock as it is not of a good enough standard to run passenger services.

The track is currently only used by freight trains which carry coal and cars from Royal Portbury Dock to locations across the country.

The track was reopened in the 1990s to freight and is capable of taking trains at speeds of up to 30mph, while passenger trains operate at speeds of up to 60mph.

The existing track could be used, but major realignment work would be needed and some new lines would have to be laid. Further work will also have to be carried at the Pill tunnel to improve drainage and lines.

Long-time transport campaigner David Redgewell said: "I would say that the signs coming out of central Government and the Ministry of Transport are looking very promising at the moment.

"This is a key part of the Bristol Metro and something we have been campaigning for for a very long time. As I said, all the signals are looking very promising at the moment."

There is some concern that the process will be held up by the uncertainty surrounding the bidding for the rail franchise. The bidding was put on hold following the scandal surrounding the West Coast Main Line and major mistakes made at the Department for Transport. The issue was supposed to be settled in March but there are suggestions that First Great Western, which currently operates the franchise, will carry on for another two years.

A spokesperson for the rail operator said: "We are very pleased that the support for Bristol Metro continues to gain support and momentum from the Government.

"We are continuing to work with all the authorities to move the plans forward."

The first phase of the long-awaited Greater Bristol Metro is expected to be opened in 2017 and would include the reopening of the Portishead line to passenger services and half-hourly trains on the Severn Beach line.

Phase Two of the Metro, which will provide local train services in the Bristol area, is not likely to be completed until 2018/21.

It includes half-hourly services to Yate and provides new services on the Henbury line.

It read like a PPB to me.  All around the country I am reading in local press releases about local MP's and the like all claiming that NR's announced plans are solely or chiefly down to their efforts  ('I've been pressing this at the highest level') .   :(

To be fair, Dr Liam Fox MP has been a far more active and consistent supporter of the Portishead Line reopening campaign than certain members of North Somerset Council ...  ::)

The Elfan in the room?

"You may very well think that: I couldn't possibly comment."  (Francis Urquhart (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030397/quotes))  ;) :D ;D

In my opinion the Waitrose site would still be the best option if there was a level crossing but I think the road over rail bridge would be a real blot on the landscape especially for the residents of Haven View who would probably be looking at the equivalent of the infamous Temple Meads flyover right outside their lounge windows...

At the risk of suffering the ire of chuffed, I note that it is not NR that has a rule about level crossings, but is a new Standard set by Her Majesty's (mispelt in the official document) Inspectorate of Railways.  I'm sure they are not without influence, but it means that no amount of campaigning will bring about a level crossing.

The existing Waitrose/ Lidl car park was full to overflowing this morning thanks to a combination of Sat shoppers and free coffee at Waitrose, the once a month Farmers Market, and the 20 deep queues in the library for the new X2 and X3 bus timetables...which incidentally have the route map printly wrongly...Just where any new station parking is meant to fit in with that lot is anyone's guess !!

OR - let's get radical here - we could have a tram/train not crossing but running along the road through the town centre right up to Redcliffe Bay.  I know someone who'd be chuffed buy that idea.  I know this is a fantasy, but Clevedon's twin German town of Ettlingen benefits from such a creature and who knows...one day.   ::)

In the mean time, I regret to say that Quays Road is the best practical option.

Track clearance work another ^positive step^

Tracey Fowler, Reporter
 Thursday, March 7, 2013
   
ACTIVITY on land designated for the Portishead to Bristol railway has indicated a positive step forward for the re-opening of the line.

Contractors have started clearance work on an area of the disused section of track close to Trinity Primary School, to give North Somerset Council access to the track bed and to bridges and culverts.

(http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/Boyamijealous_7108a707/track_clearance_zps5371d15c.jpg)

This will allow the authority to establish more details of the scope and estimated costs involved to support the railway project if it proceeds as expected.

Portishead Railway Group vice-chairman Colin Howells said: ^The work that is in progress to clear vegetation from the track from Quays Avenue through to the junction with the existing freight line near Pill, is essential to allow the next phase of the re-opening process to progress.

^Portishead Railway Group sees this as another positive step towards the ultimate goal of trains running on the track between Portishead and Bristol by 2017.^
 

The work could take several weeks to complete and is therefore likely to overlap into the bird nesting season. Because of this, contractors will work under the supervision of a qualified ecologist who will be on-site to ensure any work avoids nesting birds and other protected species.

Four councils have teamed up with local businesses to form the West of England Local Transport Body (LTB).

The body, which is responsible for setting priorities for major transport projects in the west, will meet on March 13 to set out its priorities.

To date, all parties are agreed that the priority should be phase one of the Greater Bristol Metro Project, which includes the Portishead to Bristol railway line.

Funding for much of this will come directly from the Government^s Department of Transport and is anticipated to be available in 2015.

To be fair, Dr Liam Fox MP has been a far more active and consistent supporter of the Portishead Line reopening campaign than certain members of North Somerset Council ...  ::)

I wonder how Dr Fox's pronouncement today about cutting all public expenditure for five years would affect the re-opening of this line if the Chancellor did as he advised. 

Hopefully in five or so years time that same vantage point will afford the view of a shiny Class 165 Turbo passing underneath the bridge...

I've looked down on this scene (FTN's picture) over the past few years and wondered whether the re-instated railway will increase or decrease the value of this ex-station building. 

Indeed, compliments. 

What amazes me is why no one planted a row of cypress all along the A369 between that and the M5 (is that why the bus is called 369?).

2/. Accidents are most prevalent on high speed stretches of the rail network where inadequate pedestrian and traffic control are in place.

Is it time to challenge Network Rail's policy on 'no new level crossings ?

Apologies for those who don't know this area, but to discuss the issue, we need to get down to this kind of detail.  Although I don't agree with FTN's specific proposal, he exemplifies the kind of radical thinking needed.

From the Scottish Borders to the West Country, via aspiring commuter towns in between, engineers are working to reopen rural branch lines severed by the Beeching Axe 50 years ago.

 Lines previously abandoned to nature are being revived by local authorities seeking to relieve congestion on the roads and restore public transport. Figures published last week showed that despite years of above-inflation fares rises, train travel is expanding to record levels.

 Where 50 years ago the political challenge was how to manage decline, the dilemma today is how to accommodate more passengers and achieve the Government^s aim of lower state subsidies.

 Next week, railway enthusiasts will mark the 50th anniversary of the Beeching cuts when the chairman of the British Railways Board published a report recommending the closure of 2,363 stations and 5,000 miles of track. Dr Beeching saw a future in which the car was king and recommended that more than half of all stations be closed and a third of the railway be junked to staunch heavy losses on the state-run railway.

 Local protest movements were cast aside and the 1960s saw many rural areas cut from the public transport network. But the diggers have returned to some lines, clearing vegetation and buildings that had taken over.

 Work has begun south of Edinburgh on a ^300 million scheme, the biggest currently under way. Network Rail, which took over the project to build 30 miles of track and seven stations last year, hopes that trains will return to the old Waverley line between Edinburgh and Carlisle in 2015 for the first time since 1969.

 In Devon, the county council is consulting on proposals to revive the Tavistock line. It is planning a 9km (5 mile) single-track line through cuttings and embankments abandoned by Beeching to reconnect Tavistock to Bere Alston. An hourly service to Plymouth is seen as a way of easing congestion on the A386 from a 750-house development on the outskirts of Tavistock.

 Last week, North Somerset Council hired contractors to clear the disused Portishead line as supporters prepare plans to rebuild the railway to Bristol. The 17-minute train journey would be far more convenient than the hour-long rush-hour drive, they claim.

 And Network Rail is waiting for government funding to rebuild part of the old Varsity Line between Oxford and Cambridge in a ^250 million scheme that would restore passenger services between Oxford and Bedford for the first time since 1967. The plan to relay track between Bicester and Bletchley would provide a link between the Great Western and West Coast Main Lines in a move which supporters claim would boost the local economy.

 Sir David Higgins, the Network Rail chief executive, said that one of the greatest challenges for the railway was how to cater for growth.

 Figures from the Office of Rail Regulation showed 385 million passenger journeys in the three months to January, 14 million more than for the same period last year and the highest number yet on the privatised railway. Revenue rose by 8 per cent to ^1.96 billion in the quarter.

 After a decade of above-inflation fares rises there is still no relief in sight for passengers. Network Rail^s blueprint for growth to the end of the decade is based on another five years of rising ticket prices.

 Michael Palin, the broadcaster and president of the Campaign for Better Transport, welcomed the reopening of lines. ^There was a time when there was a lot of sentiment about the railways and everyone had to have their own little line. Now there is a business case to be made. The more the merrier,^ he said.

 But Lord Adonis, the former Labour Transport Secretary, said that the priority should be investing in the existing railway. ^There are a few Beeching closures that should be reversed, like Lewes-Uckfield and Oxford-Cambridge, but the big demand for investment is in the existing network, not in reopening rural lines of marginal benefit,^ he said. ^Increasing capacity on the major commuter lines into the big cities and developing high-speed rail is the key priority for investment.^From the Scottish Borders to the West Country, via aspiring commuter towns in between, engineers are working to reopen rural branch lines severed by the Beeching Axe 50 years ago.

[PS: anyone help me with how to put in short quotes in the purple boxes?  Thought I'd learned, but haven't.  Pm will do.  Thanks]

Like this.

Beeching Report: The fight to reopen Portishead's rail link

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66581000/jpg/_66581933_c00ff59a-d620-4318-8bf5-8c17739840a6.jpg)
Work to clear the disused railway line has already begun to find out how much work will be needed before trains can start running again

Campaigners have been fighting for more than 20 years to get the rail link back in a North Somerset town.

Members of the Portishead Railway Group have even set the date of 18 April 2017 - 150 years to the day the line was opened - to have trains on the track.

Fifty years have passed since Dr Richard Beeching restructured Great Britain's railways, but the effects of his cuts are still being felt.

In 1964, the railway station in the Severn Estuary coastal town closed for the last time because of low passenger numbers and falling freight use.

The campaign group is supported by the West of England Partnership which argues there is a "very good business case" for using the branch line once again.

"Bridges, tunnels, cuttings - it's all there - none of it has been built on," said Alan Matthews, chairman of the group. "The line has never been lifted and the track is still there but all overgrown."

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66581000/jpg/_66581934_159d350a-22bc-4d22-9f75-ec1553ff9078.jpg)
Despite an extra long platform at Portishead for day trippers, passenger numbers continued to fall

The nine miles of single track line between Ashton in Bristol and Portishead was opened in 1867. Running along the Avon Gorge, it offered passengers a regular service with stations at Clifton Bridge, Pill and Portbury.

"It was run to a timetable and was definitely profitable up to the start of the 20th century," said Mr Matthews. "It was very busy during both world wars but Dr Beeching said the line had to do ^5,000 per week or it would have to close."

Despite a "very long" platform being built in Portishead to accommodate large numbers of day trippers, passenger numbers fell and in 1964 the line was closed to all but freight and by 1981 was closed completely.

Twenty years later, it was re-laid as far as Portbury Docks but for freight use only. The remaining 3.3 miles of redundant track - from Portbury into Portishead - has been sitting idle for the last 49 years "collecting rust and buddleias".

In 1861 the population of Portishead was just 1,201 - this has risen to about 22,000 according to the town council. With new housing developments in the area it is expected to increase by a further 8,000.

But with just one major road, the A369, linking Portishead with Bristol, the town has been described by North Somerset MP Dr Liam Fox as "the most overcrowded cul-de-sac in Britain".

A study by Network Rail in 2010 showed travel time from Portishead to Bristol by rail would be 17 minutes, compared to an hour by road during rush hour.

In 2008 the redundant line was bought by North Somerset Council to stop the track being taken up or built on.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66580000/jpg/_66580681_9b2ea376-f7b4-4126-a964-c1f29ce3d42f.jpg)
An opening date of 18 April 2017 has been set - 150 years to the day it was opened by Brunel

And now the West of England Partnership is in discussions with Network Rail to develop the Greater Bristol Metro which will include Portishead.

James White, from the partnership, said it would make sense to bring the branch line back. "The proposal is for two stations; one at Portishead and one at Pill, and a possible station at Ashton Gate," he said. "The idea is to have a half hourly service at peak times, in the morning and evening, and an hourly service the rest of the day depending on demand."

With the organisation estimating up to 400,000 passengers a year and 1,300 a day, Mr White said he was confident trains would be running by 2017.

But with the cost estimated at more than ^40m, a Network Rail spokesman said the work start date depends on when North Somerset Council obtains the funding.

"Reinstating the Bristol to Portishead line for passenger services is not our proposal," he said. "It is a third party aspiration. It is not in the Network Rail strategic business plan for 2014 to 2019, although we are working with other interested parties to try and make it happen."

North Somerset Council has already had a ^43m bid to reopen the line rejected by the government.

The authority applied for the money from the Regional Growth Fund back in 2011.

The Department for Transport is expected to make an announcement on funding later this year.

Funding approved to progress railway dream

(http://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/train_ticket_1_2021086!image/3823452052.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_225/3823452052.jpg)

The next phase of preparation works for the re-opening of the Portishead^s railway line has been given the green light.

After considering an updated report on the rail project yesterday (Tues), North Somerset Council^s executive recommended a total of ^1.35million should be spent on more detailed preparation work over the next 12 months.

The money will come from four councils in North Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset and Bristol. North Somerset Council^s contribution will be ^675,000, funded by housing developer contributions to local infrastructure.

The re-opening of the Portishead line will form part of the Great West Metro Phase One project, which includes proposals for half-hourly train services between Portishead and Bristol.

The total cost of the project is likely to be between ^45m and ^55m, which is expected to be funded from a Department for Transport Major Schemes grant.

Leader of North Somerset Council, Nigel Ashton, said: ^This is a really major transport project which has the potential to have massive benefits, not just for North Somerset, but for the whole sub-region. We need to continue our efforts to move the project on sufficiently to secure the full approval and the necessary government funding. Any delay to this work would have a knock-on effect upon project timescales and costs.^

The next phase of preparation work includes progressing railway engineering design and preparation of a detailed business case.

Three locations are currently being considered for the Portishead railway station but financial and operational restrictions are likely to govern the final decision.

From the North Somerset Times (http://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/news/funding_approved_to_progress_railway_dream_1_2021087):

At the risk of asking an extremely dumb question, why is the picture illustrating this a Brighton to Kingston Cheap Day Return from June 2006??

Portishead to Bristol railway line reopening ^ business case to be drawn up to keep project on track

Work is to start on drawing up a detailed business case for the re-opening of Portishead railway. North Somerset Council is to work with Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) to draw up a detailed business case for rail improvements over the next ten years.

(http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/275775/Article/images/18736814/4769308.jpg)
The old railway line has been cleared alongside the Pill to Portishead cycle path with a view to reopening the line

The work, costing an estimated ^1.35 million, is to be jointly funding by the four councils with North Somerset earmarking ^675,000 towards the project. The funding will also be used to progress preparatory work for the engineering design of the new rail links.

The possible re-opening of the Portishead rail branch line would form part of the Great West Metro Phase One project, which would be the first of a host of major schemes identified to provide a range of improvements to the local rail network. The project includes proposals for half-hourly train services for the re-opened Portishead line, Severn Beach line and local stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa. The total cost is estimated at between ^45 million and ^55million, and is expected to be funded from the Department for Transport subject to agreement of the proposed Local Transport Body.

North Somerset Council leader, Councillor Nigel Ashton, said: "This is a really major transport project which has the potential to have massive benefits, not just for North Somerset, but for the whole sub-region. We need to continue our efforts to move the project on sufficiently to secure the full approval and the necessary government funding. Any delay to this work would have a knock-on effect upon project timescales and costs. It is vital that we take a coherent and a credible approach to both the delivery and the operation of the line so that we can continue to present a strong case for the scheme to our funders and at future public inquiries. The process to secure the project is a lengthy one and dependent on a number of elements including funding approvals and planning powers. Authority to build and operate the project still needs to be gained. The process to secure planning powers is lengthy and requires the councils to set out a detailed evidence-based approach."

Work has already been carried out to clear three miles of the railway track to allow surveyors to assess the estimated costs of the work needed to re-open the line.

It is hoped that if Government funding is agreed for the project trains could be running out of Portishead again by 2017 and the Department for Transport is expected to make an announcement on funding later this year.

The work to re-open the town's railway would include re-laying the three miles of redundant track between Portishead and Portbury ^ purchased by North Somerset several years ago to protect it ^ and building a new station. A new road bridge would be built over the railway at Quays Avenue in Portishead and a station would have to be built. A site at Harbour Road was identified for a new railway station several years ago as part of the Portishead Quays development. But council chiefs now say putting a station on this land has raised a number of challenges and other locations for the station need to be considered.

A search for alternative sites has been undertaken and three possible locations have now been shortlisted. These include the site at Harbour Road, one at Quays Avenue and a further site on land on the edge of the town north of Moor Farm at Sheepway.

I'm not even sure how they came up with that 17-minute figure. By my reckoning it's nearer 21, plus additional time at Pill whenever two services should be timed to pass one-another if the service is half-hourly. Or are they planning to have only Pill itself as an intermediate station between Portishead and BRI, which would weaken the economic case of the service?

... not forgetting block signalling...

I've have read with interest the proposals for Portishead and in particular the resurrection of the existing railway line. I note that there are 3 options for the siting of the train station and as I live on the Village Quarter, the outcome of this decision is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions in this regard and I wonder if you could provide me with some answers.
 
1. Has any market research been carried out as to who and how often the railway link would be used? Speaking to commuter friends, they have told me that they would not use the line as they work nowhere near Templemeads. In order to get to their place of work, they would need to either get a bus or cab from the Bristol train station, both of which would add to the expense and time of their journey to work which would negate the time savings made on the A369. They have concluded that they would prefer to continue to drive.

2. Could you please tell me when the chosen site for the station will be formally agreed?

3. If option 1 or 2 is chosen, I notice that a footbridge will be erected at the back of Trinity school fields. Can you tell me why? Surely if the station was sited either on Harbour Road or Quays Avenue, there would be no need as passengers would be easily able to walk to Quays Avenue from the Village Quarter or the Vale with no need for such an intrusive bridge. I believe that the bridge would compromise the privacy of the houses and gardens that back onto the school and I am concerned that late at night, when the passengers are groups of people who have been out drinking in Bristol, the garages and fences of those houses - as well as the bridge - would provide an excellent canvas for graffiti, litter and urination. Such a bridge would not ensure a connection between the Vale and the Village Quarter either as there are further ditches and rivers to cross. Surely a better site for such a bridge would be the other side of Trinity School where schoolchildren currently cross to access Trinity, St Peter's, St Joseph's and Gordano schools without forcing them to use the main roads.

4. If option 3 is chosen, a footpath will be built through a residential area which will compromise the security and privacy of residents in that area. Surely, passengers would not want to walk down a narrow path and out of the station at night either as this represents a security risk to them also.

5. The fact that option 3 is so far out of town as to make walking to it seriously unlikely, any congestion in the Quays Avenue, Harbour Road and Sheepway areas will be exacerbated rather than alleviated. Added to this the fact that parking will become an issue for residents of the Village Quarter (already something of a problem) with commuters wishing to avoid the station car park costs or the journey to the car park simply parking on the Village Quarter and cutting through.

When considering the position of a train station, surely the accessibility for its passengers is the most important factor. Compromising the standard of living of those in the immediate area should be actively avoided. The overriding decision should certainly not be based purely on cost.  The original site (option 1) was chosen for its accessibility and suitability for the town as a whole. The decision to find alternative sites to option 1 appears to be based purely on cost whilst Village Quarter and Vale residents are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. We disagree.
 
On that note, the reinstatement of the railway appears to be being completed on a shoestring. I understand that the track is currently being investigated to check its condition as there is no contingency to have it completely replaced. Also, as the cost of new trains is not a viable option, old rolling stock is planned for use. The council has already admitted that the line will be a loss leader and with old trains being used, this raises the question as to how reliable the service is actually going to be.
 
To summarise, the track and trains are old, the line is never going to make money and the security, privacy and rights of way of residents will be compromised. There is no persuasive evidence that congestion will be reduced within Portishead nor indeed that anyone will actually use the trains consistently enough to reduce congestion on the A369.
 
If the railway is to go ahead, there needs to be real involvement with the community ^ including those both for and against it ^ so that opinions can be heard, research can be made and proper planning can be drawn up and worked on. Up until this point, there has been a strong feeling by many residents of finger-in-the-air planning by North Somerset Council and the pro-Railway Group, which will not serve to benefit the community as a whole, successfully. There is no need for one area of the town to be used as collateral damage in the ruthless pursuit of a plan that has not been properly thought through.

Has any market research been carried out as to who and how often the railway link would be used?

Speaking to commuter friends, they have told me that they would not use the line as they work nowhere near Templemeads (sic)

I understand that the track is currently being investigated to check its condition as there is no contingency to have it completely replaced.

...old rolling stock is planned for use

...the line is never going to make money

If the railway is to go ahead, there needs to be real involvement with the community ^ including those both for and against it ^ so that opinions can be heard, research can be made and proper planning can be drawn up and worked on.

Sorry, I said I'd try not to be sarcastic...

What I claim is to live to the full the contradiction of my time, which may well make sarcasm the condition of truth.

One other thing to come out of the more positive responses was a clear call for the ORR to consider a level crossing at Quays Avenue, despite their stated policy of 'no new level crossings'

I suspect that a statue of Jimmy Savile would be more likely to be approved than a level crossing in the current climate.

^ Except in exceptional circumstances, there should be no new level crossings on any railway.

(see http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/319.pdf)

Looking at some pictures of the Manchester tram extensions, it strikes me that there are lots of new road / rail level crossings. What makes them acceptable when a very low speed (as I understand it) at Portishead would not be?  Would Portishead be better served by tram / light rail vehicles which reached Temple Meads from the Cumberland Road area via the south side of the Floating Harbour and Redcliffe Way - or even Welsh Back and Victoria Street?

In the 1970's Richard Cotterel (then an Euro MP) proposed an Avon Metro on the lines of the Tyne & Wear Metro. This would have comprised a central underground section and the use of parts of the BR track with lines to Yate, Bath, Weston-Super-Mare, Portishead, Severn Beach & the Henbury loop. This idea was never adopted largely due to cost and also Avon County Council was at that time committed to road building as the solution to traffic problems.

(see: http://www.tramdev.clara.net/hist.htm)

Yes, the Portishead trains could easily take this crossing at very low speed. As for tram or light rail... is your tongue planted firmly in your cheek?

Enjoying your posts very much RS. You seem to be a real chip off the ' Four Track Now' block ! Believe me that's a real compliment !

I hope that for all the reasons of low speed and proximity to the terminus that they can be persuaded that this is an exceptional case, that can be allowed a crossing. Even then, there will be grumblings from the nearest homes, because of the warning bells.

Also, NR do not really sound as keen as the local councils on reopening the railway, although they will do it if told to.

Hmm.  ::)

I have it on very good authority (from someone very senior at Network Rail, who Lee and I buttonholed at a meeting in Bristol some time ago!) that Network Rail are in fact quite happy to proceed with the reopening of the Portishead Line - provided the necessary funding is made available.  :-X

I suspect that a statue of Jimmy Savile would be more likely to be approved than a level crossing in the current climate.

... Portishead is not a scheme they have been actively pressing for.

Yes, it is ... and it's also pointing out the irony of potentially different rules / guidelines for essentially the same crossing, depending on whether they turn left or go straight ahead the the Cumberland Basin.

...redsquirrel did beat me to the post with almost identical ripostes to those crazy objections to Portishead railway.

Taking the long view is always a good idea, except within the Greater Bristol area

All this reminds me of a good old Bristol word 'tempry' - first applied IIRC to the wonderfully dreadful Meccano flyover that once linked Redcliff(e) Way with Temple Way

Except that Portbury is on no agenda for reopening.
snipped

It seems to me that the Portishead situation is similar in character (low speed entry to a terminus) as the recently reinstated level crossing at Sheringham.
 

True, but actually one could argue that one being used every half hour is a safer use as everyone gets used to the routine.

The Portishead one is bound to be safe as long as they use full barriers.

The safest way to keep railways and public highway users (both vehicle and pedestrian) apart is grade separation.

I really think that the Portishead level crossing can be made as safe as anyone could expect...

You could say that exceeds the limits of a reasonably duty of care. You could also point to the very different attitude we take to the danger of cars (quite heavy enough to kill) passing within a few feet of pedestrians. However, on balance I would support the ORR policy, though I might be persuaded about the specific interpretation of "exceptional" in this case if a low enough speed is operationally practical. 

I cannot believe common sense will not prevail here.

It's as though trains somehow killed people deader than cars or buses, isn't it? The sad tale of the lad at your local station could just as easily have happened at a bus stop, yet no-one is suggesting that we should erect fences between the carriageway and the pavement along every road in the land. But this is essentially what the railway is expected to do.

Talbot Green bus terminus death of pedestrian, 69

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67554000/jpg/_67554302_talbotgreenbusterminus1bbc.jpg)
The pedestrian received fatal injuries at the bus terminus in Talbot Green

A 69-year-old man has died after he was involved in a collision with a bus leaving a terminus.

South Wales Police said the pedestrian was fatally injured in the collision at the exit of the terminus in Talbot Green.

It happened at about 14:15 BST as the bus was entering Talbot Road on Saturday.

Officers are appealing for any witnesses to the collision, or anyone who saw the man's movements beforehand.

the quickest way to the information office/booth was across the bus station forecourt following what I thought was the proscribed walking route.

...That esteemed organ, the Bristol Post which is printed in Didcot, is reporting that the re-opening of the Portishead line is to be put back a year to December 2018. Although it is at GRIP 4 , it has to wait for the rest of the proposed metro lines to go through the GRIP process. The actual work would only seem to take about 9 months to complete, but it is all the vast bloated bureaucracy of planning, consultancy and over-engineering that ramps up the cost... an estimated eye watering  ^55 million... which just seems to beggar belief for just 3 miles of flat line! What would Brunel think ? I suspect he would be spinning in his grave so fast that he could probably power the entire electrification programme single handed ...or should that be single bodied ? ???

Commuters face delays from Portishead to Bristol for second day

Commuters from Portishead faced heavy congestion for the second day in a row this morning.

Fallen power cables caused chaos yesterday after a car collided with a lamp post near the cricket club. Work on the power lines was not completed until 7.50am.

This morning Clapton Lane was closed to traffic causing heavy delays.

More reasons why the the railink is required

Although I doubt you will get anyone to admit it, I have always rather suspected that Portishead isnt pushed to completion because they fear demand would soon outstrip the amount of rolling stock you could reasonably allocate to what would be a frequency restricted service due to infrastructure constraints.

The now lapsed GRIP3 report envisaged half-hourly services, 4-car at peak, 2-car off peak.

I can see why a rather less bold status quo might fear the consequences, though.

Now, don't get me wrong - I think you need to be bold and build it. I can see why a rather less bold status quo might fear the consequences, though.

Portishead railway station location consultation begins

Potential locations for a new Portishead rail station are being discussed in a public consultation.

Proposals to re-open the line are part of a ^100m investment in the local area's rail infrastructure.

It was originally closed in 1964 and the revamp is part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project, being overseen by the West of England Partnership.

The project team has identified three potential station locations and is asking for comments.

North Somerset Council will use responses to decide later this year where the station will be located.

'Making progress'

The three locations under consideration are east of Quays Avenue, across Quays Avenue and between Serbert Road and Harbour Road.

The MetroWest Phase 1 project aims to reopen the Portishead line to passenger train services by Spring 2019.

The line will restore the rail link between the town and Bristol city centre.

Leader of North Somerset Council, Nigel Ashton, said: "There is still a lot to do before we could confirm re-opening the Portishead line, but we are making progress.

"Considering the viable options for a station is an important part of the project."

The proposals can be viewed and comments submitted online at the project website (http://www.travelwest.info/mw/portishead).

Two exhibitions are also being held at Portishead Methodist Church on 24 and 28 June.

I popped along to the "exhibition" this evening - to be honest it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from the website - though it was useful being able to see the maps greatly enlarged so it was clear exactly where things were going!

I still fail to understand why a level crossing is out of the question, when we're talking final approach to a dead end platform at about 10mph - and there is already a level crossing on the line near Ashton Gate - there is nothing about closing that one!

Alan

Wouldn't be a problem if this was a tram ...

Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution. I just think NR should be told, cajoled, emailed and petitioned  time and time and time again , until they get sick of all the aggro, and just go ahead and  build the damn thing. The three existing options on the table for the station are second, third and fourth best respectively.

Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution.

As BNM has said 'level crossings are safe unless used in a unsafe manner

Is the answer in Portishead to use vehicles similar to those in use in Edinburgh  ;D

Erm ... that was CfN, not BNM.  ;)

That (ie tram/train) would be an ideal solution, but alas not on offer in the foreseeable future.

Anyone thought of lowering the road, and having the railway cross by bridge? St Lukes Road in Bedminster is my inspiration.

I'm sure we've all found St Luke's Rd a source of inspiration at some time in our lives...

I'm guessing that the cost of digging a cutting and its approaches is probably greater than the cost of embankments for a road overbridge - and the fact that it's all a bit close to sea level probably complicates things too.

BNM also said it, but later.

One of my fellow moderators, Chris from Nailsea, sums up the issue pretty succinctly in his forum signature:

Where others lead...  :P ;) ;D

I cannot understand why NR has to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut over the question of a level crossing at Quays Avenue. Anyone with half a brain can see it is the most obvious and cost effective solution. I just think NR should be told, cajoled, emailed and petitioned  time and time and time again, until they get sick of all the aggro, and just go ahead and build the damn thing. The three existing options on the table for the station are second, third and fourth best respectively.

Level crossings policy

Our policies and aims on level crossings are set out here. We also explain what we will to do to help ensure the risks from level crossings are properly controlled.

Great Britain's level crossing safety record is among the best in the world, but every incident has the potential for significant human and economic loss. Level crossings are the single biggest source of railway catastrophic risk, but overall the risks are well managed.

We seek to influence dutyholders and others to reduce risk at Britain's level crossings. We do this through a variety of means ranging from advice to formal enforcement action. We check that preventive and protective measures are implemented in accordance with the principles of prevention set out in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

Risk control should, where practicable, be achieved through the removal of level crossings and replacing them with bridges, underpasses or diversions. Where removal is not possible, we aim to ensure that duty holders reduce risk so far as is reasonably practicable and in accordance with the principles of protection.

As the safety regulator for Britain's railways, our role is to provide clear advice and enforce relevant legislation ^ including that which relates to level crossings. We also exercise delegated powers of the Secretary of State in making level crossing orders under the Level Crossings Act 1983.

We believe that it is neither effective nor efficient for only rail companies to be responsible for managing safety at level crossings. Decisions about level crossings should involve rail companies, traffic authorities and other relevant organisations such as planning authorities as early on as possible.

Relevant authorities should recognise the wider benefits that safety improvements at level crossings (for example, replacing them with bridges) can bring about, particularly for road users. If wider benefits can be achieved, the appropriate funding bodies should agree on how the costs of making safety improvements will be met.

We are also committed to helping people understand the importance of the safe use of level crossings.

Our aims

- other than in exceptional circumstances, no new level crossings on any railway therefore creating no new risks; and

- to make level crossing users more aware of what affects safety at level crossings.

What we will do

- we will use current laws on creating and using level crossings to support good practice; and

- we will work closely with Network Rail and other rail companies to help improve safety at level crossings, and be directly involved in working groups and committees where appropriate.

Last updated - 17 April 2014

That (ie tram/train) would be an ideal solution, but alas not on offer in the foreseeable future.

Interestingly, it does say the ORR have confirmed that a level crossing would not be allowed. So maybe they were asked after all.

Actually, I'm sorry but you're all wrong as to what the stock will be. I've just been reading the article in the council ragazine North Somerset Life (distributed to all households) about the re-opening, and it clearly shows a double track third rail electrified line with a 4 car Class 375.

http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Your_Council/Communication_and_Information/North%20Somerset%20Life/NS%20Life%20July%202014%20(pdf).pdf

Interestingly, it does say the ORR have confirmed that a level crossing would not be allowed. So maybe they were asked after all.

I pay tribute to Chris from Nailsea for helping me find an economy of words ... "Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner".

The same is true of motor cars, knives, machine guns, aircraft, dynamite, and chain saws, all of which I have operated in complete safety (except, arguably, the last. OK, or the first).

I, too, have used motor cars, knives, machine guns and a chain saw in complete safety (although I was dutifully careful with one of the machine guns, as the MP40 is an historic masterpiece of German engineering, in my opinion).

It is also very true of roads, including Quays Avenue. Consider the prospect of the station being, because of lack of permission for a LC, to the east of Quays Avenue, with the 100-place car park to the west. Were there a LC in place, the car park and station would both be to the west of QA, and the train would be running at about 5 to 10 mph, the driver keenly alert for problems on the LC and planning his arrival at Portishead in terms of pulling up to a stop. Without the LC, we may well see drivers, maybe having had trouble finding a parking space and seeing the train at platform, throw caution to the winds and dash across QA without paying heed to the traffic. It only needs another driver en route to work from the estate behind the roundabout, maybe inexperienced, maybe distracted by finding the right track on the iPod, probably nearing 30mph, and the stage is set for calamity.

Put 50 people against a closed LC gate who desperately want / need to be the other side of the track, and I doubt more than two idiots would chance it (I would say none, had I not seen it before). Put them by a traffic light controlled crossing with the last train for half-an-hour in sight opposite, and I reckon that at most, you would have the vicar and the old lady with two walking sticks wait for the green man without at least thinking about it (and I'm not sure of the latter).

doesn't ScotRail's new borders railway have any level crossings?

Network Rail has a policy not to introduce new level-crossings to the rail network due to the dangers they can pose. The Borders Railway will therefore not have a single level-crossing. Instead, we are constructing a number of new footbridges and pathways to better connect local communities to each other and the new stations.

Green men are often painfully slow in coming too, although I like the crossing near Fishguard town hall which shows traffic the amber aspect as soon as you press the button. Why can't all pedestrian crossings give such priority to pedestrians?

Editor's comment:

The opening of a passenger railway line to Portishead is the catalyst that will kickstart an urban rail network and could transform Bristol's gridlocked transport system. Somehow, however, that opening has already been put back several years by the frustratingly time-consuming process of funding and consultation.

Now, ignoring the completion of public consultation by North Somerset Council on where Portishead's station should be sited, the town's own councillors are calling for the plan to be put on hold ^ while a business case is drawn up for the use of a level crossing. Despite the fact that rail authorities have ruled out a crossing for the town unless it was an "exceptional case".

The town council's persistence on this issue is unhelpful. It argues that a site for the station was identified 20 years ago. But, while this original site is closer to the centre of town than those being consulted on, it is by just 400 metres. Portishead has changed beyond recognition in 20 years. And a level crossing would not be practical for a busy road that is about to become busier.

Meanwhile, the only real achievement is more delay. And that is something this vital scheme cannot afford.

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/33443/borders_spring_2014_newsletter.pdf

Having had a meeting with Network Rail in Cardiff in June we are convinced that they are keen to reinstate the railway link between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth and are fully supportive of our campaign. We do need political support so that the money for a feasibility study can be obtained.

Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?

Yes if it follows the original route into Aberystwyth.  However other routes may be possible to link with the existing line to the east of Aberystwyth which would get round some other obstructions in the town.

Original route or no, I can't see any way of doing it without a level crossing. If Network Rail can, maybe they can dream something up for Portishead too. If they can make one of the two work, why can't they make both work?

The original route at Llanfarian, just south of Aberystwyth turned west at towards the coast and came into the station through the harbour area.  If instead it turned slightly east at that point it could cut through open country and join the existing railway near where it crosses the A44 on a bridge, I see a potential to do without a level crossing.

In Portishead there is not the same option as there is no existing railway into the town.

'Cut through' literally, as I think what you suggest there would require double the tunneling I had presumed would be needed to build a new route into Aberystwyth (the route I had in mind would require a new level crossing). That bridge over the A44 is quite a way to the east... And how does a flat-crossing over a heritage railway (like at Porthmadog) compare to a level crossing with full barriers and a footbridge for able-bodied pedestrians in terms of saftey etc.?

A road overbridge is a most expensive  sledgehammer to crack a nut and would be the most dreadful visual intrusion especially for the residents of Haven Lodge nursing home opposite.

The latest proposal of a rail under road cutting as proposed in the North Somerset Times this week seems to conveniently  forget the fact that this part of Portishead is barely above sea level. When  road work was done, earlier this year, near Gordano School, you could see sea water at the bottom of a ten foot trench !

It would seem that the only way to make the ORR see sense about this, is to get them out of their ivory sidings and hire a train to bring them down so they can see for themselves that a level crossing really is the only solution. Surely that would be a far more effective and cheaper use of the ^50.000  earmarked by the Town Council, than yet MORE consultations that only ever seem to make money for the consultants, and just delays things even further!

it might demonstrate the ridiculousness of an entrenched position by the ORR.

West rail improvement plans submitted for funding

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/75537000/jpg/_75537263_portisheadline.jpg)
Re-opening the Portishead line, which closed in 1964, is part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project, being overseen by the West of England Partnership

A ^58m plan to improve railway services in and around Bristol and Bath is to be submitted to the government.

If approved, the proposal would see half-hourly services for the Severn Beach line, the Bath-to-Bristol line and a re-opened Portishead line.

The MetroWest Phase 1 project aims to reopen the Portishead line to passenger train services by Spring 2019.

The bid has been drawn up by the Joint Transport Board for the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership.

Chairman Brian Allinson said he hoped a decision would come in the next six months. He said: "We are talking about a lot of money, and the money has to be programmed. The money we want is programmed to be available at that time."

Potential locations for a new Portishead rail station were discussed in a public consultation over the summer. The three locations under consideration are east of Quays Avenue, across Quays Avenue and between Serbert Road and Harbour Road.

Mr Allinson confirmed a final decision had yet to be made on the location, but said: "We are still hoping that it will be close to the town centre."

Developer offers patch of land for new railway station

A HOUSING developer has offered to sell a patch of land for a new railway station at Portishead. Persimmon Homes, which has built new houses and apartments in the town, has suggested using land at Moor Farm, Sheepway, for the station which would be needed when the line between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads is opened up to passenger trains.

The best place for a new station has been keenly debated in the town for several months and now there is a danger that the issue could hold up the re-opening of the line.

In a letter to The Times, Carl Haley, managing director of Persimmon Homes Severn Valley, says they had always supported the re-opening of the line which would make it easier for commuters to travel backwards and forwards to Bristol and reduce congestion on the roads.

He says: "Persimmon has monitored the continuing debate over the location for the new station. Businesses and local people should be concerned that unless the debate is closed out soon, the project may be put in danger if the funding is lost.

"We understand that to deliver a station on Harbour Road a new level crossing will be required. But, the overall aim of the Office of Rail Regulation is that, 'other than in exceptional circumstances, no new level crossings on any railway; therefore creating no new risks'.

"Alternatively, to deliver North Somerset Council's preferred locations on Quays Avenue will result in disruption to one of the main vehicular routes into the town. This will not only affect the character of the residential area, but would come at some considerable cost.

"Persimmon Homes controls land at Moor Farm, Sheepway which can provide a station that does not require a level crossing and does not require costly and disruptive work to Quays Avenue. Furthermore, the Sheepway solution will not affect existing local residents with noisy, slowing trains tracking past their properties.

"Our Sheepway solution will also enable a sustainable pedestrian/cycle link along the former railway back into the town centre. Enhancement to the current X2 and X3 bus links and a further car park, sitting alongside the current car park locations, creates a genuine transport interchange.

"It does not require a new level crossing, creates no new risks, will be more economically viable and will minimise disruption to the town centre."

He's also a member of the West of England (dis)Joint(ed) Transport Board...

Location of Portishead's railway station will be decided in the New Year

A decision on the location of Portishead^s new railway station will be made in the New Year. North Somerset Council says it expects to be in a position to announce the location for the new station in February.

A consultation was held earlier this year on three potential sites for the new station.

Three locations were put forward for the station, which will be delivered as part of the MetroWest Phase One project to re-open the Portishead line to passenger train services from Spring 2019.

Sites included land to the east of Quays Avenue, land across Quays Avenue and a site between Serbert Road and Harbour Road.

The consultation revealed that the site across Quays Avenue is the option most favoured by local people.

The site is 600 metres from the town centre and would require some modifications to the road to realign Quays Avenue and the creation of a new junction at Haven View.

The consultation results come at the same time as a business case for a level crossing at Harbour Road is being drawn up to be submitted to the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR).

The move to draw up a business case for a level crossing follows pressure from Portishead Town Council which has been campaigning for the original site for the station ^ at Harbour Road ^ and a level crossing to be reconsidered as part of the Metrowest project.

The site at Harbour Road was identified 20 years ago for a new station as part of the masterplan drawn up for the Portishead Quays development.

But it was later ruled out after rail regulators said no further level crossings should be built in the UK, except for in ^exceptional circumstances^.

The move came after the ORR revealed it had not been formally asked to assess the feasibility of a level crossing at Quays Avenue.

North Somerset Council ^ which will have the final say on the station location ^ made an initial approach to the ORR in May 2013 asking it whether it was likely to support the construction of a new level crossing.

But the ORR said that based on the limited information it received from the authority and the fact that three options were being put forward, it would not, at that time, authorise a new crossing to go ahead.

The ORR said to make a more informed decision, it expects the applicant to provide ^sufficiently compelling^ evidence to demonstrate there is an exceptional need.

The business case is now being finalised by the MetroWest project team.

North Somerset Council spokesman Nick Yates said: ^A decision is expected to be made on the location of the station early next year, probably February. We are currently finalising a technical assessment in relation to the case for a level crossing, which needs to go to the Office of Rail Regulation, before a decision can be made.^

North Somerset Council has has already purchased the three mile section of redundant track between Portishead and Portbury to protect it from being developed and clearance work on the line has already been carried out.

I wonder if Travelwest's bus checker app works in Portishead? It gives information about the actual location of the bus, some of it accurate.

Thanks for the newspaper article.  I do hope they get the crossing sorted out and put the station in its proper place by Lidl.

Work to start on clearing vegetation on Portishead to Bristol railway line


WORK is to start on clearing vegetation along the disused section of Portishead's railway line this month. Contractors will start on clearing overgrowth on the three mile section of the redundant Portishead line as part of multi-million pound plans to get trains running out of the town again by 2019.

This will be followed by clearing work on some parts of the freight line in Pill.

The clearance work is needed so a full topographical survey of the line for the next stage of engineering design work for the project to reopen the railway can be carried out.

A considerable amount of technical feasibility work has already been carried out over the last 12 months, which was set out in the preliminary business case endorsed by the West of England Joint Transport Board in the autumn.

The business case found the project gave high value for money, had sound commercial footing and was financially affordable and deliverable by 2019.

The next stage of the project involves outline engineering design, further work on operation design and drawing up a planning application for the scheme.

The work will be included in the outline business case due to be completed by November. North Somerset Council leader Nigel Ashton, pictured, said: "A great deal of work is progressing on the project."

Over the next 12 months the project team will carry out more detailed engineering design, further work on operation design and the preparation of a major planning application. It will also be necessary for decisions to be made on the train service and to secure the remaining funding requirements."

A decision on the location of the new railway station for the town is due to be made next month.

The opening of the Portishead line is a key priority of the Metrowest Phase One project being pioneered and funded by the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). The MetroWest Phase One scheme, which will cost between ^44 and ^55 million, will see passenger trains run out of Portishead again by the spring of 2019. Passenger services from Portishead to Bristol were cut in 1964, although the line to Portbury Dock reopened in 2002 for freight trains only. A study in 2010 showed that travel time from Portishead would be 17 minutes compared to an hour by road during peak times.

A DECISION on whether a level crossing could be built in Portishead as part of a multi-million-pound scheme to re-open the town's railway is expected within days.

The MetroWest project team leading the drive to get trains running out of the town again by 2019 submitted a business case for a level crossing at Harbour Road to the Office of the Rail Regulator last month.

The ORR's official policy is for no new level crossings on any railway "other than in exceptional circumstances" and to replace existing ones with bridges or underpasses.

But if the MetroWest planners are able to provide "sufficiently compelling" evidence one is needed on Harbour Road to make the planned route viable it could be allowed, with a decision expected by next week.

A DECISION on whether a level crossing could be built in Portishead as part of a multi-million-pound scheme to re-open the town's railway is expected within days.

The MetroWest project team leading the drive to get trains running out of the town again by 2019 submitted a business case for a level crossing at Harbour Road to the Office of the Rail Regulator last month.

The ORR's official policy is for no new level crossings on any railway "other than in exceptional circumstances" and to replace existing ones with bridges or underpasses.

But if the MetroWest planners are able to provide "sufficiently compelling" evidence one is needed on Harbour Road to make the planned route viable it could be allowed, with a decision expected by next week.

Should point out that this is quoted from the Bristol Post (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Decision-level-crossing/story-26013579-detail/story.html#ixzz3RYg1wQgH)

Personally, I think this has gone on long enough. A level crossing here would be justified. Trains either way will be running at walking pace, and it will put the station in a correct position.

 ;)

An impressive amount of work has obviously gone on to reopen this line.  Hope this isn't a stupid question, but was all this line restoration done by employed staff, or has there been any input by volunteers?  Who financed the work?  I knownotheeng, as Manuel used to say. ::) Thank you for your patience.

... has there been any input by volunteers?

Office of Rail Regulation response to the case for a level crossing at Quays Avenue in Portishead will be reported verbally to the Joint Transport Board on 13 March 2015.

North Somerset Council to decide on preferred location for Portishead station on 17 March 2015.

There is a Portishead Railway Action Group meeting on that very same evening. I suspect that this decision, one way or the other  will be the only item on the Agenda !

A quick search for FTN's el momento de verdad seems to indicate that there is no literal English translation for this phrase. One suggestion I found was 'when push comes to shove' which I can't help thinking is a MOST unfortunate metaphor when applied to the projected re-opening of a railway line ! ::)

A quick search for FTN's el momento de verdad seems to indicate that there is no literal English translation for this phrase. One suggestion I found was 'when push comes to shove' which I can't help thinking is a MOST unfortunate metaphor when applied to the projected re-opening of a railway line ! ::)

"the day of reckoning" sounds like an apt expression in this context, or even "judgement day". I don't like the sense of foreboding I'm getting on reading how the decision is going to be announced.

Portishead Rail Services

We are working with the other West of England councils on proposals for an ambitious programme of rail improvements for delivery over the next 10 years, including plans to re-open the Portishead rail line and re-introduce passenger train services.

The project

The re-opening of the Portishead rail branch line forms part of the Metro West Phase 1 project. The overall project includes proposals for half-hourly train services for the re-opened Portishead line, Severn Beach line and local stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa. The total cost of the project cost is estimated at between ^49m to ^55m, and is expected to be funded from the Department for Transport major schemes devolved grant, subject to the agreement of the proposed local transport body. For more information about MetroWest visit the TravelWest website.

Update 10 March 2015

At the meeting on 17 March, our Executive will consider a report asking them to confirm the location for Portishead rail station as option 2B, on the corner of Quays Avenue and Harbour Road.

The recommendation follows extensive technical assessment of six station options, the public consultation we undertook in June /July 2014 on three shortlisted viable options and further assessment of the case for a level crossing at Quays Avenue.  Following consideration of the technical assessment, the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) confirmed in a letter in early March '^to not contemplate a level crossing at Quays Avenue.'

The ORR^s reasons were that: there was no case for exceptional circumstances for a level crossing; there are viable non-level crossing options available; and there are significant traffic issues causing safety risks to the operation of the railway.  The ORR also had concerns about: the likelihood of pedestrians or vehicles blocking the level crossing is high; additional risks arising to pedestrians; and the likelihood of pedestrians jumping the barriers.  The ORR letter sets out 10 major concerns in respect of a level crossing at Quays Avenue. 

A total of 407 people responded to the June/July 2014 consultation and made 1014 comments on the three station options.  The consultation results are summarised as follows:
Option 2A - 174 were either strongly in support or some support, 18 were neutral and 149 were slightly or strongly against
Option 2B - 213 were either strongly in support or some support, 13 were neutral and 86 were slightly or strongly against
Option 2C - 132 were either strongly in support or some support, 7 were neutral and 152 were slightly or strongly against

In relation to the specific question 'On the basis that one of the three station locations is selected, would you use the station? Yes or No', the response was 91% of people replied Yes.

To find out more about the case for a level crossing, download the ORR letter dated 2 March 2015 (http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Transport/transport%20planning/Road_improvement_schemes/Documents/Portishead%20rail%20services/ORR%20letter%20March%202015%20(pdf).pdf) (pdf) and download the technical assessment of the case for a level crossing (http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Transport/transport%20planning/Road_improvement_schemes/Documents/Portishead%20rail%20services/technical%20assessment%20of%20case%20for%20a%20level%20crossing%20(pdf).pdf) (pdf) submitted to the ORR in January 2015 by the project team.

- See more at: http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Transport/transport%20planning/Road_improvement_schemes/Pages/Portishead-Rail-Services.aspx#sthash.1e92ugiv.dpuf

Does "diverts Quays Avenue around the station area" mean that the station will be in the same place it would have been with the level-crossing option? Just with the road diverted to avoid needing the level crossing?

The consensus on here seemed to be that the best location for the station was the one that required the level crossing, so if this option puts the station in that location and manages to do it without a level crossing, that sounds like win-win for Portishead. Although it sets an awkward precedent for elsewhere...

Does "diverts Quays Avenue around the station area" mean that the station will be in the same place it would have been with the level-crossing option? Just with the road diverted to avoid needing the level crossing?

The consensus on here seemed to be that the best location for the station was the one that required the level crossing, so if this option puts the station in that location and manages to do it without a level crossing, that sounds like win-win for Portishead. Although it sets an awkward precedent for elsewhere...

See page 41 of this document - http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Transport/transport%20planning/Road_improvement_schemes/Documents/Portishead%20rail%20services/Portishead%20station%20options%20appraisal%20report%20(pdf).pdf

From Bristol Post: (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Site-agreed-new-Portishead-train-station/story-26143489-detail/story.html#ixzz3TzKZC1UA)

Site agreed for new Portishead train station

By Heather Pickstock

LONG awaited plans to get trains running out of Portishead for the first time in more than 50 years have taken a massive step forward ^ with a site for the town's new station agreed.

North Somerset Council has identified land between Harbour Road and Quays Avenue as the site for the new station.

The authority's executive committee is due to rubber stamp the decision at its meeting next week.
 
The move to decide the site comes after the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) ruled that a level crossing would be unsuitable.

The Metrowest project team, which is leading the drive to get trains running out of the town again by 2019, put forward a case for a level crossing at Harbour Road for the new station following pressure from Portishead Town Council.

But rail regulators have ruled that such a crossing would increase safety risks and cause a 'severe' impact on journey times and traffic congestion.

They said that traffic queues could potentially extend the length of Quays Avenue and to have a crossing 200 metres away from a primary school would increase safety risks for schoolchildren and pedestrians.

ORR chiefs also raised concerns that a level crossing could also lead to trains running late or even being cancelled.

North Somerset Council leader Nigel Ashton said: "We have chosen the best available location for the station and this is a very positive step forward for Portishead."

A series of options for the location of the new station were put forward in a public consultation last year. Some of the options required a level crossing at Quays Avenue and a case was put forward to the ORR. The chosen site for the station ^ known as option 2b ^ is 600 metres from the town centre and would require some modifications to the road to realign Quays Avenue and the creation of a new junction at Haven View.

A considerable amount of technical feasibility work has already been carried out over the last 12 months.

The next stage involves outline engineering design, further work on operation design and drawing up a planning application for the scheme. Work has also been carried out on clearing overgrowth on the three-mile section of the redundant Portishead line.

Mr Ashton added: "While we have a number of major milestones yet to get over, our programme is to commence construction in late 2017 and open the station and railway in May 2019."

To remind you, here are the stages of the GRIP process for making a decision:

Portishead railway reopening consultation begins

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/A8DD/production/_83792234_de27.jpg)
Reopening the Portishead line is part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project

A public consultation into plans to reopen a Bristol railway line has begun.

The Portishead branch line shut in 1964 but is now part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project which aims to reopen the line to passenger services by 2019. Work will involve opening a new station in Portishead, reopening Pill station, building new footbridges and doubling part of the track.

A six week consultation will run until 3 August.

When complete the line will link Portishead with Bristol Temple Meads and the Severn Beach Line.

Nigel Ashton, leader of North Somerset Council, said it was a "fantastic opportunity".

"I've been hearing about [the plans] for 25 years... but now I really do think that we're there, and we've got the plans for the station so it's getting quite exciting. It'll make a huge difference to businesses and work travel, and to social life in Portishead."

The reopening the Portishead branch line is part of a wider ^100m scheme investing in local rail projects by West of England councils.

It is not yet known which company will run trains on the line. First Great Western's current franchise is due to end in 2019.

Arup wins ^60m Bristol rail link design

Arup has been appointed by Network Rail to undertake the outline design for the ^60m Phase 1 of the MetroWest project in Bristol.

This first step marks the beginning of ^100m investment in the area^s rail infrastructure.

A new station will be built at Portishead as a part of the project, and Pill station and 5km of previously disused railway line will be re-opened by May 2019.

The line will restore the rail link between Portishead and Bristol city centre. Enhancement works at Bathampton and Avonmouth complete the scope.

Simon Snell, Project Manager, MetroWest Phase 1 for Network Rail, said Arup would provide multi-disciplinary railway design services including track, drainage, civils, structures, telecoms, signalling power, points heating, OLE, M&E and Geotechnical engineering, plus environmental consulting.

Plans for a ^43m Phase Two ^ delivering the long-awaited Henbury Loop or Spur ^ will be detailed at a later date.

From Construction Enquirer (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/07/28/arup-wins-design-or-60m-bristol-metrowest/):

The point I am making is that NR has turned into (by its own fault) to be a very disorganised, disfunctional and inexperienced outfit.  Most of the engineers they have on projects that I have an involvement in are totally inexperienced and really don't have a clue how to manage the technical aspects of such projects.  I know we all probably started in the same way but we were not let loose for a considerable number of years and were guided by the ' old hands' so hated by recent NR directors and senior management.  I'm afraid that the requisite experience now lays in the hands of consultants and contractors hence my comment in my post above.

I'll keep quite now.

End of whinge No.2....... ::) :P :-[

NRs needs to increase its competency and experience even if outside contractors do most of the work.  I get the feeling that NRs sometimes lacks the experience to manage contractors properly.

I have taken the opportunity, in the interests of clarity and continuity, to move a few posts and merge them with this ongoing discussion of the Portishead Line here.

Hope this helps. CfN.  ;)

No worries!  ;D

I'm looking forward to actually doing a 'Portishead Line bash' myself, sometime soon.  :P ::)

(http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276309/Article/images/29147175/14021785-large.jpg)
View of line towards Portishead.

Hmm... According to Google maps, that's pretty similar to the time it'll take to walk into Portishead (12 mins from Quays Ave to Cabstand). Just, as the young folk would have it, sayin'.

The new edition of Rail Magazine is reporting delays in the project due to unforeseen geometry issues in the Avon Gorge. Anyone know anymore?

Portishead to Bristol rail link delayed AGAIN due to issues laying track through gorge

By H_Pickstock  |  Posted: June 27, 2016

(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/Article/images/29448283/14697742-large.jpg)

The track through the Avon Gorge for the new rail link is proving tricky to design

Technical difficulties with the design of the track through the Avon Gorge for the new Portishead to Bristol rail line have led to a delay in the scheme being submitted for Government approval.

MetroWest officials had hoped to submit a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the Secretary of State in November for the project which would see passenger trains start running again between Portishead and Bristol from 2019.

But due to technical issues and the 'environmental sensitivities' of laying track through the Avon Gorge this has now been be delayed.

The delay in the design work being completed comes because existing Portbury Freight Line needs to be upgraded to operate passenger trains at 50mph.

(http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276268/binaries/The%20old%20railway%20tracks%20can%20still%20be%20seen%20in%20Portishead.jpg)

The old railway tracks can still be seen in Portishead

A MetroWest spokesman said: "This design work is taking longer than expected because of the environmental sensitivities of carrying out works in the Avon Gorge.

"The existing Portbury Freight Line will need be upgraded to operate passenger trains at 50mph.

"This requires the track geometry to be adjusted to straighten out a series of curves through the gorge. The existing track alignment follows a series of cliff faces, retaining walls and tunnels in the narrow space between the Gorge cliff face and river.

"This means it is taking us a bit longer to finalise our outline design than we envisaged."

The DCO process requires that outline engineering design is carried out ahead of a planning application is submitted.

It is anticipated that the design work will be completed by the autumn. A fresh round of consultation on the detailed scheme then needs to be held. The development consent order is expected to be submitted to the Government early in 2017.

The spokesman added: "Outline design work is now due to be completed this autumn and our Stage 2 formal DCO consultation will now take place following this."

MetroWest officials say that the delay in the DCO will not affect the overall timescale and trains will still start running in 2018 as planned.

Work is also being carried out to progress the design for upgrading the Parson Street junction where the Portishead branch line connects with the Taunton to Bristol main line.

Work is expected to start on the rail link in 2018.

The re-opening the Portishead branch line includes plans for a new Portishead railway station at Quays Avenue, the reopening of Pill railway station, the provision of new footbridges across the line and other work including double tracking through Pill.The opening of the Portishead line is a key priority of the Metrowest Phase One project being pioneered and funded by the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and is expected to cost up to£58 million. Passenger services from Portishead to Bristol were cut in 1964, although the line to Portbury Dock reopened in 2002 for freight trains only A study in 2010 showed that travel time from Portishead would be 17 minutes compared to an hour by road during peak times.

A project to restore a disused railway line is under threat due to spiralling projected costs.

The Portishead branch line shut in 1964 and is scheduled to reopen in 2020.

The scheme was originally estimated at £58m, but the West of England Partnership said that figure had now risen to "between £145m and £175m".

It said as the revised costs were outside the existing allocated budget, it would "not be able to commit to delivery of the project at this stage".

"Now we know what is required we can look at how best to move forward to deliver these much needed improvements to the local rail network," it added.

The MetroWest Phase 1 project by the West of England Partnership and partners Network Rail and Great Western Railway (GWR) would link the town with Bristol Temple Meads and the Severn Beach Line.

A Network Rail report identified additional costs caused by the "increased scope" of engineering works through the Avon Gorge.

Councils in the region also said moving a level crossing in south Bristol would increase costs.

Network Rail described the scheme as a "major project" that required a "robust estimate" of costs.

"We will continue to work together with the West of England Partnership, GWR and the Department for Transport on potential next steps to deliver this project and further improve rail services for passengers," it added.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said he "recognises the benefits" of the scheme, and said the Department for Transport would "continue working with all parties to find a workable resolution to this issue".

The first phase of the MetroWest project - which is being partially funded by North Somerset Council – would see trains run half-hourly between Portishead and Bristol with the existing railway station at Pill reopened. The project would also include improvements to the Severn Beach branch line service and upgrading stations and services between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath.

It was initially expected to cost £58million when it was first announced, but the Times reported in January the cost was likely to be ‘considerably more’. The total cost of implementing phase one is now believed to be between £145-175million and has been deemed unaffordable by the team implementing it.

At a press briefing in Bristol yesterday (Wednesday), representatives from North Somerset and MetroWest announced the project’s fate would be sealed at the next meeting of the West of England Joint Transport Board on March 17.

MetroWest and the council are now urging the board to approve splitting the project into three stages – the second of which (stage B) would see trains run to Portishead once an hour in 2021 – in an attempt to reduce costs. The first stage (A) would see improvements made to connections between Bristol and Bath and the Severn Beach branch line, while the third stage (C) would eventually see trains run to Portishead every half an hour as originally promised.

According to MetroWest, the project’s initial estimated cost of £58million has risen by so much because the full impact of works needed to run trains through Avon Gorge every half an hour had been underestimated. The organisation claims running trains at 50mph through the Gorge – which is needed for a half-hourly service – is more expensive and difficult to implement than running them at 30mph once an hour, as this is the speed currently in place along the existing Portbury freight line.

The council’s director of development and environment, David Carter, said: “The process we are suggesting and recommending is to look at stages A and B as they would significantly reduce the cost.

“We believe the work will be done and it will still be delivered in 2021, assuming the funding can be found.

“Stages A and B will still need to attract additional funding, but we believe there will be a significant reduction for A and B compared to C. However, until we have done the work, it is difficult to say exactly what that is.

“We are working with Network Rail and the Department for Transport to close that funding gap.”

For a full reaction to the announcement, pick up a copy of next week’s Times.

MetroWest and North Somerset Council are advising the West of England’s Joint Transport Board to split the phase one project into three stages – A, B and C. If the board accepts their recommendation and appropriate funding is found, the stages will be progressed as follows:

A - Carrying out service improvements to the Severn Beach branch line and Bristol-Bath corridor.

B – Reopening the Portishead railway line to provide an hourly service between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads, with trains running at 30mph.

C – Reopening the Portishead railway line to full capacity, meaning trains will run every half hour at 50mph.

What did the line speed through the gorge used to be when passenger trains operated?

The project was originally estimated to cost £58.2 million - which has now risen to between £145m to £175m.

So where have costs spiralled?

ORIGINAL COST EXPECTATION:

Where did it come from?

£4.3 million from the local Councils

£53.4 million from the WoE LEP Local Growth Fund

£0.5 million was yet to be funded.

WHY HAS IT INCREASED SO MUCH?

A "significant increase" in the scope of work through the Avon Gorge to meet safety standards, allowing the passenger service to run twice an hour.

Creating an alternative access from the A370 to compensate for two trains an hour alongside the existing freight services at the Ashton Vale Level crossing.

The impact of this on the land.

Increased risks associated with the project

Any idea what the increased costs are? Is it just the same work costing more or have they identified more work that needs (apparently) to be done?

A 50mph track would mean:

    Almost completely relaying the track between Parson Street Junction and Pill (10km)
    Widening of cuttings and embankments
    Work on bridges, tunnels and retaining walls

Then there are the environmental issues.

But surely these problems must have been evident as soon as they looked at the original alignment?

Looking on Real Time Trains to get an idea of how much traffic currently runs to the docks, I've drawn a blank for today - probably because I don't know the codes / know want to look for,. Can someone please enlighten me so they can help confirm the idea above, or blow it out of the water as being just too silly due to capacity issues.

Bear in mind that the original Halcrow GRIP3 report was working towards a 50 mph linespeed. That would do the journey, with one stop only at Pill, in 17 minutes. That would allow for a clockface service from PHD to SVB, and from PHD to BTH, plus an occasional shuttle PHD to BRI P2. Now, 30 mph would be slower (d'uh) but would still allow for a clockface shuttle into BRI. Maybe a 24 minute ride, with a turnaround on the half-hour. But is that enough?

Absolute bonkers...what a way to run a projected railway! Where on earth do they get these figures from ??? For three miles of level track !!! Are the rails gold plated ? Are they running Bullet trains on them? Will Portishead station resemble St Pancras ?. Can't we just go back to what was originally projected - a shuttle up and down the line - which as I recall had already reached GRIP 3/4 before it all went back to GRIP 1, as it was seen as part of a wider Metrowest project. It must be 40 years since the reopening was first mooted ...indeed, I remember estate agents making claims to the effect that the line will  soon be open, at the time. I would willingly walk up and down the line with a red and green flag to save a few pounds on the signalling. The Chinese who built the Lhasa railway must be laughing uproariously up their voluminous sleeves at our unbelievable level of sheer incompetence and accountancy.

Agenda Item 8
West of England Joint Transport Board
17 March 2017
MetroWest Phase 1 Design and Cost Update
Purpose
1. To provide an update on the scheme design and report a significant increase in the
estimated scheme cost. To consider the options for taking the scheme forward
based on the discussions with Network Rail and the Department for Transport (DfT),
which recognise the strategic benefits of the scheme and recommend a staged
approach for the delivery of the scheme.
Background
2. MetroWest Phase 1 is a jointly promoted scheme between the four Councils in the
West of England. The aim of the MetroWest Programme is to deliver a ‘Metro’ local
rail network, similar to comparable sized city regions, through targeted investments,
making use of strategic rail corridors, including freight only lines and dis-used lines.
3. The scheme objectives are to:
• support economic growth
• deliver a more resilient transport offer
• reduce congestion on the highway network
• improve accessibility to the rail network
• make a positive contribution to social well-being
4. The scheme will result in a wide range of strategic and local benefits. These include
giving 50,000 people access to the rail network, enhancing the level of service for
tens of thousands of existing rail customers, increasing railway capacity, extending
the benefits of GW electrification and supporting job creation and housing growth.
5. The scheme preliminary business case was reported to Joint Transport Board in
September 2014. The headline outputs were as follows:
GRIP Stage1 2 (Feasibility)
Scheme Capital Cost £58.2M
BCR2 2.92 to 5.99
No of train sets required 6 gross (4 net)
Train type Class 15x or 16x
Train service revenue support3 £5.29m total for first three years
1 The GRIP process (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) is the standard methodology by
which all rail schemes are designed and delivered by Network Rail.
2 The BCR (Benefit to Cost Ratio) is used to determine whether a scheme represents value for
money. A BCR above 2 represents high value for money.
3 After the first three years operation the Government then meet future costs subject to criteria.
2
6. The preliminary business case also set out the key work streams needed to deliver
the scheme. As well as the engineering design, the other most significant element
was the requirement to secure a Development Consent Order (DCO). This
requirement is determined by the Planning Act (2008) which states that all schemes
with more than 2km of new railway need a DCO.
7. It is important to note that Phase 2 of MetroWest (Henbury/ Yate corridors), is not
affected by the funding challenges of MetroWest Phase 1 and continues to be
progressed as planned.
GRIP Stage 3
8. Since work on GRIP 3 began, a number of engineering and other challenges have
emerged that have increased costs and these have been reported to previous Joint
Transport Board meetings including the most recent in January 2017. The GRIP 3
design (Outline Design) is now complete and this has allowed Network Rail to
complete the GRIP 3 cost estimate. In accordance with the GRIP process, this is
only possible once the design has been agreed and signed off by all the relevant
Route Asset Managers within Network Rail and a full cost validation undertaken.
9. The overall capital cost ranges from £145M to £175M to deliver the full project
scope (railway, highway, DCO, environmental mitigation etc), compared with a
scheme budget of £58.2M, based on GRIP stage 2.
10. The key drivers for the increase are as follows:
• A significant increase in the scope of work through the Avon Gorge in order to;
meet modern safety standards to enable operation of a scheduled passenger
train service, to deliver the necessary line speeds to achieve the 2 trains per
hour aspiration and the poor access reducing construction productivity.
• The impact of the full service pattern (2 passenger trains per hour all day)
alongside existing freight services, at the Ashton Vale Level crossing on rail
safety, highway safety, traffic and the industrial estate resulting in the need to
consider an alternative access from the A370/ rear of the site.
• The consequential impact from the above on the amount of land, DCO
(planning) requirements and environmental mitigation needed for the scheme.
• The increased risks associated with the project following the expanded works
and recently identified constraints. As currently configured, the scheme has
significantly more delivery risks than previously identified, relating in particular to
the construction programme, technical interface, and environmental mitigation.
Options for MetroWest Phase 1 moving forward
11. The scheme has now reached a stage where the original full scope cannot be
delivered by the currently available budget. Some £8M has already been invested in
the technical development of the scheme, by the Councils and the Local Enterprise
Partnership through the Local Growth Fund, and a further £950k has been invested
by North Somerset Council in strategic land acquisition. A variety of options for the
scheme are available, ranging from the delivery of the scheme as a whole to delivery
of the scheme in stages with sub-options relating to the train service pattern, rolling
3
stock length, stations and cross-Bristol connectivity. The broad options for the
scheme are:
Option 1 - Do nothing – cancel the entire scheme
Option 2 - Continue to promote the scheme as currently proposed
Option 3 - Deliver the scheme in stages
12. Option 1: Do nothing – cancel the entire scheme. This would have a number of
detrimental implications. It would leave the M5 Junction 19 / A369 corridor without
a resilient transport offer. This would not be a tenable situation over the medium to
long term; putting job creation, environmental sustainability and economic growth
at risk. It would also result in revenue reversion costs falling to the four Councils.
13. Option 2: Continue to promote the scheme as currently proposed. Meeting a
funding gap of around £100M would be very challenging. Given the size of the gap
it would require additional funding from Government and securing this scale of
additional investment in the timescales required is unlikely to be achieved. It would
also likely require a substantial local contribution which could only be managed by
reprioritisation of existing funding sources i.e. Local Growth Fund, City Deal and
any other funding the Councils have access to in order to reduce the gap,
necessitating postponing the delivery of other strategic transport priorities.
14. This option would be a high risk approach because the Development Consent Order
requires the promoter to confirm all the funding to deliver the scheme is in place. If
we were to proceed as originally planned then we would anticipate making the DCO
application at the end of this year which effectively sets the deadline by which the
funding gap would need to be resolved. Furthermore, there would also continue to
be a significant level of expenditure preparing the DCO application, including
statutory consultation and further technical work to complete GRIP stage 4,
highway design, land assembly, environmental assessment and legal workstreams.
On balance therefore, this option is not recommended at this time.
15. Option 3: Deliver the scheme in stages. Since the likely increase in cost was first
realised the project team have been working to reduce the cost of the scheme, rescoping
some elements and looking at a potential staged delivery of the scheme to
better match both total available budget and the spend profile of the available
budget.
16. Stage A would be to deliver the Severn Beach Line and Bath Spa Line infrastructure
and train service upgrade. This would require the completion of design of
infrastructure at Bathampton and Avonmouth and delivering it using Permitted
Development rights. It would also require revisions to the train timetable to ensure
that linking just the Seven Beach Line with the Bath Spa Line could be achieved
efficiently (without additional train rolling stock). The revenue support implications
would also require further investigation. The capital cost of this stage could be
delivered within the existing scheme budget, and delivered within the current
programme by 2020. This is subject to technical & funding approval and detailed
operational arrangements with Great Western Railway and the DfT.
17. Stage B would be to deliver an initial passenger service for the Portishead Line. This
has the advantage of reducing the funding requirement in the short-term and also
4
allow the early demonstration of some of the benefits of the project. It would
potentially make securing the full funding more achievable and reduce risk exposure
at each stage. While further design and cost estimation for Stages A and B needs
to be undertaken, the extent of infrastructure required for Stage B could be
significantly reduced. For example, the line speed for the existing Portbury Freight
Line is unlikely to require increasing, also the extent of double tracking works and
junction enhancement works is likely to be much more limited, for a reduced
passenger service specification. While this would potentially substantially reduce
costs, it is likely that some additional funding above the current budget would still be
required. Further technical work needs to be undertaken to identity the extent of the
potential cost savings and this will be reported to the next available Joint Transport
Decision Making Meeting and Joint West of England Committee. Therefore it is
recommended this work is investigated further.
18. A further stage (Stage C) would be to deliver the full two passenger trains per hour
service to Portishead. The delivery of Stage B would bring the Portishead Line
back into the national rail network. This would place a responsibility on Network
Rail and the wider rail industry to respond to growth in passenger demand and
increase operating capacity subject to overall strategic priorities and availability of
funding and business case. See para 26 and 27 which provide an overview of how
Network Rail is funded. In summary Option 3 could entail the following stages:
Stage Description
Stage A Deliver the service improvements on the Severn Beach & Bath
corridors.
Stage B Deliver an initial rail passenger service to Portishead
Stage C Deliver the full two trains per hour passenger service to Portishead
at a later date.
Stakeholder Engagement
19. Stakeholder meetings are normally held soon after Joint Transport Board meetings.
The next stakeholder meeting is planned for May 2017, time and venue to be
confirmed.
Risk
20. Key risks form part of the quarterly reporting to the Board. Risks at the project and
programme level are managed through the Rail Programme Board.
Equalities Implications
21. New stations and services provided under MetroWest will be designed to meet all
statutory accessibility standards. Consultation will ensure wide opportunities for
diverse groups to have their say. Equality Impact Assessments will be undertaken
and maintained and updated as the scheme progresses.
5
Resources (financial and personnel)
22. The estimated spend for 2016/17 is £2.76M, comprising of Local Enterprise
Partnership Local Growth Funding. The proposed train services will require
financial support from the local authorities for the first three years. Subject to
meeting value for money criteria the Department for Transport may fund the
services from then on. Continued development of the scheme Business Case will
refine the levels of financial support required.
Environmental Impact Assessment
23. Modern rolling stock contributes less carbon emissions than other forms of
transport, on a passenger kilometre basis. Reinstating the railway line between Pill
and Portishead, new services on the Portishead and the construction of new
stations will have environmental impacts. Detailed environmental assessment is
ongoing which includes engagement with the relevant statutory bodies. This work
will be taken forward through the Development Consent Order formal consultation
process.
Working with the Rail Industry
24. The Department for Transport and Network Rail recognise that infrastructure costs
are increasing in the rail industry and along with Great Western Railway, are
working with us to find a resolution to the funding challenges to deliver an
affordable and deliverable outcome. All three organisations acknowledge the
strategic benefits of the scheme and the significant contribution the scheme will
make to increasing the capacity and connectivity of the local rail network. While the
rail industry acknowledges our ambition to deliver the half hourly scheme as a
whole i.e. in one go, their collective advice is the councils should take a staged
approach (reference attached letters).
25. In respect of Option 3, further design work with Network Rail is needed to identify
the options for Stage A and B in more detail and potential for cost reduction. This
will then be reported to the Joint Transport Decision Making Meeting and the Joint
West of England Committee, along with details on timescales, benefit cost ratios,
passenger numbers and revenue support requirements. In addition, the Department
for Transport will be engaged further as the scope of the scheme will also impact on
the next Greater Western rail franchise for the area and their support will be crucial
to taking the project forward. There will also need to be further engagement with
Great Western Railway and other train operators. Consequently the scheme
programme will need to be revised and it is necessary to delay work on GRIP4 and
the Development Consent Order formal consultation (2008 Planning Act section
42/47 consultation) while the above work is conducted.
26. The funding priorities of the rail industry are set out in five year tranches known as
control periods. The current control period (CP5) which is up to March 2019,
includes Network Rail’s Western Route Modernisation Programme, which is likely to
continue into the following control period (CP6), from 2019 to 2024. Priorities for
investment in the rail network through control periods are set by the Government
6
through the publication of the High Level Output Specification (HLOS). The HLOS
for CP6 is due to be published by the government in summer 2017.
27. There is a major opportunity to lobby the Government to include the scheme in the
HLOS, given that the rail industry support the scheme and acknowledge the
benefits it will deliver and given that the councils and the WoE Local Enterprise
Partnership have £58M (out-turn) available for the scheme. However in order to
increase the prospect of securing a funding contrition from the rail industry, it may
be necessary for the councils to review whether some additional local funding could
be made available.
28. Great Western Railway have confirmed the cascade of higher quality class 165/6
trains is planned to start entering service on the Severn Beach Line in July 2017,
with more trains to follow across the local network. These trains will start to make a
real difference for local rail passengers, addressing the overcrowding issues as they
have much higher seating capacity, circa 280 seats compared to class 150 trains
with 2 carriages and 140 seats. This is subject to the completion of gauge clearance
works under way across the local network and the completion of the electrification
works to Maidenhead, which triggers the start of the cascade of class 165/6 trains to
the West of England.
Recommendations
That the Board:
1) Note the capital cost range, is above the existing scheme budget, which
primarily arises from the rail engineering elements of the scheme and a
consequential increased scope across the rest of the scheme.
2) Agree that option 3 (to take a staged approach to the delivery of the scheme)
provides the most practical way forward, with the following indicative
programme:
i) Progress technical development of Stage A and B, and
ii) Pending the outcome of Stage A & B, investigate Stage C, in due course;
subject to further details on Stages A, B and C including funding profile and
delivery programme, being brought to the next Joint Transport Decision
Making Meeting and the Joint West of England Committee.
3) Agree for further engagement with Network Rail, Department for Transport,
Great Western Railway and other train operators, on the potential sub-options
and scope of the scheme.
Appendices: None
Author: Colin Medus, MetroWest Programme SRO, North Somerset Council
Tel: 01934 426498
Email: Colin.Medus@n-somerset.gov.uk