Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 15:35 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?
- Jet2 launches first flight from Liverpool airport
- 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 (1992)
MOD Kineton tour, branch line society (*)

Train RunningCancelled
13:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
15:10 Newquay to Par
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
16:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
Short Run
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
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, 15:47:19 *
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: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 72
  Print  
Author Topic: Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion  (Read 384441 times)
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #360 on: August 10, 2014, 12:47:47 »

doesn't ScotRail's new borders railway have any level crossings?

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/33443/borders_spring_2014_newsletter.pdf

Quote
Network Rail has a policy not to introduce new level-crossings to the rail network due to the dangers they can pose. The Borders Railway will therefore not have a single level-crossing. Instead, we are constructing a number of new footbridges and pathways to better connect local communities to each other and the new stations.
Thanks for that. I note however that the TrawsLinkCymru website now claims network rail support:
Quote
Having had a meeting with Network Rail in Cardiff in June we are convinced that they are keen to reinstate the railway link between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth and are fully supportive of our campaign. We do need political support so that the money for a feasibility study can be obtained.
Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #361 on: August 10, 2014, 13:16:41 »

Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?

Yes if it follows the original route into Aberystwyth.  However other routes may be possible to link with the existing line to the east of Aberystwyth which would get round some other obstructions in the town. 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 13:24:57 by ellendune » Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #362 on: August 10, 2014, 23:23:21 »

Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?

Yes if it follows the original route into Aberystwyth.  However other routes may be possible to link with the existing line to the east of Aberystwyth which would get round some other obstructions in the town.
Original route or no, I can't see any way of doing it without a level crossing. If Network Rail can, maybe they can dream something up for Portishead too. If they can make one of the two work, why can't they make both work?
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #363 on: August 11, 2014, 07:38:30 »

Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?

Yes if it follows the original route into Aberystwyth.  However other routes may be possible to link with the existing line to the east of Aberystwyth which would get round some other obstructions in the town.
Original route or no, I can't see any way of doing it without a level crossing. If Network Rail can, maybe they can dream something up for Portishead too. If they can make one of the two work, why can't they make both work?

The original route at Llanfarian, just south of Aberystwyth turned west at towards the coast and came into the station through the harbour area.  If instead it turned slightly east at that point it could cut through open country and join the existing railway near where it crosses the A44 on a bridge, I see a potential to do without a level crossing.

In Portishead there is not the same option as there is no existing railway into the town.   
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 07:52:15 by ellendune » Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #364 on: August 11, 2014, 09:21:11 »

Do Network Rail realise a level crossing would be required to connect any new line from Carmarthen into Aberystwyth station? If they do, then why won't they allow Portishead to have a level crossing if that is the only way to provide an optimal station?

Yes if it follows the original route into Aberystwyth.  However other routes may be possible to link with the existing line to the east of Aberystwyth which would get round some other obstructions in the town.
Original route or no, I can't see any way of doing it without a level crossing. If Network Rail can, maybe they can dream something up for Portishead too. If they can make one of the two work, why can't they make both work?

The original route at Llanfarian, just south of Aberystwyth turned west at towards the coast and came into the station through the harbour area.  If instead it turned slightly east at that point it could cut through open country and join the existing railway near where it crosses the A44 on a bridge, I see a potential to do without a level crossing.

In Portishead there is not the same option as there is no existing railway into the town.
'Cut through' literally, as I think what you suggest there would require double the tunneling I had presumed would be needed to build a new route into Aberystwyth (the route I had in mind would require a new level crossing). That bridge over the A44 is quite a way to the east... And how does a flat-crossing over a heritage railway (like at Porthmadog) compare to a level crossing with full barriers and a footbridge for able-bodied pedestrians in terms of saftey etc.?
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #365 on: August 11, 2014, 21:58:10 »

'Cut through' literally, as I think what you suggest there would require double the tunneling I had presumed would be needed to build a new route into Aberystwyth (the route I had in mind would require a new level crossing). That bridge over the A44 is quite a way to the east... And how does a flat-crossing over a heritage railway (like at Porthmadog) compare to a level crossing with full barriers and a footbridge for able-bodied pedestrians in terms of saftey etc.?

It would not be straight but potentially could get through where the main road goes through the gap.  However I was just using it to illustrate that there are more possible alternatives to a level crossing, than with at Portishead.   
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #366 on: August 11, 2014, 23:41:11 »

Posting here in a purely personal capacity, as I really don't have any expert / inside information on the subject:

My understanding of the situation at Portishead is that the Office of Rail Regulation will not allow Network Rail to build a new level crossing because there is a viable alternative - a road overbridge.  The fact that such a proposed bridge is obviously unpopular doesn't alter their decision: the Office of Rail Regulation would only allow the provision of a new level crossing where there is no practical alternative (for example, due to local geology or topography).

I certainly don't agree with that - but there it is.  Roll Eyes
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.
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1499


View Profile
« Reply #367 on: August 22, 2014, 11:59:01 »

TRANSPORT chiefs have agreed to present a case to the Office of the Rail Regulator for the use of a level crossing at Portishead's new railway station. The MetroWest project team, which is leading the drive to get trains running from the town again by 2019, confirmed the move this week.

It follows pressure from Portishead Town Council which has been campaigning for the original site for the station ^ at Harbour Road ^ and a level crossing to be reconsidered as part of the MetroWest project.

Harbour Road was earmarked 20 years ago for a new station as part of the masterplan drawn up for the Portishead Quays development.

But it was later ruled out after rail regulators said no further level crossings should be built in the UK (United Kingdom), except in "exceptional circumstances".


In a consultation held as part of the MetroWest scheme, three sites ^ two at Quays Avenue and one at Serbert Way ^ were put forward for a station. Town councillors wrote to the local enterprise partnership earlier this month asking for it to appoint a team of consultants to work on a business case for a level crossing ^ and allocated ^50,000 towards the cost.

A MetroWest spokesman said: "The MetroWest project team will be preparing the necessary details to submit a case to the Office of Rail Regulation regarding the possibility of 'exceptional circumstances' to allow a level crossing at Quays Avenue. It is expected that the draft submission will be prepared by the end of October, but at this stage the timescale is not fixed."

The ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) has said to make an informed decision it expects the applicant to provide "sufficiently compelling" evidence to demonstrate there is an exceptional need.

The news that a business case is being drawn up for a level crossing has been welcomed by local councillors, including Arthur Terry.

Mr Terry said: "I am pleased that a decision has been made to carry out a full evaluation of the option of a level crossing which will go to the Office of the Rail Regulator. The business case is due to be completed by the end of October.

"We still believe that Harbour Road is still the best site for the station and that a level crossing will be the safest and least disruptive option."

A consultation on the three sites has now closed and North Somerset Council will use the responses as part of the process to decide the location for a new station.

However, any decision is likely to be put on hold until the level crossing option is fully investigated.



Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/New-stationWork-begins-case-level-crossing/story-22799713-detail/story.html#ixzz3B7KWqFIa
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/New-stationWork-begins-case-level-crossing/story-22799713-detail/story.html#toxMPvO4HPdg4Cr5.99
Logged
chuffed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1499


View Profile
« Reply #368 on: August 22, 2014, 12:11:48 »

A road overbridge is a most expensive  sledgehammer to crack a nut and would be the most dreadful visual intrusion especially for the residents of Haven Lodge nursing home opposite.

The latest proposal of a rail under road cutting as proposed in the North Somerset Times this week seems to conveniently  forget the fact that this part of Portishead is barely above sea level. When  road work was done, earlier this year, near Gordano School, you could see sea water at the bottom of a ten foot trench !

It would seem that the only way to make the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) see sense about this, is to get them out of their ivory sidings and hire a train to bring them down so they can see for themselves that a level crossing really is the only solution. Surely that would be a far more effective and cheaper use of the ^50.000  earmarked by the Town Council, than yet MORE consultations that only ever seem to make money for the consultants, and just delays things even further!
Logged
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6435


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #369 on: August 23, 2014, 18:38:23 »

A road overbridge is a most expensive  sledgehammer to crack a nut and would be the most dreadful visual intrusion especially for the residents of Haven Lodge nursing home opposite.

The latest proposal of a rail under road cutting as proposed in the North Somerset Times this week seems to conveniently  forget the fact that this part of Portishead is barely above sea level. When  road work was done, earlier this year, near Gordano School, you could see sea water at the bottom of a ten foot trench !

It would seem that the only way to make the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) see sense about this, is to get them out of their ivory sidings and hire a train to bring them down so they can see for themselves that a level crossing really is the only solution. Surely that would be a far more effective and cheaper use of the ^50.000  earmarked by the Town Council, than yet MORE consultations that only ever seem to make money for the consultants, and just delays things even further!

True on every point, chuffed, although I accept that the residential centre of Posset has moved. A new station in Quats Avenue would be accessible to many thousands of passengers.

But I still think the original site is the best. ORR have not been asked if they will allow a level crossing - everyone has simply assumed they won't. ^50K on top of a project cost in the likely region of ^50m is not a lot to ask ORR nicely.

When they say "NO!!!", we can get on with it.
Logged

Now, please!
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #370 on: August 23, 2014, 19:53:16 »

Erm .. in post number 347 above, and subsequent discussion, it was confirmed that the Office of Rail Regulation have been asked about the possibility of building a new level crossing at Portishead - and the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) said, "NO!!!".

The latest ^50,000 investment / gamble / money down the drain is apparently only intended to establish whether "NO!!!" means "NO!!!".


Admin note: I'm posting here in a personal capacity - I certainly don't agree with the situation, but I'm rather afraid that's what the response will be from the ORR.
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.
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1243



View Profile
« Reply #371 on: August 24, 2014, 16:27:59 »

So how about a six inch high double leaf bascule bridge that folds down on to the railway tracks. It is not a level crossing but a bridge! 

And the bridge-leaves act as an additional barrier to people and vehicles, but without a significant height penalty.

This is of course Tongue an expensive tongue in cheek solution Tongue, but it might demonstrate the ridiculousness of an entrenched position by the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 16:43:38 by Oxonhutch » Logged
trainer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1035


View Profile
« Reply #372 on: August 24, 2014, 17:37:06 »

it might demonstrate the ridiculousness of an entrenched position by the ORR» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about).

I think the 'entrenched' position is the one being advocated by those who want to burrow under the road!  Cheesy
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #373 on: September 09, 2014, 12:21:39 »

From the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Quote
West rail improvement plans submitted for funding


Re-opening the Portishead line, which closed in 1964, is part of the MetroWest Phase 1 project, being overseen by the West of England Partnership

A ^58m plan to improve railway services in and around Bristol and Bath is to be submitted to the government.

If approved, the proposal would see half-hourly services for the Severn Beach line, the Bath-to-Bristol line and a re-opened Portishead line.

The MetroWest Phase 1 project aims to reopen the Portishead line to passenger train services by Spring 2019.

The bid has been drawn up by the Joint Transport Board for the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership.

Chairman Brian Allinson said he hoped a decision would come in the next six months. He said: "We are talking about a lot of money, and the money has to be programmed. The money we want is programmed to be available at that time."

Potential locations for a new Portishead rail station were discussed in a public consultation over the summer. The three locations under consideration are east of Quays Avenue, across Quays Avenue and between Serbert Road and Harbour Road.

Mr Allinson confirmed a final decision had yet to be made on the location, but said: "We are still hoping that it will be close to the town centre."
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 #374 on: September 09, 2014, 16:35:18 »


Quote

Chairman Brian Allinson said he hoped a decision would come in the next six months. He said: "We are talking about a lot of money, and the money has to be programmed. The money we want is programmed to be available at that time."

A lot of money? Come now, Cllr Allinson, it's likely to come in under a mere ^50 million. Now, I couldn't dip my hand to my pocket and pull that much out, but it is not a huge wad of cash for such an important infrastructure project. This is the same Cllr Allinson who wants to spend ^200 million on MetroBust, a lame duck project with virtually zero support, according to one of its most ardent supporters. There is no land to buy, unless a new station site away from Quays Avenue is required. Public support seems to far outweigh opposition, something that cannot be said of MetroBust, so there is little chance of the councils needing to spend money contesting judicial reviews and the like. The work will surely be commissioned and overseen by Network Rail, who are getting good at delivering on time and budget.

The track is still there apart from the bit across Quays Avenue, and the points for the Portbury Junction are still in the undergrowth. They could be re-instated in a day, and if the line could be bodged enough to take a delivery of rail at 2 mph if necessary, then the rail could be positioned in the four-foot in very long lengths, to be relaid by one of those magnificent machines, and formed into continuously welded rail. As we have seen with the Airdrie - Bathgate link, and will see with the Borders line, the actual laying and commissioning of track is a relatively speedy process.

The day that ^50 million isn't a pretty penny is hopefully some distance away, but it isn't a lot in the scheme of things. The impact of spending it on the 25,000 people within the catchment area will be huge, and could kick start the Temple Meads enterprise zone by bringing people from Posset within 17 minutes. Who knows - it could be a good candidate for expansion via tram-train if the Sheffield experiment goes well. The work to reopen the line will also involve improvements to the current freight-only line, so giving a fringe benefit. All of which is more than can be said for MetroBust.
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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 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