Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
GWR advice during Coronavirus
Coffee Shop during Coronavirus
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 07/07/2020 - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
08/07/2020 - Melksham RUG - ONLINE
15/07/2020 - Harness social media - ONLINE
22/07/2020 - Melksham Rail User Group CANX
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
July 05, 2020, 11:46:23 pm *
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
[192] Thank you, Infoman, for your daily diary of rail related broad...
[41] Freight in our area
[41] More dangerous overcrowding to the Westcountry
[40] West of England Line CMSP study
[34] It would be so much easier to run public transport without the...
[13] Cross Country - Emergency Timetable overview
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Junction capacity - Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh  (Read 1645 times)
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5059


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« on: January 13, 2020, 01:20:10 pm »


Here in Bristol it seems very clear that running high(ish) speed trains along existing lines seriously limits the scope for local services. Since the December 2019 timetable change, we have fewer cross-city trains in Bristol and no direct daytime trains from Lawrence Hill or Stapleton Road to Bristol Parkway because 'premium business traffic' (in the form of London-bound IETs) has been prioritised over all else.

Campaigns to open new stations at Wootton Bassett, Coalpit Heath, St Anne's Park, Saltford and Corsham, or to provide a meaningful service at Pilning, or to reopen the Thornbury branch to passengers, are all to a greater or lesser extent held back by pathing issues. If it wasn't for all these trains, we could have a train service.

The Bristol situation seems to have come about primarily because of the increased traffic to London via Parkway, both from Temple Meads and South Wales. The former local trains to parkway now turn back at Filton Abbey Wood, which is fine for MoD commuters who live south of the office, much less so for a lot of other people. There is a body of opinion that sees this as temporary, with a proper service resumed in May, but I am sceptical. It seems that this came as a surprise to GWR and the local transport chiefs after VAR intervened on the new timetable. There were hopes of new stations, as Red Squirrel says, as well as more trains from Yate, and possibly an improvement in the Gloucester service. This seems to have rather thrown a hand grenade into MetroWest Rail phase 2, to follow the time bomb ticking under Phase 1. At least Henbury should be okay, or as okay as it is ever likely to be.

It is clearly not acceptable to the greater Bristol area. It is lovely to have nice new rapid trains heading to where the money is, but it does precious little to solve the area's chronic transport problems, just like WECA.
Logged

Now, please!
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3668


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2020, 02:05:48 pm »

Indeed.

If I may continue this off-topic meander for a moment, I found myself staring at the Norton Bridge scheme and wondering whether something like that could be applied to Stoke Gifford - Westerleigh Jct. A nice grade-separated junction at Stoke Gifford could work wonders, and another at Westerleigh would open the door to a world of possibilities. Run an extra pair of tracks between them, and we'd be back to the kind of capacity we had before they turned the Midland route into a cycle track park.

How much would that cost? Probably £500-600 million. Not much more than the proposed Jct 18a on the M4...
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2020, 03:49:32 pm »

It was said earlier, in another thread, that the problem with capacity is that you can only get to Parkway from platforms 1 and 2. If that is the major bottleneck then doesn't something need to be done with that junction rather than at Stoke Gifford? Or maybe as well as... ? Or is that not the main problem?
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3668


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2020, 04:59:47 pm »

I would think that any major changes to Stoke Gifford Jct would bring about a redesign of the western throat (it that's the right word!) at Bristol Parkway...
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29880



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2020, 05:10:49 pm »

Perhaps it needs something like this:



Creative Commons 2.0 license - Ben Brooksbank
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 779


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2020, 05:47:26 pm »


It should have occurred to those in authority that the closure of the Midland route into Bristol would require more capacity in compensation between Yate/Westerleigh and Stoke Gifford. Also buying HST's (and then Voyagers) for XC and then subjecting them to the gentle speed limit around the Yate curves seems contradictory.

The distance in question is only about four miles although there are bridges and a viaduct.

It's not just northern railways that have been short-changed.

OTC



 
Logged
JontyMort
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 293


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2020, 06:06:22 pm »


It should have occurred to those in authority that the closure of the Midland route into Bristol would require more capacity in compensation between Yate/Westerleigh and Stoke Gifford. Also buying HST's (and then Voyagers) for XC and then subjecting them to the gentle speed limit around the Yate curves seems contradictory.

The distance in question is only about four miles although there are bridges and a viaduct.
 

Yes, Westerleigh to Parkway is seriously heavily-engineered - cutting east of BPW, then substantial embankment and viaduct, including the one over the M4. Thatís even before we start on grade-separation at Westerleigh.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2020, 06:21:44 pm »


It should have occurred to those in authority that the closure of the Midland route into Bristol would require more capacity in compensation between Yate/Westerleigh and Stoke Gifford.
It's a shame but I'm not sure it's fair to say "it should have occurred" to them. Surely it was closed, fifty-plus years ago, because it was deemed surplus to the declining requirements of the time and predicted for the future?

(It would also have deprived us of "Bristol's biggest park" and possibly also of the city's first directly-elected mayor, but that's another topic!)

Quote
It's not just northern railways that have been short-changed.

OTC



 
Unfortunately true.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29880



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2020, 07:23:29 pm »

It should have occurred to those in authority that the closure of the Midland route into Bristol would require more capacity in compensation between Yate/Westerleigh and Stoke Gifford.
It's a shame but I'm not sure it's fair to say "it should have occurred" to them. Surely it was closed, fifty-plus years ago, because it was deemed surplus to the declining requirements of the time and predicted for the future?

I agree ... an expectation of 50 years foresight in the opposite direction to the downwards trend at the time seems unreasonable.  We should be planning for 2070 today, in the full knowledge that telephone boxes might be wanted again.

But I think it would be reasonable to have expected the people who planned to increase Filton Bank from 2 to 4 tracks to have planned for the local trains going up there to have been able to get into the main interchange station at the top (Bristol Parkway) and not terminate a mile and a half short (at Filton Abbey Wood).
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4845


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2020, 08:03:14 pm »

But I think it would be reasonable to have expected the people who planned to increase Filton Bank from 2 to 4 tracks to have planned for the local trains going up there to have been able to get into the main interchange station at the top (Bristol Parkway) and not terminate a mile and a half short (at Filton Abbey Wood).

So do I. Within the bit of NR called "Capacity Planning", where they make their "zero defect timetable" (sic), they play video games to see what works best. The first of those is called the "Infrastructure Editor" (why not "Crayonister"?), so I'm sure new layouts can be subjected to the same sort of what-iffery. In fact, I'm pretty sure they do so - and have done for some years. So no excuses.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2838


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2020, 09:00:09 pm »

<digression>
It should have occurred to those in authority that the closure of the Midland route into Bristol would require more capacity in compensation between Yate/Westerleigh and Stoke Gifford.
It's a shame but I'm not sure it's fair to say "it should have occurred" to them. Surely it was closed, fifty-plus years ago, because it was deemed surplus to the declining requirements of the time and predicted for the future?

I agree ... an expectation of 50 years foresight in the opposite direction to the downwards trend at the time seems unreasonable.  We should be planning for 2070 today, in the full knowledge that telephone boxes might be wanted again.
Interesting one. Appointing myself Minister for Global Communications, it's difficult to see a return to phone boxes, but I do think it would be a mistake to reduce our capacity for physical post delivery, both letters and parcels, or to rely too much on private couriers rather than post offices.

<back on topic>
Quote
But I think it would be reasonable to have expected the people who planned to increase Filton Bank from 2 to 4 tracks to have planned for the local trains going up there to have been able to get into the main interchange station at the top (Bristol Parkway) and not terminate a mile and a half short (at Filton Abbey Wood).
Agree 100%. Very shortsighted and it doesn't require a 50-year forecast.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 779


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2020, 09:39:49 pm »


I imagine that the key to stopping trains reaching Parkway is now the LEP and one hopes NR and GWR are preparing a case for it to fund the infrastructure. Does anyone here have influence?

I realise that Jan 1970, when the Mangotsfield route was slated to close completely was at the height of the Beeching closures (partly by Labour's Barbara Castle) but there was much more freight then, some unfitted, including the output from the South Wales coalfield. I expect that the the pathing diagram for the combined line was not a pretty sight.

K6 telephone boxes sell very well!

OTC
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5059


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2020, 11:36:33 pm »


I imagine that the key to stopping trains reaching Parkway is now the LEP and one hopes NR and GWR are preparing a case for it to fund the infrastructure. Does anyone here have influence?

I realise that Jan 1970, when the Mangotsfield route was slated to close completely was at the height of the Beeching closures (partly by Labour's Barbara Castle) but there was much more freight then, some unfitted, including the output from the South Wales coalfield. I expect that the the pathing diagram for the combined line was not a pretty sight.

K6 telephone boxes sell very well!

OTC

The LEP ceded oversight of public transport to WECA upon the creation of the latter in February 2017. My joy at the transfer was short lived. It might not be entirely down to WECA, but things seem to be going backwards  now, which isn't good. I'm pretty sure that the infrastructure since four-tracking would allow any train from Temple Meads to access any platform at Parkway and vice versa, so the problem seems to be one of fitting trains through the junctions in the required numbers, which seems odd to the layman. WECA is currently busy adding new bus lanes for MetroBust and planning a new rapid transit system between Bristol and Bath to compete with the current one, so don't expect miracles from that quarter. WECA does tarmac, not rail.

Freight isn't what it was when coal was hauled by the thousands of tons from South Wales, and when you think of it, a lot of traffic in the days of steam was to supply coal to the railway itself.
Logged

Now, 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

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page