Great Western Coffee Shop

from a listener on Radio Bristol on tuesday 12 september 2023,
about the noise and pollution while they are stopped at the station.

But why is this person complaining now?  The station and the trains it serves have been there for longer than any living Severn Beach resident (unless there's a remarkable fact that has escaped the record books) and were far dirtier in the age of steam, probably noisier too.
From memory, a good many of the services there only dwell a few minutes before turning back but perhaps the person who made the complaint is talking about any services that have a longer dwell time but don't turn of the motor....in which case maybe there is something that could be improved upon.

There’s been a more frequent service of late hasn’t there?

There has and
a) It's now Turbos which may be noisier than 150s
b) Instead of being there for a few minutes, each train lays over for half an hour

I *know* the instructions are to shut-down engines during layovers.  But, is drivers' practice to leave them running to avoid the risk of not re-starting at a remote location?  This was very often the case in my railway working days, and I'm wondering if much has changed?

Don’t think that’s much of an issue these days.  The crew will stay with the train, so in very cold or very warm conditions it’s acceptable IMHO to keep one engine running for climate control reasons.  Otherwise they should be shut down and restarted 5-10 minutes before departure.

We ran an article on this a year ago: https://bristolrailcampaign.org.uk/air-and-noise-pollution-at-severn-beach/

Mike Calvert has been asking for this to be sorted for a while now. He has a point; these ancient Turbos can be pretty stinky, as anyone whose hung around at Clifton Down when two of them pass there will know. Since the half-hourly service started in 2021 more trains lay over longer at Severn Beach.

You can hear the Radio Bristol article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0g8vsph 2hrs 13 in at 08:13. Seems like a very reasonable chap.

Yes, they're really primitively noisy - at Paddington they were a constant unwelcome presence next to the Hammersmith and City line platforms before they were moved to pastures new.

Not that new kit necessarily solves this - Scarborough residents asked that the newish and very noisy class 68s which were newly being  maintained there have the maintenance that involved running them in the small hours to test things done elsewhere. Transpennine Express agreed and reallocated the task to Longsight, Manchester, which is further from housing. At least I hope it is. Though now I think the DfT aka TPE will cease using them completely.

Mark

My concern(as a solution)  is GWR will say "stuff it" will we replace more trains with a bus/s which would have to leave earlier between SB and Avonmouth.

If more trains end up terminating at Avonmouth are there serial complainers/anti-rail moaners at Avonmouth

One person complains and loads of other residents of SB suffer.

Be careful what you moan about,sorry that shouid read,be careful what you compain about.

Yes - I would agree on "consider consequences".   I do not anticipate it as the outcome, but if a daytime unit on its way out to Severn Beach passing an incoming unit at Avonmouth, a unit could be saved by terminating at Avonmouth.

As last month(august) was school holiday month,

maybe the complainer was at home more than they normally would be,

or maybe they did not go on holiday.

I think some of the noise problem COULD be solved by building up a grass embankment like the did in the early operations of Heathrow express.

Fumes and smoke,now that would be a big problem to solve.

 

This may sound daft but what is stopping the Turbos engines being switched off during longer waits at SB?  I've certainly boarded services at platform one in Temple Meads which were not due to leave for some while with the engines not running.

From a passenger's point of view, diesel trains laying over with engines running can be an unpleasant experience from both a noise and fume point of view, and it must be worse for those living nearby.

However, it must surely be good practice to minimise periods of engines running while laying over. In the days before the remodelling of Reading Station, in the evenings Turbos that had finished their duties for the day would often be joined together on Platform 9, all with their engines running creating an unpleasant and polluting situation. One of the blessings of electrification was the marked reduction in this nuisance. Probably the worse culprits after this were the Windhof rail-head cleaning trains running the Waterloo and North Downs lines that would sit for prolonged periods in platform 4 or 5 with engines running - presumably they'll be back this autumn.

I appreciate the crew welfare point that Industry Insider is making. Severn Beach seems to be a station entirely devoid of facilities (not even a ticket office to turn into a welfare building in due course!). However I see from the timetable that for most of the day the hourly service departs Temple Meads three minutes after arrival from Severn beach, but then lays over at Severn Beach for 38 minutes before returning. Presumably this is because platform space is at a premium at Temple Meads, whereas there's nothing else to use Severn Beach, but surely the service should be balanced better, or some way found to accommodate units at Temple Meads to avoid this nuisance and pollution?

The layover is to allow the outbound and inbound SVB services to pass at Avonmouth.  In between, the "short" working arrive at Avonmouth from Bristol an returns.   With a quick return from the Beach you would have trains out of place at Avonmouth - none there, or two there when one wanted.