Bristol and transport mess

[whole diary]

[simonw]

New Job - Transport Delivery Planning Coordinator

Who would have thought that in the same time frame, the powers that be would merge

• Metrobus
• Filton Four Track
• Bromley Heath Viaduct
• Electrification of GW^▸ (Great Western) in the north Bristol area
• Rebuild Bristol Parkway - shutting for a month is not maintenance or upgrade, it is something more significant
• Filton Abbeywood upgrade
• GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - Run down local train fleet due to late arrival of new stock

Whilst all of these activities are worthy (except GWR local fleet rundown), who in their right mind would have allowed them all to happen at the same time?

Every day this week, I have caught the BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) (Temple Meads) <-> FIT (Filton Abbeywood) train, and then had to wait 10-20 minutes for a bus to take 15 minutes to get to BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) (Bristol Parkway). Surely, this could have been better organised? For example, after the Stoke Gifford Link (Metrobus) is open, and GWR fleet up to strength and running reliably.
 

[Red Squirrel]

You could add the remodelling of the Temple Circus Gyratory to your list...

However at least four of these activities are inextricably linked - Filton four track is needed to give paths to Stoke Gifford depot (inter alia); Abbeywood is part of that, the depot is needed for electric trains, Parkway is about capacity for said electric trains. The fleet issues are also strongly linked. Complicated business, modernising a railway!

All of these projects are intended to solve problems created by a successful, growing economy - luckily, this is likely to be much less of an issue post-Brexit.

Incidentally (I've got into trouble for suggesting this before, but am I really the only one who finds it confusing?) BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) is so often (incorrectly) used for BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) that it has almost become a standard idiom, but FAW for FIT?

[simonw]

Whilst many of these jobs are linked, there is no need for all to be concurrent.

Most of the electrification work has been done at weekends and night. Why shut Bristol Parkway for a month to do it?

Bristol Parkway platform 4 was added without shutting the station. Why not just shut platform 2, moving all traffic to 3/4 to allow building of 1 and extending 2? Then traffic could have been moved to 1/2 whilst 3/4 was extended?

Why not delay for a 4-6 weeks until Stoke Gifford Link road was open?

[ChrisB]

Surely easier to delay the roadworks/buses? The BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains) works have been scheduled for at least 12 months, and fit into the wider electrification GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) works.

Also, a thread below this one (started by you, simonw) refers to a two-week closure - why are you exaggerating in this thread?

[SandTEngineer]

Whilst many of these jobs are linked, there is no need for all to be concurrent.

Most of the electrification work has been done at weekends and night. Why shut Bristol Parkway for a month to do it?

Bristol Parkway platform 4 was added without shutting the station. Why not just shut platform 2, moving all traffic to 3/4 to allow building of 1 and extending 2? Then traffic could have been moved to 1/2 whilst 3/4 was extended?

Why not delay for a 4-6 weeks until Stoke Gifford Link road was open?

The Bristol Parkway work is more than just building the new platform.  A new link line is being built and several new signals and points are being added.  Electrification masts are also being installed.

This is already being discussed here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18454.0 and here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=16746.0

[ChrisB]

Huge new signal gantry went in yesterday too

[Bmblbzzz]

Incidentally (I've got into trouble for suggesting this before, but am I really the only one who finds it confusing?) BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) is so often (incorrectly) used for BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains) that it has almost become a standard idiom, but FAW for FIT?

Context is key, surely? This is a forum where we write in sentences (mostly) in English. Abbreviations and acronyms are fine, where they're well known, but I don't think that applies to station codes. Certainly not to all 2,500-odd. Of course we have the acronym list on this site, and it's very useful, but it doesn't list FIT (or FAW). In the context of the other place names, FAW was easily understood. FIT probably would have been too, but might have required a little deduction from those not familiar with it.

Personally I'd have written the name out full or more likely just as "Abbey Wood". I see there is an Abbey Wood station in the London area and if, in the Bristol area, I asked for a ticket to "Abbey Wood" I would expect it to be queried just for exactness but I would also imagine the ticket seller would expect it to be "Filton Abbey Wood". If I did the same in London, I probably wouldn't be queried and would get a ticket I didn't want, which would be my fault.

But mainly, we're writing to be read, not to program ticket machines.

[JayMac]

Casual readers may not have a clue what BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)), BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), FAW, FIT aren't easily understood by all.

The best form to use is the full station name firstly in the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter),  with the (correct) station code in brackets. Thereafter the station code will suffice.

Bristol Temple Meads (BRI) to Bristol Parkway (BPW^» (Bristol Parkway - next trains)) via Filton Abbey Wood (FIT).

Back to the topic. I agree that more should be done to avoid major works clashing across transport systems.

[grahame]

Casual readers may not have a clue what BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)), BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), FAW, FIT aren't easily understood by all.

The best form to use is the full station name firstly in the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter),  with the (correct) station code in brackets. Thereafter the station code will suffice.

Agreed - and I think that's what's suggested in the forum's intro pages.  We are not, however, a forum where the moderator and admin team looks to find every slight transgression of our suggestions with a view to stamping on them!

I did wonder about adding a three letter code lookup facility - but then it's the casual readers who would need it most, and it's pretty unlikely that they would be sufficiently casual to be unaware of codes, but not casual enough to actually find that new facility.

[Red Squirrel]

I did wonder about adding a three letter code lookup facility - but then it's the casual readers who would need it most, and it's pretty unlikely that they would be sufficiently casual to be unaware of codes, but not casual enough to actually find that new facility.

No need - it already exists! This works both ways - code to name, and name to code. I've found it jolly handy over the years, as long as people use (cough splutter) correct codes.

[Bmblbzzz]

Firstly, on station codes: Full Station Name (Official Code) must be the clearest way. I expect some of reasons people don't do this are not knowing it's recommended and not thinking of it, considering what they write is clear enough anyway, and perhaps the biggest, writing in a rush. It may take only an extra second to type the full name but looking up the official code is going to add a bit of time. However, we could probably all benefit from writing with a bit more care sometimes.

Adding official station codes to the glossary must be a mammoth task. In mentioning their absence, I didn't mean to say they were lacking.

But I'm not sure about looking them up. The only thing that occurred to me is a booking engine (as Red Squirrel – RSQ? – has posted). Googling "station code filton abbey wood" or "station code fit" also seems to work, at least as long as the station is in Wikipedia, which I expect most are. But again, time.

Secondly, on the topic: Not only do some of these works need to happen together because they are interconnected (and because one big closure probably causes less disruption overall then several small, connected one) but Metrobus is not a rail project. I don't suppose anyone at GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), Network Rail or any of their contractors has any say in its timings, any more than they do in the ongoing water mains works in the Bristol area.

[Red Squirrel]

Metrobus is not a rail project.

More's the pity!

There is certainly coordination in the timing of roadworks - for example, Cattle Market Road and Prince St Bridge reopened before the Temple Circus scheme started, and Bromley Heath viaduct had to wait for the completion of the MetroBus M32 junction. I suppose there may be some benefit to be had from coordinating rail projects with roadworks, as bignosemac implies, but my guess is that the costs would outweigh the benefits.

[John R]

In terms of station codes, I think the context of the post should guide whether the use of the station code is adequate.  For example, a post on the Daytime Traffic on the Trans-Wilts thread could reasonably refer to the 1736 SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) to WSB^» (Westbury - next trains), and numbers alighting at MKM^» (Melksham (Station code) - next trains), without needing to spell them out in full. 

[Red Squirrel]

In terms of station codes, I think the context of the post should guide whether the use of the station code is adequate.  For example, a post on the Daytime Traffic on the Trans-Wilts thread could reasonably refer to the 1736 SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) to WSB^» (Westbury - next trains), and numbers alighting at MKM^» (Melksham (Station code) - next trains), without needing to spell them out in full. 

Indeed it could. It would be less reasonable however if if referred to SWD, WSY and MSM - three-letter codes which look like station codes but, like BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) and FAW, aren't.

[grahame]

In terms of station codes, I think the context of the post should guide whether the use of the station code is adequate.  For example, a post on the Daytime Traffic on the Trans-Wilts thread could reasonably refer to the 1736 SWI^» (Swindon - next trains) to WSB^» (Westbury - next trains), and numbers alighting at MKM^» (Melksham (Station code) - next trains), without needing to spell them out in full. 

Indeed it could. It would be less reasonable however if if referred to SWD, WSY and MSM - three-letter codes which look like station codes but, like BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) and FAW, aren't.

A Swinderby (SWD) to West Byfleet (WBY) - slightly off even from that suggestion - would be an interesting one to market, with little end to end traffic!!