The existing gradient for all three station locations on the Filton Bank is very steep (1 in 76 or 1.33%). Group standard GI/RT/7016 states that: “ Wherever possible, platforms shall be located on track with an average gradient not steeper than 1 in 500. It is permissible for platforms to be located on track with average gradients steeper than 1 in 500 provided trains are not planned to terminate or reverse at the platform” . This is guidance rather than a definitive requirement, but 1:75 is still is considered too steep for a new station to be developed on. Guidance note GI/GN7616 provides further information for consideration of risks associated with proposing platforms relating to horizontal curvature and longitudinal gradients.

Vertical track positioning can be adjusted through track lifts and earthworks to re ‐ profile gradients. However, as the provision of a 1:500 platform gradient would lead to excessive gradients on either side of the station, it was decided to target a station gradient of 1:220 (0.45%). This is consistent with a station gradient deviation granted for (the reopened) Corby station (Certificate number 07/182/DGN). Designs using this 1:220 gradient are much more likely to be accepted by Network Rail (NR) even though still requiring some deviation from guidance in the group standards. They do however lead to significant works in terms of Permanent Way and track drainage, signalling, earthworks and electrification.

It would be possible to seek deviations from standards for the existing (much steeper) gradient through the station, which would reduce the requirement for Permanent Way works and their associated costs, but this is considered unlikely to be practical that such a deviation would be granted. Costs have therefore only been developed for designs producing a 1:220 gradient through the station sites.

It should be considered that failing to achieve a derogation that the 1:220 gradient through a station is acceptable could significantly change the requirements at each station, and thus would require re ‐ assessment of the assumptions in this report.

Three Tracks (in the old Midland Shed), Now! 

As if by royal command I have just taken a look at the Bristol Post website on my mobile and there is a repeat of the artists impression of the GPL bridge that I referred to in an earlier post this evening. This does. as my earlier post stated, show a single decker travelling towards the artist but as if to validate the artists impression a double decker has been added in this published version. Looking at the headroom remaining over the top of the single decker I doubt whether the double decker would emerge the other side of the new GPL bridge without conversion to a. err. open topper. Also artists licence has given the artist responsible for this impression the vision to install the overhead catenary over the projected rail overbridge. seemingly, just one Metrobus length apart.

By the way, January 9th is the start date of route m1, brought forward a week to coincide with the start of the University's new term. It was previously announced as commencing on January 16th.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to reopen the railway through the airfield to passenger traffic instead?

Looks like the Bristol Bath Cycle path is doomed to a Metrobustrocity. Haven't they learnt yet?

I have looked into this and seen the plans for the bridge. It is a four lane roadway with the two inner lanes being the Bus Lanes. The two years mentioned is for the roadworks and preparatory work for the new bridge itself which would allow the passage of double deckers. Network Rail were quoted as indicating the bridge overbridge itself would be installed over a prolonged block, probably Easter 2018, yes 2018 and the pre-fabricated box section was to be built on the adjoining former Rolls-Royce site but now, from my observations, construction of industrial units is taking place on the site now so Network Rail has missed the boat on that plan. More recently I've seen an artists impression of the finished new bridge and it shows a Metrobus vehicle in the illustration, a single decker. I'll try and post a link to the S. Glos. web site to view what i've described above.

BBC Radio Bristol news bulletins today have Banes Council and our Marv talking about tram/train or light rail options between Severn Beach and Westbury. Probably a bit more of their occasional headline attention grabbing stuff or equally possibly an excuse for further inaction but worth mentioning I thought.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already, but the Brizzle Post is reporting that the recently-struck Gypsy Patch Lane Bridge will be shut for two years (or perhaps 344 days, they mention both periods of time) while the bridge is rebuilt to allow the Metrolbus under it. But they make no mention of whether rail services will be disrupted.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/road-bristol-going-closed-two-2235378

Isn't LH just a Bristol RE variant? Long (36ft) and High frame.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_RE#Variants