Probably I should have said connecting Avonmouth to the electric spine, rather than suggesting it is part of the Electric Spine. More like an Electric Hip?

My source is West of England Partnership Joint Transport Executive's minutes of meeting on 12 September 2012, item 5:


Electric Spine is a CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) aspiration. After 2019, in CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024), other major ports are joined into it, meaning electrification from Avonmouth and Portbury to join the spine at Derby. So far, the call is to identify the schemes with the highest benefit to cost ratio. Avonmouth intends to have a new Deep Sea Container Port, which will involve a huge increase in rail traffic to and from there. The timing according to their website said "By 2015" when I first looked in 2010, but now says:


If it has to wait for CP6 before work starts, it could not start running before 2022. Let's hope not.


The term comes from a fabled gift by a king to another visiting king. It is a very special elephant, being white, and being a king's gift, it must be cared for. So when it gets home, it cannot be put to work, but still eats a great deal. It is thus useless, and a very expensive gift. HS2 is certainly not useless, and I believe strongly that it should be built. The white elephant that I would show to Margaret Hodge is Bristol Metrobust.

In other news, the government fight-back to sell HS2 to a sceptical public has begun. Patrick McLoughlin, with timing so serendipitous that it makes me wonder if the brouhaha of recent days has been choreographed, delivered his speech at the Institute of Civil Engineers, as reported by the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Hardly likely to be a hostile audience, but he produced a report by KPMG, like a larger Paul Daniels producing a rabbit in book form from a hat. This report tells us that all is well, and HS2 will produce massive benefits for everybody, albeit not for 15 years after the first train runs. The nay-sayers at the Institute for Economic Affairs like it - not a lot. Even though the report was clearly commissioned some time ago, they accuse the government of changing the statistical methods for measuring benefits - as if!

Daniel Finkelstein, in the Times, argues for HS2 because it will bring about chance meetings of minds. I value his opinion as a rule, but find his argument this time a little tenuous and unconvincing. Which is a shame.

As for expanding the existing routes, don't forget that the extension of platforms at Waterloo alone is, IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), to cost northwards of ^250 million. HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) can't be made longer, other than by coupling, and rolling stock is at a premium. Then there's the 10 to 15 years of chaos and delay whilst the work is done. No thanks.

From National Rail:


This applies to Super Off-Peak also. so no problem. The restriction is on the outward journey only.

Thanks STE, I  had no idea that you could buy signals at Unipart. They make it look so simple.

Agreed. A serious bottleneck affecting, preferably, more than one busy line is now needed before the beginning of the process to add to capacity. That could yet change. Until grahame posted that document, I had known that the railways were reduced in size to cut labour costs, but I had not realised just how hugely labour-intensive the operation of the railways was. Of course, Multiple Aspect Signalling was less labour-intensive than semaphore, both in use and maintenance, and the aging steam trains of the Beeching report needed replacement by something more modern. I now realise that not only was railway use dwindling, but the expectation was that passenger numbers and freight tonnage would continue to decline. I do not attribute blame for any of the decisions then made, because when they were made, they were justifiable.

This brings us to the prospect of excitement of a high order, demanding of both hard heart and occasionally soft head.

In our more modern times of congestion and high fuel prices, some of the former assumptions on rail can be turned on their heads. We see, for example, that very modest expenditure on the Severn Beach line has raised that line's use from marginal to a million passengers this year. The frequency has been raised from an unlearnable "about every 73 minutes on average, but don't ask when" to three trains every two hours. Capacity has been increased at peak hours by adding a car to the 2-car unit, but with a single line from Stapleton Road with passing loops at Clifton Down and Avonmouth, it is pretty full.

Re-doubling the line to SVB would be as big an undertaking as the Kemble job, albeit wit less overall impact on passengers in the shorter term.  But I reckon that with Four Track, Now! to Filton Bank, plus extending the passing loop to Montpelier, requiring the relocation of one set of points and two signals, the scrubbing up of the unused platforms at Redland and Montpelier, and one extra unit, would allow 4 tph to AVM, including 2 tph to SVB.

I reckon it could be done for around ^10 million, or about 15% of what WEP paid to increase bus usage in Bristol by less than 5%. As SVB was only a farm when the station opened and now has 2500 residents with a ^3 return journey to BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) as the only real alternative to driving, it could easily boost house-building in this quasi-rural setting, and relieve pressure on the city. It's a shame that there is no linkage between housing in S Glos, employment in Bristol, and transport in the geographical area formerly known as Avon.

One might almost be forgiven for thinking that policies on transport, housing, employment, and others, were not co-ordinated between the three authorities involved, and that there is wasteful triplication (I don't include BANES in this awful waste of scant resources) of amateurish effort when decent targetted integration of effort might produce massive turnaround  in how people see public transport.

The same is true of the TransWilts line, except that the areas of population are less clearly defined, are less densely packed,  and don't have the same opportunity of connection to major centres of employment as does the (emerging) SVB line.
 
Not sure what to think, More soon.

Stepping back to the legal side for a moment, a significant part of English law relating to damage, liability for personal injury, and who owes what duty of care to whom and when, evolved out of cases involving railway accidents. The historic reasons are not a factor of railways themselves, so much as what the government likes to call "step changes" in speeds, equipment, technology, and awareness. It took mankind several millennia to get much above 20 mph, but only just over another century to pass Mach 1.

The law finds it hard to move such a speed. For this reason, any incident resulting from any use of any new technology will be judged by asking something like:
- did it happen because of the operation or failure of the technology;
- was the outcome reasonably foreseeable by the operator of the technology, or;
- would the outcome be obvious to another person looking at the situation from a purely objective viewpoint?

Over the years, the question of whether or not you owe a duty of care to a person has become of lower importance. One must consider the welfare of anyone who may be affected by your actions, something which can include the trespassing metal-thief as well as the first-class passenger, although the extent of that duty will be greater towards the latter than the former. Network Rail will have no wish to become a major part of legal history. Level crossings are the subject of enough legal argument as it is, and no-one would make a deliberate decision to introduce any new system unless it had been tested beyond all reasonable boundaries by engineers, psychologists, risk assessors - and lawyers.

I don't think that just making something fail-safe is enough. I can see a lawyer telling a court "My client would never have dreamt of climbing over a level crossing barrier, but having been stood at the closed gate for 45 minutes and seeing no train pass, something verifiable by his Google glasses, and knowing that his family were in danger on the opposite side of the tracks, he decided he had no alternative other than to take the chance, just as the delayed 18.37 came by at 100 mph". High reliability, with a plan B for exceptions, is what is needed.

And that, IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), is what we will get. The price of penny-pinching with any safety system can be ruinously high, and I have no doubt that the decision makers here have this firmly in mind.

A sensible move. Not only will it (I hope) give me the chance to see an IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) being towed behind a class 66 on an early introductory run to Bristol, but it sidesteps any complications that could arise as a result of any franchise changes during the test period.

I often wondered where the economy was to be found in singling the Kemble line. I can see exactly what a big thing it was, and thank you grahame, for posting this document. Scales have now fallen from my eyes!

One notable aspect is that semaphore held sway for 120 years or so. Multiple Aspect Signalling lasted for less than the possible lifetime of a LED bulb. It follows that the next advance in signalling, whatever it may be, will not be long in coming!

Thanks ST, those are great pictures, and really show the methodology of this project in detail. I didn't realise that the old line would be renewed in such quantity, thinking that the British way of doing it as cheap as possible would hold sway. It does make perfect sense to start afresh with both tracks in the same new condition, I just wasn't expecting it. A couple of questions arise - was the single line becoming too old, or will it be reused elsewhere?

The new signals will change the look of the railway as they appear more commonly. I assume that they are three-colour LEDs, so will last for a long time and save power. What happens for double-yellow - a second lamp on the post?

You said the crossings looked a bit scrappy - presumably, they will be finished at the end, when it is clear they won't be damaged by further works.

Again, though, thanks for an excellent set of detailed pictures of both the progress so far, and the work left to do.

Crossrail is either on time, or 3, 15, 30, or 56 years late, depending on which proposal is seen as firing the starting gun. As with a lot of other schemes, it may be a bit late, but it's probably a good thing some of the earlier ideas didn't get built. They were smaller in scope, and would not have had the advantages of the most modern equipment and techniques.

A minor point of pedantry - if you increase a 2-car to a 3-car, you add a half, not a third.

All that you say is true, but I think that taking some of the pressure off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) can be nothing but a good thing. There are plans for the "electric spine", linking the new deepwater container port at Avonmouth with the industrial hinterlands, and for better connections between Southampton and the places that want the goods imported through their. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), properly designed and built, would make things like these more easily achievable, as well as 20 minutes of the ride to Brum.

Margaret Hodge, though, was on the radio saying we need to look to make connections such as Bristol to Liverpool, something that made me wonder if she has any idea what she is on about. Unless she is proposing to tunnel through Snowdonia and under the Mersey, whilst simultaneously upgrading the Heart of Wales route. You can get from Bristol to Liverpool. I have done two different ways - the long, slow, pretty way via Newport, and the "fast" way, where you stand all the way from Temple Meads to New Street for the first leg.

I agree with Electric train also. Network Rail is proving more adept at keeping costs and timescales under control. In this case, the body that risks throwing a spanner in the works is Mrs H's Public Accounts Committee. It would be wrong for such a major project to be left to HS2 Ltd without scrutiny, of course, but launching into attack mode, seemingly without most of the facts, is not helpful.

Now if she wants a rubbish white elephant transport project based on dubious calculations of benefits to castigate and ride roughshod over, then if she comes to Bristol, I will show her one.

Could I leave a deposit on them?

I'm surprised by "a modern line which could be expanded to four tracks". I thought four-tracking was much closer to a done deal than that.

But then I would, wouldn't I?

We now have the two sides of the argument in sharp focus, and the real debate can now begin. The PAC's stance seems to be Lord Adonis' classic cold feet syndrome. Mr McLoughlin's case is strengthened by finally arguing for the right reason. Margaret Hodge likes the sound of her own voice. She is though correct in saying that costs have increased. What she doesn't point out is what it will cost if we put the decision off for 5 years, as in Crossrail, first mooted in 1941, when it would have cost a few hundred quid.

Mr McLoughlin has an unlikely supporter. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), Now!, I say. I know a white elephant when I see one, and this is not one. The Big Numbers is what gives this project a scary face, nothing else. Bristol Metrobust, on the other hand...

In case anyone looks at this after 8 September 2013, the current timetable can be found here. Avoncliff remains a scheduled stop. Only Dilton Marsh needs Jenny Agguter's underwear on this route.

This is the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) unit, hired in because FGW^▸ (First Great Western) don't have anything spare. This is not going to get better until stock begins to be cascaded as new stuff comes into operation elsewhere.