Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 5206
There are some who call me... Tim
|
 |
« Reply #315 on: February 26, 2014, 20:58:10 » |
|
Blooming frustrating, all this waiting...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #316 on: February 26, 2014, 21:18:13 » |
|
Although I doubt you will get anyone to admit it, I have always rather suspected that Portishead isnt pushed to completion because they fear demand would soon outstrip the amount of rolling stock you could reasonably allocate to what would be a frequency restricted service due to infrastructure constraints.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trainer
|
|
« Reply #317 on: February 26, 2014, 22:23:17 » |
|
Although I doubt you will get anyone to admit it, I have always rather suspected that Portishead isnt pushed to completion because they fear demand would soon outstrip the amount of rolling stock you could reasonably allocate to what would be a frequency restricted service due to infrastructure constraints.
I think this is very likely. If Ebbw Vale can take off as well as it did in a less-than-ideal economic period, then I think demand from Portishead and Pill could easily outstrip an hourly Class 150 (or similar) from the beginning, particularly in the peak. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #318 on: February 27, 2014, 13:35:32 » |
|
The now lapsed GRIP3 report envisaged half-hourly services, 4-car at peak, 2-car off peak.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #319 on: February 27, 2014, 14:43:02 » |
|
The now lapsed GRIP3 report envisaged half-hourly services, 4-car at peak, 2-car off peak.
GRIP3 report envisaged hourly services off-peak. The report also made the point that the proposed service will meet current demand, but offers no judgement regarding future growth. Therefore, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that demand could outstrip capacity very quickly, and with platforms restricted to 4-coach, it would be interesting to see what the fallback plan is. Now, don't get me wrong - I think you need to be bold and build it. I can see why a rather less bold status quo might fear the consequences, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Posts: 6438
The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!
|
|
« Reply #320 on: February 27, 2014, 17:50:32 » |
|
I can see why a rather less bold status quo might fear the consequences, though.
Agreed - it will wreck the MetroBust ridership and the LA Park & Ride. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Now, please!
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #321 on: February 27, 2014, 19:00:03 » |
|
The now lapsed GRIP3 report envisaged half-hourly services, 4-car at peak, 2-car off peak.
Now, don't get me wrong - I think you need to be bold and build it. I can see why a rather less bold status quo might fear the consequences, though. 4 car trains at peak hours, and you're probably looking at 3 trains so a total of 12 cars of dmu. In current times, where there is a shortage of trains / vehicles of this type, a natural but unfortunate competition can develop between the advocates of new flow provision (which, by definition, do not have an established base of users) and the advocates of strengthening flow provision, where you do have that established base and it might be quite vocal. As electrification rolls in and local Thames Valley diesel trains are released to run elsewhere, this may become less of an issue - or it may not if Cardiff / Portsmouth needs to go up to 6 cars, the second train in the hour from Bristol to Westbury always carries on to Weymouth, and so on. And perhaps other new services such as Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley to Manchester may soak up others. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
Posts: 5206
There are some who call me... Tim
|
|
« Reply #322 on: February 27, 2014, 21:16:43 » |
|
My head implodes at the thought that people don't do things because they might succeed. Maybe that's why I'm an engineer, not a politician.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #323 on: February 27, 2014, 21:38:01 » |
|
You wouldnt have enjoyed being us in the lean TransWilts years then, RS.
On the upside, we've seen far more co-ordination and support from the official players since improved services got the green light, and this followed on from a gradual move toward genuine partnership that began some time before that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #324 on: June 15, 2014, 12:56:03 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #325 on: June 15, 2014, 23:19:08 » |
|
From the BBC» : Portishead railway station location consultation beginsPotential locations for a new Portishead rail station are being discussed in a public consultation. Proposals to re-open the line are part of a ^100m investment in the local area's rail infrastructure. It was originally closed in 1964 and the revamp is part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project, being overseen by the West of England Partnership. The project team has identified three potential station locations and is asking for comments. North Somerset Council will use responses to decide later this year where the station will be located. 'Making progress'The three locations under consideration are east of Quays Avenue, across Quays Avenue and between Serbert Road and Harbour Road. The MetroWest Phase 1 project aims to reopen the Portishead line to passenger train services by Spring 2019. The line will restore the rail link between the town and Bristol city centre. Leader of North Somerset Council, Nigel Ashton, said: "There is still a lot to do before we could confirm re-opening the Portishead line, but we are making progress. "Considering the viable options for a station is an important part of the project." The proposals can be viewed and comments submitted online at the project website. Two exhibitions are also being held at Portishead Methodist Church on 24 and 28 June. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
- Sir Terry Pratchett.
|
|
|
|
alan_s
|
|
« Reply #326 on: June 24, 2014, 23:49:15 » |
|
I popped along to the "exhibition" this evening - to be honest it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from the website - though it was useful being able to see the maps greatly enlarged so it was clear exactly where things were going!
I still fail to understand why a level crossing is out of the question, when we're talking final approach to a dead end platform at about 10mph - and there is already a level crossing on the line near Ashton Gate - there is nothing about closing that one!
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Umberleigh
|
|
« Reply #327 on: June 29, 2014, 12:32:42 » |
|
I popped along to the "exhibition" this evening - to be honest it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from the website - though it was useful being able to see the maps greatly enlarged so it was clear exactly where things were going!
I still fail to understand why a level crossing is out of the question, when we're talking final approach to a dead end platform at about 10mph - and there is already a level crossing on the line near Ashton Gate - there is nothing about closing that one!
Alan
My understanding is that NEW level crossings have been banned anywhere, even on major infrastructure projects |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
alan_s
|
|
« Reply #328 on: June 29, 2014, 20:59:16 » |
|
major infrastructure projects I can understand, but not minor ones like this. 1 train per hour in each direction, under 10mph! Wouldn't be a problem if this was a tram ...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trainer
|
|
« Reply #329 on: June 29, 2014, 22:01:39 » |
|
Wouldn't be a problem if this was a tram ...
But it isn't. However, perhaps one day? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
