Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 tomorrow - WWRUG - Westbury
16/11/2018 - TWSW AGM
17/11/2018 - GWRA Auction, Pershore
21/11/2018 - First Bath Bus panel
21/11/2018 - Consultation end - Angel Road
26/11/2018 - TransWilts Board and Members
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
November 14, 2018, 12:04:03 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[134] 43185 in 1988 Swallow livery
[97] How much will it cost? Expanding the network.
[92] Four track for Filton Bank - ongoing discussion
[68] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[56] MetroBus
[38] HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general dis...
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Bristol Undergound  (Read 1161 times)
JC
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile Email
« on: May 04, 2018, 04:23:58 pm »

Plans were published some 9 months ago for a Bristol Underground.

These plans were generally welcomed as the congestion problems in and around Bristol as we all recognize are severe. Some considerable doubt was cast however over the funding required for such a radical scheme. If Bristol is to have a future as a dynamic city this is a massive hurdle that has to be overcome. I would suggest that doubters visit Bordeaux to see what can be achieved.

In terms of what the scheme as proposed would deliver was in my mind, however, most disappointing.
Principally, the catchment area was within a narrow north/south channel, so that there was little attraction to residents living in Western or Eastern areas. Further, the system proposed was very much Bristol city centre centric. The newly introduced Metrobus line also occupied much the same catchment areas.

My view at the time was that there had to be a more imaginative design that would address these issues.

The intention was to use much of the existing infrastructure where possible. On the continent, where new integrated city transport networks have been successfully introduced, this was shown to be crucial in delivering a cost-effective solution.

It was also felt highly desirable to link up with the Henbury loop line which has gained considerable support and backing.

Another key consideration was the need to minimise disruption during the construction phase where possible.

If we are to have an integrated transport system, we have to have in my mind a plan that embraces a vision which people and the politicians can buy into. In the interim, we should go with a sticky plaster approach for the short term if needs must, provided it conforms with the overall plan/vision. To achieve these goals and commitment all round, healthy debate has to be encouraged.

As regards myself, I would describe myself as a frustrated Bristol resident shocked at the transport legacy systems in use, shocked at the political in-fighting within the whole area, and shocked at the lack of foresight/imagination of the powers that be.

The plan I have put together is based on 3 loops, together with an Airport Expressway.

See attached Link for Bristol city centre map and 3 Loops Solution schema.
   
https://ibb.co/n28Pg7

https://ibb.co/eikRuS



The overall schema entails 4 interlinked construction projects to be phased over some 15 years.

There will be numerous civil engineering challenges but none of which are perceived to be insurmountable.

It is envisaged the network will consist of a combination of existing tracks, new tracks both overhead and above ground, plus underground tracks - some of which in the centre will be tunnelled below Bristol's waterways.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 02:28:52 pm by JC » Logged
JC
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2018, 07:27:23 pm »



« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 05:06:34 pm by JC » Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22447



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2018, 04:31:32 pm »

Plans were published some 9 months ago for a Bristol Underground.

These plans were generally welcomed as the congestion problems in and around Bristol as we all recognize are severe. Some considerable doubt was cast however over the funding required for such a radical scheme. If Bristol is to have a future as a dynamic city this is a massive hurdle that has to be overcome. I would suggest that doubters visit Bordeaux to see what can be achieved.

In terms of what the scheme as proposed would deliver was in my mind, however, most disappointing.
Principally, the catchment area was within a narrow north/south channel, so that there was little attraction to residents living in Western or Eastern areas. Further, the system proposed was very much Bristol city centre centric. The newly introduced Metrobus line also occupied much the same catchment areas.

My view at the time was that there had to be a more imaginative design that would address these issues.

I applaud you for your imagination, JC.  And for your look at precedent and the sort of thing that can be achieved - in your example Bordeaux.

There are many, many experts who have qualifications and experience in town and city and transport planning and operation, and vested interests in that field too.  I don't know your background, but the knee-jerk reaction to the potentially inexperienced, though bright and thoughtful idea is to wonder what's wrong with it, on the basis that the whole business is far too complicated for a newcomer to understand, so something must be wrong.  Such experts may have a natural aversion to not-invented-here, a feeling that the suggester isn't going to stick around for the long term and could give them a baby then leave them to bring it up, and a feeling that it's going to be biased towards providing a superb service for the suggester's home and typical journey far more that it merits.  They will also,almost inevitably, be in the midst of 2, 5, 10 and 20 year transport and scheme plans, in which effort and money will have been invested, and will not want to change horses mid-race, with a problem that the race is a perpetual one so there's never a good time to change.  Please do not shoot the messenger!

Quote
The intention was to use much of the existing infrastructure where possible. On the continent, where new integrated city transport networks have been successfully introduced, this was shown to be crucial in delivering a cost-effective solution.

Yes, sensible

Quote
It was also felt highly desirable to link up with the Henbury loop line which has gained considerable support and backing.

Generallity - who felt that.  Figures?  Evidence?  Group policy?  I'm asking the questions here that others will wonder but may not ask.

Quote
Another key consideration was the need to minimise disruption during the construction phase where possible.

GWR and Network Rail don't seem to agree with you on that one - or if they do, they're not making a very good job of it.

There is indeed a need to keep services running ... but there is a balance between time, cost of work, and disruption.  For example, they have gone for 50 weekdays of closure of Pewsey, Bedwyn, Kintbury, Hunderford, Newbury, Newbury Racecourse, Midgham, Thatcham and Aldermaston this year to get works done quicker and cheaper than if they worked at nights and on Sundays.   Same thing for Filton Bank and the Severn Tunnel.

Quote
.... To achieve these goals and commitment all round, healthy debate has to be encouraged.

As regards myself, I would describe myself as a frustrated Bristol resident shocked at the transport legacy systems in use, shocked at the political in-fighting within the whole area, and shocked at the lack of foresight/imagination of the powers that be.

Agreed on healthy debate ... but then JFDI.  (definition of JFDI within [here] )


Quote
The plan I have put together is based on 3 loops, together with an Airport Expressway.[See attached] The overall schema entails 4 interlinked construction projects to be phased over some 15 years.

There will be numerous civil engineering challenges but none of which are perceived to be insurmountable.

It is envisaged the network will consist of a combination of existing tracks, new tracks both overhead and above ground, plus underground tracks - some of which in the centre will be tunnelled below Bristol's waterways.

I'm going to let others comment on that; I am not a Bristolian and have enough different views and thoughts from experts, politicians and residents without me (none of those three) chucking another load of specifics and ideas in.  If it were me, I might suggest that Portishead could be served by a branch off a redoubled Severn Beach line at Sea Mills to Pill - a few hundred yards of straight and level track, with (admittedly) a bridge, that would make a huge saving through the gorge.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
eXPassenger
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 113


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2018, 06:53:14 pm »

I'm going to let others comment on that; I am not a Bristolian and have enough different views and thoughts from experts, politicians and residents without me (none of those three) chucking another load of specifics and ideas in.  If it were me, I might suggest that Portishead could be served by a branch off a redoubled Severn Beach line at Sea Mills to Pill - a few hundred yards of straight and level track, with (admittedly) a bridge, that would make a huge saving through the gorge.

The problem with a bridge at Pill is headroom.  I believe that the requirement for tall ships to reach Bristol (which resulted in the very high M5 bridge at Avonmouth) still applies so your bridge will need to be a swing bridge.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22447



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2018, 07:06:55 pm »

I'm going to let others comment on that; I am not a Bristolian and have enough different views and thoughts from experts, politicians and residents without me (none of those three) chucking another load of specifics and ideas in.  If it were me, I might suggest that Portishead could be served by a branch off a redoubled Severn Beach line at Sea Mills to Pill - a few hundred yards of straight and level track, with (admittedly) a bridge, that would make a huge saving through the gorge.

The problem with a bridge at Pill is headroom.  I believe that the requirement for tall ships to reach Bristol (which resulted in the very high M5 bridge at Avonmouth) still applies so your bridge will need to be a swing bridge.

There you go - told you not to listen to me about Bristol  Grin  Grin  Grin .   Wonder what the relative cost of a swing bridge is, and whether it would be more acceptable to Network Rail than the Ashton Gate level crossing issue?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
martyjon
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1219


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2018, 08:29:55 pm »

I'm going to let others comment on that; I am not a Bristolian and have enough different views and thoughts from experts, politicians and residents without me (none of those three) chucking another load of specifics and ideas in.  If it were me, I might suggest that Portishead could be served by a branch off a redoubled Severn Beach line at Sea Mills to Pill - a few hundred yards of straight and level track, with (admittedly) a bridge, that would make a huge saving through the gorge.

The problem with a bridge at Pill is headroom.  I believe that the requirement for tall ships to reach Bristol (which resulted in the very high M5 bridge at Avonmouth) still applies so your bridge will need to be a swing bridge.

Sea Mills - Change here for ferry to Pill.
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16207


Question everything.


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2018, 10:50:08 pm »

Sea Mills - Change here for ferry to Pill.

Nah. Its Shirehampton for the Pill Ferry. Well it was until 1974. Wink



You get a great view across the river to Pill whilst supping an ale in the beer garden of the Lamplighters Inn, Shirehampton.

One of the last boats used as a ferry at Pill is still used as a passenger ferry around the Floating Harbour in Bristol.

https://www.bristolferry.com/our-boats/margaret/
Logged

Former FGW/GWR regular passenger. No more. Despicable company.
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 540


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2018, 07:59:02 pm »

Time for a few hundred yards of tunnelling then.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2270


The first town plan. An idea that had legs.


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2018, 11:23:21 pm »

I'm going to let others comment on that; I am not a Bristolian and have enough different views and thoughts from experts, politicians and residents without me (none of those three) chucking another load of specifics and ideas in.  If it were me, I might suggest that Portishead could be served by a branch off a redoubled Severn Beach line at Sea Mills to Pill - a few hundred yards of straight and level track, with (admittedly) a bridge, that would make a huge saving through the gorge.

The problem with a bridge at Pill is headroom.  I believe that the requirement for tall ships to reach Bristol (which resulted in the very high M5 bridge at Avonmouth) still applies so your bridge will need to be a swing bridge.

Sea Mills - Change here for ferry to Pill.

You'd be better by far in the Duke or the Star...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9rZdEXRqt8
Logged

Sir. Does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?
Red Squirrel
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2270


The first town plan. An idea that had legs.


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2018, 10:41:32 am »

South Glos Mayor Marvin Trump has made his 'State of the Nation' address. Apparently everything was awful when he took over, but it's all brilliant now, so that's all good.

For me, the most thrilling bit concerned the new Bristol Underground. According to Bristol 24/7:

Quote
“We’re not talking about the London tube with 200-metre long trains. A key element of what makes it possible and quicker is we may not even need rails or track – some automated systems around the world just run by following a simple white line painted on the floor. But we are clearly planning for a segregated, mass transit system using tunnels and infrastructure appropriate for Bristol’s future needs.”

I think this statement is helpful because it is good to know where to set your expectations: slightly better than a wheezing corporation bus, but not quite as compellingly indulgent as MetroBus.
Logged

Sir. Does this mean that Ann-Margret's not coming?
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16207


Question everything.


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2018, 04:25:45 pm »

You can't have people in tunnels under a city, or in segregated mass transit, Marvin.

That's a security liability.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Former FGW/GWR regular passenger. No more. Despicable company.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1605


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2018, 08:28:58 pm »

You can't have people in tunnels under a city, or in segregated mass transit, Marvin.

That's a security liability.  Roll Eyes
No, it's only the proximity to Temple Meads that would make it a security liability. Which is obviously why MetroFuss doesn't go there.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
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]
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants