Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 23:15 28 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
* Easter getaways hit by travel disruption
- Where Baltimore bridge investigation goes now
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Formal end to carrying coffins by BR (link)

Train RunningCancelled
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
22:30 Gatwick Airport to Reading
22:47 Newbury to Bedwyn
Short Run
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
23:04 Reading to Bedwyn
23:17 Bedwyn to Reading
Delayed
21:30 Gatwick Airport to Reading
21:45 Penzance to London Paddington
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 23:16:44 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[104] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[103] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[78] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[56] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Return of the BRUTE?
[25] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Bristol-Bath Railway Path improvement work  (Read 30255 times)
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2020, 19:47:31 »

They've recognized the futility of the pedestrian/cyclist split in the width available. Good!
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2020, 14:22:20 »

The latest update from Sustrans on the update to the Bristol and Bath Railway Path:
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2020/september/what-s-happening-on-the-bristol-and-bath-railway-path-an-update-on-the-onepath-bs5-project/

Quote
We?re aiming to share the designs toward the end of 2020, with a view to getting started on the ground next year.

Actually I'm a bit bewildered by this. The clear width of a double track railway - which is what, for the most part, this is - is between 7.3 and 8.5m.

Sustrans say:

Quote
We?ve taken a close look at the new design guidelines. And we welcome it, as we believe it will lead to higher quality cycle infrastructure being developed in the future.

The new guidance recognises that in some circumstances and locations shared-use paths are appropriate.

The guidance also states that a fully shared surface is preferable to creating sub-standard widths for both people walking and cycling where the available width is 3m or less.

On this path, we?re working within topographical and ecological constraints that mean we can?t significantly widen it for any meaningful length.

While we plan to widen the path in many places to 4.5m, this is not enough space for full separation between those cycling and those walking. And there are sections that cannot be widened beyond 3m.

We know that confusion and conflict can happen at points where lengths of shared-use path connect with lengths that are separated for walking and cycling. And this is also recognised in the guidance.

As there would be so many points at which this would happen on this section of the path, it?s likely that we would create more conflict, not less, if we were to repeatedly physically separate people walking from people and cycling at the wider points, to then bring them together again as the path gets narrower.

With this in mind, we will not be amending the designs for this project as a result of the new guidance.

This seems eccentric. Aside from a section through Clay Bottom where houses have been built on the trackbed, the constraints must all be ecological; there are very few topographical constraints and they could mostly be fixed with a short hire of some yellow plant. Mitigating for the ecological constraints would involve care, but should be do-able.

Gear Change says that we shouldn't give up at the difficult places. Sustrans seemed to have looked at LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) 1/20 and given up. It doesn't bode well.
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2020, 18:25:47 »

Ecological or financial?
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2020, 23:19:14 »

Ecological or financial?

Quite possibly a bit of both

The line was originally built to link the pits around Coalpit Heath to Bristol but, when that became the Bristol and Gloucester Railway, ended up as a double track broad gauge railway.

It is therefore theoretically possible to re-widen the railway path (emphasis on theoretically of course). But to do so would cost a considerable amount of money ? landslips and vegetation encroachment has been substantial over the years.

However, when this was last discussed on this forum I expressed my severe misgivings about separating cyclists and pedestrian, because of the possibility if not certainty that a separation would encourage some cyclists to higher speeds and, especially on the downhill section from Fishponds, would in my view make the path more dangerous for pedestrians rather than less. Pedestrians can join the path from either side at many locations, which means that pedestrians would have to cross the cycle lane.

Perhaps those in charge of formulating these proposals have realised this. After all, it would only need a death or two of pedestrians on the bank to see calls for cycling on the path to be prohibited, and that is not the result that anyone with any sense would welcome. That of course wouldn?t stop a local authority who felt they ?had to be seen to do something? doing exactly that.




Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2020, 14:33:18 »

Ecological or financial?

Quite possibly a bit of both

The line was originally built to link the pits around Coalpit Heath to Bristol but, when that became the Bristol and Gloucester Railway, ended up as a double track broad gauge railway.

It is therefore theoretically possible to re-widen the railway path (emphasis on theoretically of course). But to do so would cost a considerable amount of money ? landslips and vegetation encroachment has been substantial over the years.

However, when this was last discussed on this forum I expressed my severe misgivings about separating cyclists and pedestrian, because of the possibility if not certainty that a separation would encourage some cyclists to higher speeds and, especially on the downhill section from Fishponds, would in my view make the path more dangerous for pedestrians rather than less. Pedestrians can join the path from either side at many locations, which means that pedestrians would have to cross the cycle lane.

Perhaps those in charge of formulating these proposals have realised this. After all, it would only need a death or two of pedestrians on the bank to see calls for cycling on the path to be prohibited, and that is not the result that anyone with any sense would welcome. That of course wouldn?t stop a local authority who felt they ?had to be seen to do something? doing exactly that.


That fact that this was originally broad gauge had slipped my mind. That implies that the available width is probably at least 8.5m.

LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) 1/20 recommends a width of 4m for a path taking this level of traffic, reducing to a minimum 3m only where it is impossible to accommodate this. The pedestrian path requires an additional 1.8m. This suggests that, with the exception of the Clay Bottom section, there is plenty of room. Much of what is of ecological value is on the extensive embankments and cutting sides.

The level of cycle traffic on this route (over 1800 vehicles [yes, vehicles - read LTN 1/20] per hour) emphatically demands separation of cyclists and pedestrians.

Pedestrians join the path at designated points. In many cases it may be appropriate to put in zebra crossings or even traffic signals. This may seem fanciful, but elsewhere in Europe that is precisely how these problems are addressed. And if this seems expensive, then for perspective bear in mind that the path carries more people in the morning rush than the Severn Beach railway.

But these are just my ramblings; Bristol Cycling Campaign's considered response is much more coherent and comprehensive.

However... there is an argument that the inner urban section of this path is never going to be able to offer the level of passive surveillance of paths alongside roads. Although this is for much of the day a very busy route, there are times when there aren't many people about and at such times it can feel threatening. The actual level of crime is probably rather lower than the perception - it seems that every incident is gleefully reported in the local papers - but many people would rather take their chances with the traffic than use this section.

What are the alternatives? A link via Clay Bottom and Royate Hill viaduct to Fishponds Road could work, though it probably wouldn't satisfy the LTN 1/20 requirement for directness. Probably a new segregated path from the central area along the A432 linking to the Railway Path near Lodge Causeway would work better. Could that be part of the answer?
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
WSW Frome
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 180


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2020, 15:47:59 »

I have not done any checking but the Bath branch was for its 19th+ century life, part of the Midland Railway. So that tends to indicate the infrastructure was designed for standard gauge.

Possibly the early history was different but the GWR (Great Western Railway) or its constituent parts were not involved in this route.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2020, 16:49:24 »

I have not done any checking but the Bath branch was for its 19th+ century life, part of the Midland Railway. So that tends to indicate the infrastructure was designed for standard gauge.

Possibly the early history was different but the GWR (Great Western Railway) or its constituent parts were not involved in this route.

The section of the railway path from Mangotsfield to Bath was indeed constructed by the Midland Railway. That's not the section we're discussing here though; the section in question - between Fishponds and central Bristol - was built by the Bristol and Gloucester Railway to broad gauge. The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley; the Midland managed to court the B&G (Bristol and Gloucester Railway) away from the GWR and by 1854 it was mixed gauge. But the result - a lovely wide trackbed, with plenty of room for separate cycleways and footpaths - remains.
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2020, 17:24:26 »

I have not done any checking but the Bath branch was for its 19th+ century life, part of the Midland Railway. So that tends to indicate the infrastructure was designed for standard gauge.

Possibly the early history was different but the GWR (Great Western Railway) or its constituent parts were not involved in this route.

T was typing away as RedSquirrel was posting and he said everything I had in mind to say!


Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2020, 22:45:43 »

The Bristol Cycling Campaign response is to Sustrans' earlier suggestions, isn't it? The announcement that Sustrans now consider the path too narrow for those plans is very recent. (Didn't they survey the path at all before drawing up their plans?)
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2020, 12:18:15 »

For my own information I have looked at the various access points between Mangotsfield and Lawrence Hill. I my view separation between Mangotsfield and Fishponds would not be an issue but I included it anyway. Access points are described in terms of going towards Bristol

Signal Road Staple Hill access from right
Station Road Staple Hill access from left
Staple Hill station access both sides
Thicket Avenue access from left
Forest Road access from left
Fishponds station access from right
Filwood Road access from right
Alcove Road Dominion Road access both sides
Maggs Lane access to right
Clay Bottom access to right
Greenbank Road Gordon Road access both sides
Bruce Road access both sides
Chelsea Park access to right
Battersea Road access to right
Whitehall Road access to left
Kilburn Street access to right
Whitehall Road Cannon Street access to left
Brixton Road access to right
Lawrence Hill Croydon Street access to right

I may have missed a few. There is also a school down there somewhere, I think near Bruce Road where I believe what the Bristol Cycling Campaign calls a so-called zebra crossing is.

The section that most concerns me is that between Clay Bottom and Lawrence Hill. It is dead straight for the best part of 2 miles and on a 1in 80 gradient. As will be seen from the list above, there are 11 access points on that stretch, four from the left and seven from the right. Add a speeding cyclist into that mix is asking for trouble in the first place, and giving those cyclists a dedicated lane on that downhill stretch is asking for even more trouble.

I suppose you could provide segregation and strategically-place speed humps along there, but I wonder what cyclists would make of that? They don?t appear to be too keen on the so-called zebra crossing.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not an anti-cyclist post as I too was a regular one until my eyesight deteriorated so much that I can no longer safely do it. I am simply trying to inject some realism and practicality into the discussion. I have walked and cycled this route on many occasions (and also been on trains on it, but that is rather academic these days!)
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2020, 13:51:01 »

I have both cycled the path end to end numerous times and walked it about three times. It feels a lot further on foot than on a bike! I've even walked it in the dark, which is interesting (in a good way). Though I should say I've only ever walked from Bath to Bristol (having taken the train to Bath), never the other way. Looking at it from both sets of experiences, segregation is a boon when done well but a curse when done badly. Good separation allows walkers and runners to make their way on foot without fear of being hit by a cyclist and cyclists to ride without having to lose momentum for walkers and without having to avoid for instance dogs, whether off lead or, worse IMO (in my opinion), on those expanding but hard to see leads.

Good separation needs two things IMO&E: width and distinctness. It obviously needs to be at least four "dynamic person units" wide to allow separate streams in each direction. Because pedestrians and cyclists vary widely in speed, control and situational awareness, from toddlers to athletes in training, it also needs to allow for safe overtaking. By "dynamic person units" I mean a cyclist isn't actually any wider than a pedestrian, and is probably narrower than a mobility scooter, but because of their shape and the way in which they move (including but not only speed), they need a wider "envelope" around them. Two walkers can, if necessary, pass shoulder to shoulder (social distancing aside!) but two cyclists have to be very skilled to do this, regardless of speed.

It also has to be clear which side is for walkers and which for wheels. Not just clear with symbols and so on but clear as to why; the walking side has to be in some way more appealing to walk on than the cycling side, or else people will walk both sides. Why wouldn't they? It's relatively easy to make the walking side unattractive for cycling by use of bollards and so on, but harder to make a path that's designed for cycling less appealing to walking. The various edge cases (roller skaters, faster runners, toddlers on balance bikes, mobility scooters, kickalong scooters, etc) are best dealt with on a case by case basis.

A good example of bad separation can be seen on the Concorde way where it runs past Filton Abbey Wood and the MoD. The path has been divided into two equal-width parts with a white line. This leaves insufficient width for one cyclist to pass another without one of them going into the walking half. This can become a game of chicken or sometimes of double-chicken, where both assume the other is staying put and both move over! The remaining width is only just sufficient for two people to walk past each other, too. It would be far better if this section were either undivided, like the section immediately to the south running past the Lockleaze playing fields, or were divided by direction of travel rather than mode.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2020, 13:54:08 »

Returning to the Bristol-Bath Path, as it was originally double broad gauge track, the width should be there to make for decent separation, apart from Clay Bottom and one or two other places like by the TV studios and the waste siding. But somehow it doesn't all feel that wide. I guess an awful lot of clearance and foundation work would need to be done.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2020, 17:45:37 »

The Bristol Cycling Campaign response is to Sustrans' earlier suggestions, isn't it? The announcement that Sustrans now consider the path too narrow for those plans is very recent. (Didn't they survey the path at all before drawing up their plans?)

I don't think Sustrans have published any new plans since those they outlined in their consultation last year. All that's new is their recent statement that they'll be publishing updated plans soon. I suppose the reason that my ears have pricked up is that Sustrans have said it is too hard to apply the principles of LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) 1/20; to my mind this looks less like 'Gear Change' and more like 'Cyclists Dismount'.


[...]

I suppose you could provide segregation and strategically-place speed humps along there, but I wonder what cyclists would make of that? They don?t appear to be too keen on the so-called zebra crossing.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not an anti-cyclist post as I too was a regular one until my eyesight deteriorated so much that I can no longer safely do it. I am simply trying to inject some realism and practicality into the discussion. I have walked and cycled this route on many occasions (and also been on trains on it, but that is rather academic these days!)


The well-engineered cycle paths of the Netherlands and, increasingly, elsewhere in the world use the same kind of hardware as other roads - traffic signals, zebra crossings and so on. If cycling is to take its place as serious mass transit then this kind of thing needs to consistently implemented and policed.

For some cyclists, this may stick in the craw. Tough!



Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2020, 17:47:59 »

I guess an awful lot of clearance and foundation work would need to be done.

Whether anyone has the same concerns as me or not, I suspect that this is the issue that will stand in the way of widening.

It isn?t a matter of simply sending a JCB in to scrape a bit of weed and topsoil away (although even that wouldn?t come cheap over a 16-mile run and more if you did the route out to Westerleigh as well).

There would need to be sufficient depth dug out to form foundations, drainage may need to be altered, access points would need modification and some if not all of the street lights would have to be moved. Also, given that some 10 years elapsed between the railway?s closure and the route being inaugurated in its new form, there might be sewers, water mains, gas pipes or electricity cable runs buried under there.

And all that before you start to talk about separation bollards between the two halves, and possibly traffic calming measures such as speed humps, gates or chicanes to slow the faster cyclists down on the bank.

I?ll leave someone else who has more Quantity Surveying experience than me to price that lot, but it will be clear to everybody that it won?t be funded from a series of jumble sales and collection tins ? unless we ask Tony Berkeley and his group to cost it of course...  Wink
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2020, 19:50:43 »

The Bristol Cycling Campaign response is to Sustrans' earlier suggestions, isn't it? The announcement that Sustrans now consider the path too narrow for those plans is very recent. (Didn't they survey the path at all before drawing up their plans?)

I don't think Sustrans have published any new plans since those they outlined in their consultation last year. All that's new is their recent statement that they'll be publishing updated plans soon. I suppose the reason that my ears have pricked up is that Sustrans have said it is too hard to apply the principles of LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) 1/20; to my mind this looks less like 'Gear Change' and more like 'Cyclists Dismount'.
Well yes, that's the change. Sustrans have now said their previous plans are not valid, so any response to those previous plans is therefore also invalid and will have to be updated in due course.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page