Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 13:35 28 Mar 2024
* Man held over stabbing in front of train passengers
- 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
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
13:26 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
13:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
12:42 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
12:46 Avonmouth to Weston-Super-Mare
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:07 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:26 Okehampton to Exeter Central
14:05 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
11:29 Weymouth to Gloucester
11:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
12:27 Okehampton to Exeter Central
12:28 Plymouth to Gunnislake
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
14:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
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, 13:38:25 *
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
[142] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[80] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[56] Return of the BRUTE?
[46] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[43] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[34] 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]
  Print  
Author Topic: Junction capacity - Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh  (Read 4299 times)
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


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


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 (Intercity Express Train)) 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 (Great Western Railway) 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» (West of England Combined Authority - about).
Logged

Now, please!
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2020, 14:05:48 »

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

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 #2 on: January 13, 2020, 15:49:32 »

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

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 #3 on: January 13, 2020, 16:59:47 »

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

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2020, 17:10:49 »

Perhaps it needs something like this:



Creative Commons 2.0 license - Ben Brooksbank
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2020, 17:47:26 »


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 (High Speed Train)'s (and then Voyagers) for XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 342


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2020, 18:06:22 »


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 (High Speed Train)'s (and then Voyagers) for XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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» (Bristol Parkway - next trains), then substantial embankment and viaduct, including the one over the M4. That’s even before we start on grade-separation at Westerleigh.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2020, 18:21:44 »


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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40690



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2020, 19:23:29 »

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, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7155


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2020, 20:03:14 »

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» (Network Rail - home page) 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: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2020, 21:00:09 »

<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

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2020, 21:39:49 »


I imagine that the key to stopping trains reaching Parkway is now the LEP» (Local Enterprise Partnership - about) and one hopes NR» (Network Rail - home page) and GWR (Great Western Railway) 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: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2020, 23:36:33 »


I imagine that the key to stopping trains reaching Parkway is now the LEP» (Local Enterprise Partnership - about) and one hopes NR» (Network Rail - home page) and GWR (Great Western Railway) 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» (West of England Combined Authority - about) 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 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