Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 07:15 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
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
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
06:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
07:00 Bedwyn to Newbury
07:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
07:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
07:49 Bedwyn to Newbury
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:23 Hereford to London Paddington
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:48 Exeter St Davids to Exmouth
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:24 Exmouth to Paignton
07:38 Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance
07:40 Bristol Temple Meads to Westbury
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
Delayed
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
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 29, 2024, 07:28:05 *
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
[82] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[76] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[74] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[67] Return of the BRUTE?
[57] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[46] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 72
  Print  
Author Topic: Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion  (Read 384625 times)
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #255 on: April 21, 2013, 17:00:42 »

From The Post (Bristol):

Quote
Portishead to Bristol railway line reopening ^ business case to be drawn up to keep project on track

Work is to start on drawing up a detailed business case for the re-opening of Portishead railway. North Somerset Council is to work with Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) to draw up a detailed business case for rail improvements over the next ten years.


The old railway line has been cleared alongside the Pill to Portishead cycle path with a view to reopening the line

The work, costing an estimated ^1.35 million, is to be jointly funding by the four councils with North Somerset earmarking ^675,000 towards the project. The funding will also be used to progress preparatory work for the engineering design of the new rail links.

The possible re-opening of the Portishead rail branch line would form part of the Great West Metro Phase One project, which would be the first of a host of major schemes identified to provide a range of improvements to the local rail network. The project includes proposals for half-hourly train services for the re-opened Portishead line, Severn Beach line and local stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Bath Spa. The total cost is estimated at between ^45 million and ^55million, and is expected to be funded from the Department for Transport subject to agreement of the proposed Local Transport Body.

North Somerset Council leader, Councillor Nigel Ashton, said: "This is a really major transport project which has the potential to have massive benefits, not just for North Somerset, but for the whole sub-region. We need to continue our efforts to move the project on sufficiently to secure the full approval and the necessary government funding. Any delay to this work would have a knock-on effect upon project timescales and costs. It is vital that we take a coherent and a credible approach to both the delivery and the operation of the line so that we can continue to present a strong case for the scheme to our funders and at future public inquiries. The process to secure the project is a lengthy one and dependent on a number of elements including funding approvals and planning powers. Authority to build and operate the project still needs to be gained. The process to secure planning powers is lengthy and requires the councils to set out a detailed evidence-based approach."

Work has already been carried out to clear three miles of the railway track to allow surveyors to assess the estimated costs of the work needed to re-open the line.

It is hoped that if Government funding is agreed for the project trains could be running out of Portishead again by 2017 and the Department for Transport is expected to make an announcement on funding later this year.

The work to re-open the town's railway would include re-laying the three miles of redundant track between Portishead and Portbury ^ purchased by North Somerset several years ago to protect it ^ and building a new station. A new road bridge would be built over the railway at Quays Avenue in Portishead and a station would have to be built. A site at Harbour Road was identified for a new railway station several years ago as part of the Portishead Quays development. But council chiefs now say putting a station on this land has raised a number of challenges and other locations for the station need to be considered.

A search for alternative sites has been undertaken and three possible locations have now been shortlisted. These include the site at Harbour Road, one at Quays Avenue and a further site on land on the edge of the town north of Moor Farm at Sheepway.
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #256 on: April 21, 2013, 20:23:57 »

I'm not even sure how they came up with that 17-minute figure. By my reckoning it's nearer 21, plus additional time at Pill whenever two services should be timed to pass one-another if the service is half-hourly. Or are they planning to have only Pill itself as an intermediate station between Portishead and BRI» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), which would weaken the economic case of the service?


The GRIP (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 3 report explains the assumptions. Jump to page 38 in Volume 1, and you will see that double track from Clifton Bridge station, rather than Ashton Gate station as was, is envisaged. Parson Street Junction will be a double lead. From Pill station, there will be two lines. The northernmost will go as now into Royal Portbury Dock. The other will go to Portishead, so there will not be a junction until, IIUC, the Pill end of Pill Viaduct. The timing from Portishead to BRI, with the only stop being Pikk, is estimated at 16^ minutes.

In cracking on with what is in all but name the GRIP 4 process, Cllr Ashton has my full support, unlike the awful BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) proposal, especially if he sticks to the station by Waitrose. That will necessitate a crossing of Quays Avenue, probably by a road bridge costing some ^4 million. That sounds a lot until you consider that the BRT-only junction with the M32 is costed at almost ^14 million, and will achieve nothing like as much good.
Logged

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


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #257 on: April 22, 2013, 09:13:56 »

Had a look at the line immediately north-west of the M5 yesterday; there is a cycle path laid straight down the four foot, using the rails as kerbs. Presumably when the line reopens cyclists will need NR» (Network Rail - home page) training and orange hi-viz to use this section...
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #258 on: April 22, 2013, 20:25:24 »

... also white helmets and steel-toe-capped boots ...  Wink Cheesy Grin
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #259 on: April 22, 2013, 20:51:32 »

And Orange overalls
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #260 on: April 22, 2013, 22:34:04 »

... not forgetting block signalling...
Logged

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


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #261 on: April 23, 2013, 08:47:48 »

... not forgetting block signalling...
...would that be 'brake block' signalling?
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1499


View Profile
« Reply #262 on: April 23, 2013, 18:04:58 »

The deadline for comments on the 3 possible Portishead station sites has passed, and the original Option 1 (at Waitrose) is by far the most popular choice. However what has not really become apparent before now is the growing anti railway feeling being expressed by contributors rather like the one below. I feel that the Portishead Action Group needs to start a more robust, 'gloves off' campaign and to make the wishes of the silent majority heard against this increasingly vocal minority.

Quote
I've have read with interest the proposals for Portishead and in particular the resurrection of the existing railway line. I note that there are 3 options for the siting of the train station and as I live on the Village Quarter, the outcome of this decision is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions in this regard and I wonder if you could provide me with some answers.
 
1. Has any market research been carried out as to who and how often the railway link would be used? Speaking to commuter friends, they have told me that they would not use the line as they work nowhere near Templemeads. In order to get to their place of work, they would need to either get a bus or cab from the Bristol train station, both of which would add to the expense and time of their journey to work which would negate the time savings made on the A369. They have concluded that they would prefer to continue to drive.

2. Could you please tell me when the chosen site for the station will be formally agreed?

3. If option 1 or 2 is chosen, I notice that a footbridge will be erected at the back of Trinity school fields. Can you tell me why? Surely if the station was sited either on Harbour Road or Quays Avenue, there would be no need as passengers would be easily able to walk to Quays Avenue from the Village Quarter or the Vale with no need for such an intrusive bridge. I believe that the bridge would compromise the privacy of the houses and gardens that back onto the school and I am concerned that late at night, when the passengers are groups of people who have been out drinking in Bristol, the garages and fences of those houses - as well as the bridge - would provide an excellent canvas for graffiti, litter and urination. Such a bridge would not ensure a connection between the Vale and the Village Quarter either as there are further ditches and rivers to cross. Surely a better site for such a bridge would be the other side of Trinity School where schoolchildren currently cross to access Trinity, St Peter's, St Joseph's and Gordano schools without forcing them to use the main roads.

4. If option 3 is chosen, a footpath will be built through a residential area which will compromise the security and privacy of residents in that area. Surely, passengers would not want to walk down a narrow path and out of the station at night either as this represents a security risk to them also.

5. The fact that option 3 is so far out of town as to make walking to it seriously unlikely, any congestion in the Quays Avenue, Harbour Road and Sheepway areas will be exacerbated rather than alleviated. Added to this the fact that parking will become an issue for residents of the Village Quarter (already something of a problem) with commuters wishing to avoid the station car park costs or the journey to the car park simply parking on the Village Quarter and cutting through.

When considering the position of a train station, surely the accessibility for its passengers is the most important factor. Compromising the standard of living of those in the immediate area should be actively avoided. The overriding decision should certainly not be based purely on cost.  The original site (option 1) was chosen for its accessibility and suitability for the town as a whole. The decision to find alternative sites to option 1 appears to be based purely on cost whilst Village Quarter and Vale residents are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. We disagree.
 
On that note, the reinstatement of the railway appears to be being completed on a shoestring. I understand that the track is currently being investigated to check its condition as there is no contingency to have it completely replaced. Also, as the cost of new trains is not a viable option, old rolling stock is planned for use. The council has already admitted that the line will be a loss leader and with old trains being used, this raises the question as to how reliable the service is actually going to be.
 
To summarise, the track and trains are old, the line is never going to make money and the security, privacy and rights of way of residents will be compromised. There is no persuasive evidence that congestion will be reduced within Portishead nor indeed that anyone will actually use the trains consistently enough to reduce congestion on the A369.
 
If the railway is to go ahead, there needs to be real involvement with the community ^ including those both for and against it ^ so that opinions can be heard, research can be made and proper planning can be drawn up and worked on. Up until this point, there has been a strong feeling by many residents of finger-in-the-air planning by North Somerset Council and the pro-Railway Group, which will not serve to benefit the community as a whole, successfully. There is no need for one area of the town to be used as collateral damage in the ruthless pursuit of a plan that has not been properly thought through.

What do other forum memebers think ?



Edit note: Quote marks and formatting within quote amended, purely in the interests of clarity. CfN.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 20:35:09 by chris from nailsea » Logged
trainer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1035


View Profile
« Reply #263 on: April 23, 2013, 19:11:23 »

Thanks for putting this on, chuffed.

The submission has more holes in it than a fishing net.  Fortunately the Planners have a wider strategic view than the writer(s) who are obviously concerned about their own immediate environment.  I don't understand how they managed to buy a property near a corridor reserved a long time ago by North Somerset for a revived railway without knowing or considering the possibilities at the time.  Was it a failure on their part or their solicitors?  I could rip into the loose language and emotive phrases, but haven't the time.

One observation about a comment by chuffed:  invoking the 'silent majority' is always dangerous as, because they are are silent, we don't know what they think.  I'm pleased to say I believe they agree with me  Cheesy.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #264 on: April 24, 2013, 09:02:12 »

I think I would characterise this response as 'educated, but not well-informed':

Quote
Has any market research been carried out as to who and how often the railway link would be used?

Avoiding my natural tendency towards sarcasm for a moment; yes - I presume that's what GRIP (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 1 and 2 cover. (Incidentally if anyone wants a good reference to the GRIP process, here's as good a place as any: http://opsweb.co.uk/tools/risktool-site/GRIP/GRIP-lifecycle.html)

Quote
Speaking to commuter friends, they have told me that they would not use the line as they work nowhere near Templemeads (sic)

That'll be a random sample then? Agreed, Temple Meads has historically been somewhat out on a limb, but Bristol is moving towards it (for details of Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone see http://www.investinbristol.com/pdf/Invest-in-Bristol-Enterprise-Zone-FAQ.pdf). And other destinations are available; Stapleton Rd may not appeal to Portishead folk, but Clifton Down probably will.

Quote
I understand that the track is currently being investigated to check its condition as there is no contingency to have it completely replaced.

If they'd read the local paper (or looked at the state of the track!) they'd know that the 'track condition' survey is purely to establish whether it is good enough to use during construction.

Quote
...old rolling stock is planned for use

I saw a new train the other week - in London; quite exciting it was. Haven't seen one anywhere near Bristol for a while. Welcome to the real world!

Quote
...the line is never going to make money

A concept tried out by Marples/Castle, and now thankfully laid to rest.

Quote
If the railway is to go ahead, there needs to be real involvement with the community ^ including those both for and against it ^ so that opinions can be heard, research can be made and proper planning can be drawn up and worked on.

...or they could just do it the way they normally do; you know, just turn up one day with the jumbo Hornby set and hope for the best! Sorry, I said I'd try not to be sarcastic...
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1499


View Profile
« Reply #265 on: April 24, 2013, 09:24:28 »

Good points there, Red Squirrel!

One other thing to come out of the more positive responses was a clear call for the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to consider a level crossing at Quays Avenue, despite their stated policy of 'no new level crossings', instead of a road over rail bridge. This was considered to be be far too costly, and a visual intrusion into the area. However I do think a lot of rattling of the ORR ivory tower will need to be done for this to happen, so I would encourage everyone to write or email the ORR challenging this policy, and insist they pay a visit to the site.
Logged
trainer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1035


View Profile
« Reply #266 on: April 24, 2013, 09:47:11 »

Sorry, I said I'd try not to be sarcastic...

Quote
What I claim is to live to the full the contradiction of my time, which may well make sarcasm the condition of truth.
Roland Barthes, French Philosopher and all round good egg.
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #267 on: April 24, 2013, 11:26:38 »

One other thing to come out of the more positive responses was a clear call for the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to consider a level crossing at Quays Avenue, despite their stated policy of 'no new level crossings'

I suspect that a statue of Jimmy Savile would be more likely to be approved than a level crossing in the current climate.

I realise it's probably too late to even think about this now, but how practical would it be to close Quays Ave where the line crosses and put in a diversionary road by extending Serbert Way across to the end of Newfoundland Way? I presume this area is earmarked for development anyway?

Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
swrural
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 647


View Profile
« Reply #268 on: April 24, 2013, 15:38:56 »

Just had a look RS - what an eminent solution, so it must be impossible, as I expect they have issued planning consents for the whole area, which they could not now afford to revoke.  In fairness, I imagine that when the area plan was drawn up, this new 'rule' (is it really unchallengeable) did not exist.   
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #269 on: April 24, 2013, 15:45:29 »

One other thing to come out of the more positive responses was a clear call for the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) to consider a level crossing at Quays Avenue, despite their stated policy of 'no new level crossings'

I suspect that a statue of Jimmy Savile would be more likely to be approved than a level crossing in the current climate.

Looking at some pictures of the Manchester tram extensions, it strikes me that there are lots of new road / rail level crossings. What makes them acceptable when a very low speed (as I understand it) at Portishead would not be?  Would Portishead be better served by tram / light rail vehicles which reached Temple Meads from the Cumberland Road area via the south side of the Floating Harbour and Redcliffe Way - or even Welsh Back and Victoria Street?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 72
  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