Great Western Coffee Shop

I've not had time to read or digest this yet, but here is the latest WECA rail plan (thanks to Tina Biggs of FoSBR for drawing my attention to it!)

The good stuff starts at P.23.

https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g448/Public%20reports%20pack%2004th-Dec-2020%2014.00%20Joint%20meeting%20-%20West%20of%20England%20Combined%20Authority%20Committ.pdf?T=10

And my thanks to Red Squirrel for drawing all of our attentions to it!

A few early thoughts as I scan through it:
First and foremost in my mind is that Portway Partway Parkway, a project to stick a single platform in an existing car park next to a working line with an established service, is currently seven years behind where it should be, starting from the first completion date to appear in a document like this. The introduction of the new Western Super Mayor ((C) BNM) to the helm does not seemed to have stopped the ship from circling aimlessly. Without getting politicial in the party sense, I can't see things improving under the stewardship of the current incumbent. If I were the official drafting this report, I would be wondering whether I were just going through the motions again, and planning my next career move.

More brightly, Network Rail seems to be involved as a partner rather than a gatekeeper, and already in favour of doing some of the things. As an example, on page 26 at para 5, there is an identified quick fix to up the service from Temple Meads to Westbury (via Trowbridge) to 2 tph by December 2021, without having to wait for approval of the MetroWest Development Consent Order. The DCO is in the minister's in-tray, with an answer expected in about a year. With a fair wind, spending of a paltry ?1m on 3 level crossing upgrades, and help from GWR, this could show progress that has been lacking in past years.

Paragraph 6 (why did we have sub-para 1 in para 5 - offends the latent civil servant in me) suggests the early-ish upgrading of shelters at a number of local stations, if WECA doesn't spend all the money on planning them.

Paragraph 7 covers the first three years costs, including training staff and barbecue-proofing, similar to what happened when the Severn Beach line enhancements were introduced long ago. That does give a sense of urgency to the Severn Beach to Westbury proposal, lacking in every preceding report on the idea.

There are grounds for optimism, although the word "sustainable" appears only 7 times in the part of the report covering rail enhancements. I'm not sure that is enough.

Phew! I was beginning to think no-one else was interested!

It is in some ways it's a curate's egg. There is no mention of Thornbury, for example, though Radstock does get a mention.

Most interesting from my viewpoint (not just because it is within walking distance of where I live!) is the decoupling of Ashley Down station from the other Henbury Loop stations, which will allow it to go ahead earlier. Seems very sensible. The suggested improvements at Holesmouth jct, allowing direct trains Severn Beach to Bristol Parkway, were also a nuance that was new to me...

I have only had a quick scan through it but looking at the long term aspirations on frequency there is going to have a major upgrade to signalling on many routes. that is, unless they are double counting

Were that to happen it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for Pilning.

I would be a lot cheaper to refurbish what little remains of a station on the main line

Running direct trains from Severn Beach to Bristol Parkway gives an easy route between Henbury, Brabazon (the Arena), and Parkway. I don't see any bearing on the pros and cons of Pilning. Pilning, as it happens, does also get a mention though.

Fitting in a new chord at Holesmouth looks tight..!

The report made reference to Temple Meads platforms 0 and 1 falling into the post 2030 timescale which I was surprised at as I thought that growth projections for TM (admittedly pre pandemic) suggested a capacity increase was desirable during this coming decade.

I thought that was supposed to be sooner, rather than later.

There is a lot in that report - that's probably why the initial posting drew a deafening silence as members absorbed it and / or waiting for others to open manageably small windows of conversation.

I noted Pilning in the report too - and across in the table that included it was a cost in excess of 100 millions pounds and a timescale indicator of 10 to 25 years, which made me choke on my breakfast.   Fortunately, that was qualified with a heading "Schemes that could come forward during the 10 Year Rail Delivery Plan" and "Note: This is an abridged version of a larger and detailed spreadsheet analysis."  Looking at that abridgement, it would appear that the > 100 million and timescale is for a basket of schemes lumped together, including the return of trains to Radstock, Swindon to Didcot and Bath to Westbury capacity enhancements, in addition to the footbridge.

I'm not sure that I see direct trains from Severn Beach to Henbury and Bristol Parkway really being an answer for more than a minority proportion of passengers looking to travel from the Severnside Enterprise area and the villages and towns around that area to and from South Wales or the centre or Bristol, nor that they would be an attractive Park and Ride.  Sad that the Severn Beach line can't easily be extended back with a short line to a junction station with the main Cardiff - Bristol line.

Is the proposal to extend the SB line to the main line? Seems a very heavy project.

You were inviting me to break out my crayons, weren't you?

No, not directly. The idea is to add a new chord near Avonmouth to allow trains from Severn Beach to access Bristol Parkway via Henbury, Brabazon and the Filton Diamond.

Thanks RS.

A Henbury loop by other means?

That crossed my mind... the more I think about the cunningness of this plan, the more I think you could almost put a tail on it and call it a weasel:

* The big problem for rail services out that way is the King Road level crossing. But this route allows SVB trains out without the need to cross here.
* If it's timetabled right, it could be quicker to get from BRI to SVB via BPW, even with a change.
* YTL want to run trains from the Arena to Parkway. This scheme allows for that. Those trains have to terminate somewhere; the proposed extra platform at SVB would give flexibility for that. You could even consider a siding if you really wanted to cater for the Arena crowds; there's room.

Edit: Just spotted that this service would go from Severn Beach to Yate, i.e. not terminate at Parkway. Even cunninger!

I never thought I would easily be able to fit "imaginative" and "WECA" into the same sentence!  This really could get round the problem of objections from Port of Bristol Authority regarding the level crossing usage and save on building a replacement crossing method yet still have an effective enough loop. Off course the chord won't come cheap and there will doubtless be a fair deal of expense on signalling.  Will it happen though?

It does rather, and the purpose is at first sight a little unclear. Better access to Severn Beach would make it more suitable for residential development, though. Possibly more like is a more direct access to the burgeoning power-from-waste plants. At present, everything heading that way has to go via Clifton Down and reverse in from just outside Severn Beach. This would give the trains a route that doesn't involve the single-tracked Severn Beach line through the residential bits of Bristol. That could make the difference.

Is Brabazon being used as an official name now for the possible station? I thought it was being referred to as Filton North. The name used in the document is North Filton, which seems to reverse the traditional ordering of place + modifier. Though I note that 'Line doubling between Montpelier and Filton' doesn't specify whether 'Filton' refers to Abbey Wood, North or the Diamond, which is rather remiss/cunning.

All a bit mysterious. Filton from the Montpelier area is Four Track, Now. The line between the two going the long way round is double from Holesworth Junction, but surely the easier way to describe the rest of the route would be to call it the "Severn Beach Line from Montpelier to Avonmouth". The point of the exercise is to enable 3 tph between Severn Beach and Temple Meads, which I can't see being possible on the Severn Beach line as is. Doubling the line would let you run 3tph via Clifton Down, but are we looking at 2 tph that way, plus one via a new chord at Holesworth?

North {Place} refers to a station in one of two towns known by the name {Place}. Examples are North Shields, North Queensferry and Northampton.  There are separate towns South Shields, South Queensferry and Southampton.

{Place} North refers to one of multiple stations within a town in which there is or are other stations. Examples are Bicester North, Blackpool North and Bromley North. 

That's what I'd have said too. People don't talk about North and South Filton, we have Filton Abbey Wood so it should be Filton North. But maybe they're saying 'North Filton' precisely because it's not as yet finalized? I quite like the idea of Brabazon station...

You're not the only one to find this confusing. There would surely be little point in just doubling from Montpelier to Narroways, and the cost of opening up the other platform at MTP would be huge.


I'm not sure if a name has been decided at this stage, but I rather like 'Brabazon'. The old station was North Filton Platform, so I suspect they are just calling it that for that reason.

I should have thought "All or nothing" - a double junction to double tracking all the way. It would cost a fortune, but you could run trains every 5 minutes if desired. Maybe doubling Narroways to Clifton Down as a halfway house - slue the track and move the signal to the opposite end of Clifton Down, and you increase capacity on the whole line, but it makes no sense the way it was written in the report.


I wondered if "Filton North" was to differentiate from "North Filton", which is still there but in the wrong place. Apropos Brabazon, I am now pretty much against the idea of naming places after people, because of the cost of renaming them when the skellingtons fall out of the cupboard. I am not suggesting for a moment that Lord Brabazon, of blessed memory, owned slaves or hung out with the likes of Jimmy Savile, but once the low hanging fruit have been deleted from the history books, who knows where the guardians of the nation's moral compass will look next for sport? He's bound to have upset somebody.

If there is ever to be a 15-minute service on the 'Beach line (which is hinted at in the report), it will as you suggest require that most (if not all) of the line is doubled. Montpelier would be one of the trickier locations to develop an accessible second platform, and redoubling the junction at Narroways would presumably be a bit of a faff, so if you were looking at opportunities for cheeseparing value engineering then maybe that's where you'd look? But I agree that doing the whole line would be better for flexibility and reliability.


I wondered that too. The Brabazon family seem to have come over from Brabant with the Norman Conquest, settling in Ireland. As with any august and noble line, there must have been bad eggs and shady doings somewhere along the way. But Brabazon is just such a good name, and anyway they'd be naming it after the hangar that was named after the aeroplane that was named after the report that was named after the bloke, so hopefully that's enough removes to placate even the most radical conscience? As an aside, 'Filton' is derived from the Old English word for 'hay', so that discriminates against hayfever sufferers in my book...

This^^. Brabazon would surely be taken as referring to the aircraft and its hangar (though that's a bit of a white elephant... ) rather than Lord B.

So what happens if a campaign by the woke of the parish, or a commercial decision by YTL, changes the name of the hangar?  ;D

There is a sort of precedent with Metrolink in Manchester. Before the line to Ashton under Lyne was opened, but with a lot of the infrastructure built, the stop named "City of Manchester Stadium" was rechristened (if that's the right word) "Etihad Campus", at the behest of Manchester City's new owners. The cost of all the changes was not unadjacent to ?4 million, which was paid from petty cash. I can't see YTL squandering cash like that, but they may have a say. You never know though - in years to come when they have moved on and the Brab has been pulled down for housing, there could be a station called Brabazon Arena with no Arena, just like there are umpteen Station Roads with no station.


My lot were repressed by the English in 19th century Ireland, and arrived as economic migrants. I have no complaints, it's worked out quite well. I can't distance myself from the early arrivals as clearly as you suggest the noble Lord Brabazon could. In any case, if there is anyone dodgy in the family, it's probably me.

TBH I doubt if the Severn Beach line would justify a 15-minute frequency anywhere north of Clifton Down and I think a 30-minute frequency would be enough. The way I envisage services on the Severn Beach line would be:

Mondays to Saturdays:
- 1tph between Bristol Temple Meads and Severn Beach (daytimes and evenings)
- 1tph between Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway, via. Clifton Down, Avonmouth, Henbury & Filton North (daytimes and early evenings)

Trains to / from Bristol Parkway could also call at Filton Abbeywood: the signalling in Platform 4 (and Platform 3?) is bi-directional so routing to allow such calls would be possible. Such a link would also allow a sort of Park & Ride service between Portway Bridge (as I call the station intended for the Portway Park & Ride) and Filton Abbeywood for commuters when things get back to pre-Covid commuting levels.

As for the "Henbury Spur" I think that is not the way to do things: commuting for workers around Whiteladies Road would be quicker on a direct train than on the bus. Ashley Down could be served by stopping services to/from Filton Abbeywood and Bristol Parkway (ie. trains from Gloucester).

Sundays:
- 1tph between Bristol Temple Meads and Severn Beach as at present.

I believe North Filton was the name given to the original station.

Dave

I suppose it depends on whether you believe we need to change things to achieve decarbonisation.

The word 'metro' has been cheapened by using it for regional networks with a 2tph service, but (as the Western Gateway strategy states) metro means 4-6tph, and the Severn Beach line is (or should be!) a metro line. There's a lot of work going on around 15-minute cities, where everything is within a 15-minute walk, the next town is a 15-minute train ride away and trains run every 15 minutes. This may seem like a fantasy to anyone living outside the south-east, but the London area has had far better than that for decades.

I have little doubt that the Severn Beach line could sustain a 4tph as far as Avonmouth. The Penarth line is quite similar, and pre-COVID its four-car 4tph service was very busy.

There is a major difference between Penarth and Severn Beach.

In 2011 Penarth had a population of 22,083. Severn Beach had a population of 2,182. Both of them have a hinterland in terms of catchment area but Penart wioll win hands down on that measure too.

I am all for supporting sustainabe rransport but thinking anyone could turn a profit on 4tph to The Beach is absolute Cloud Cuckoo Land fantasy.

Which leads us nicely into the secondary effects of transport. Prior to the arrival of the railway, Severn Beach was a farm. After 1900, when the GWR laid rails through it, it began to be noticed. By 1922, somebody thought it was worth a platform, and the area was developed for leisure, so that the tedium of daily life in Bristol could be relieved. Houses began to appear, with a lot more appearing after the leisure park and station buildings were demolished, and it is now home to 2,235 people, three quarters of whom are aged under 65. South Gloucestershire could do with more council tax houses, or so they tell us, and a decent transport link will help dear old Severn Beach grow. Turning a profit isn't measured solely in fares where government at local or national level gets involved, but also economic growth. If it is also acting as a terminus for two different lines, I am sure a case could be made.

Who has suggested this?

My spies have gained clarification from the author. It should indeed have read "...from Montpelier to Narroways Junction"; he goes on to say that this isn't the only option. The Network Rail Bristol Sub-Regional Continuous Modular Strategic Planning (CMSP) study, due to start in April 2021, will be looking at this.

4tph to Avonmouth I can see but not to Severn Beach, at least at present. A half-hourly service though, yes. A metro service should serve a metropolis. It's arguable whether Bristol, with a population of just under half a million, qualifies as a metropolis, but certainly Avonmouth feels like a part of the Bristol conurbation; Severn Beach does not.

Indeed. That's why, as far as I am aware, no-one is suggesting a 4tph service to Severn Beach.


Based on Bristol City Council's latest numbers, Avonmouth's population is 21,400.


As well as Avonmouth, the 'Beach line also serves Stoke Bishop ward (12,100), Clifton Down (11,600), Redland (13,100), Cotham (12,100), Ashley (19,100) and Lawrence Hill (19,500).

So the total population served by the line, with the best figures I can get, is around 89,800. Penarth's hinterland may serve more or fewer people than that, but I doubt the numbers are much different either way. In any case, it's not a competition is it?

The Beach Line catchment area will also be boosted by the Portway P&R Station whenever it's built.  The last I heard, the most recent of the delay announcements assured us that construction would commence at the end of this year.  BCC usually can't resist a bit of a fanfare to herald the start of something like this just prior to the diggers arriving so the silence right now makes me think we might be due for yet another delay announcement.

A Bristol councillor told me recently that it is "a mess", without elaboration.

I think this means they said 'yes':

Source: WECA (https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g448/Decisions%2004th-Dec-2020%2014.00%20Joint%20meeting%20-%20West%20of%20England%20Combined%20Authority%20Committee%20and%20Wes.pdf?T=2)

Article goes on to mention Charfield, North Filton, etc.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristols-long-lost-train-station-4775974
Also a candidate for the irrelevant stock photo thread!

Indeed!

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=11558.msg298021#msg298021

Id forgotten I hadnt responded to this, so thanks for the thread resurrection!

I was responding to a specific sentence in one of your earlier posts, which was:


If there is ever to be a 15-minute service on the 'Beach line (which is hinted at in the report), it will as you suggest require that most (if not all) of the line is doubled.

The inclusion in parentheses of "if not all" led me to believe that you were talking about the whole line right up to the stop blocks in Severn Beach. Wih that possibly erroneous thought my in mind you then went on to suggest similarities between Penarth and Severn Beach, which do have one similarity in that they are terminal stations where once the line carried on. In terms of population and catchment area, however, they are about as alike as Freshford and Trownridge!

Had it  not been for that I would have concluded you meant the line as far as Avonmouth. and on that I could agree. The ine as far as Avonmouth has plenty of catchment and, from my own experience of travelling down there about once a year, the existing service is hard pressed to cope with the demand even off peak. Whilst talking about spurious comparisons Clihton Down reminds me slightly of an XC train at Birmingham New Street where, in both directions, half an trainload gets off and another half a trainload gets on!

So yes, as far as Avonmouth 4tph could be feasible. Beyond Avonmouth is another matter, unless they are going back to Bristol on the Henbury Loop

I had not anticipated that interpretation. I suppose this is why people employ proof-readers!

If the idea of a Severn Beach to Yate service gets off the ground, things get interesting. Such a service might put the tin hat on the generally understood 'loop' service, but would allow for a half-hourly service from SVB alternately terminating at Westbury or Yate.

I'm cautiously beginning to warm to an "alternative Henbury Loop" created by an SVB to Yate service running through Henbury, the YTL arena and Parkway, if only because the original loop seems more unlikely to become a reality given the complications with the Port of Bristol level crossing access and the Port Authority's objections surrounding this.

One consequence of this would be to change Severn Beach Station from somewhere that was once upon a time seemingly in terminal decline into an important local/regional rail interchange.

Are you suggesting a new chord from Severn Beach onto the Henbury line?

I think that was the subject of some conjecture earlier in this thread, resulting from analysis of the WECA report. Possible though?

I'm not suggesting it, I'm just the messenger! What the report says, on p.47, is:

Strategic enhancement: Henbury Line enhancement
Change: Half hourly service from Severn Beach to Yate via Bristol Parkway and/or linked half hourly service on the Portishead line
Infrastructure required:

• Bristol Travel to Work CMSP.
• New North facing chord Severn Beach to Henbury line.
• Remodelling of Holesmouth Junction.
• Enhancement Filton Diamond.
• Westerleigh Junction enhancement.
• New platform at Severn Beach.
• Doubling of sections of the Portishead line with signalling enhancements.
• Rolling stock provision.
• Timetable change.
• Passenger and platform capacity

JLTP4 /LIS objectives: A (strong)
Western Gateway Conditional Outputs:

• Choice
• Social mobility
• Decarbonisation
• Growth
• Bristol to Yate to Gloucester

VfM/evidence/deliverability/: C (low)
Benefits (Passenger, Freight, Wider): A
Timescales: C (10-25 years)
Costs: H (>?100m)

JLTP4: version 4 of WECA's Joint Local Transport Plan.
LIS: Local Industrial Strategy
CMSP: Continuous Modular Strategic Planning

Re-reading this, I see that the plan is to have trains from SVB alternatively going to Yate or Portishead (as opposed to Westbury).

P.46, incidentally, refers to a 3tph service from SVB to 'BTM' (presumably BRI)...  I'm not sure how all this fits in with the 4tph service from BRI to WSB... Confused? I certainly am.

Looking at Google Maps, a north-facing chord from Henbury direction towards Severn Beach would be a bit tight, but is certainly doable, even without demolition of any buildings or trampling through a solar subsidy farm. From then on, there is ample room for doubling of the line, other than across a single bridge. The line soon doubles already in effect, with the headshunt for the trains taking London's rubbish to be burned somewhere more provincial. This looks to be a growth industry despite the tragic event a few days ago, so we can assume that line is there for keeps. Extending it a further 700 metres would take it nicely into Severn Beach station. It might seem a small point, but a train leaving Avonmouth onto the current single line layout takes some 26 minutes to get to Severn Beach and back, making 2 tph a maximum service in the current state of infrastructure, and that only theoretical. Doubling that portion of line with a crossover and signal would make a 2 tph from SVB to Westbury easier to achieve, with 2 tph from SVB to Yate more straightforward. Waste trains could fit in without too much difficulty. At present, there is one a day each way, which would no longer have to reverse at St Andrews Road, or come via Bath.

I believed it was doable until I read this...