The Bristol Airport problem

[DevonshireRail]

Wouldn't the best solution to the lack of rail connectivity at Bristol Airport simply be a VLR/parry people mover type system from Nailsea and Backwell station?

It provides connectivity from the east and west

The vehicles should be able to cope with the gradients

It doesn't necessitate the construction of a new station (the nearest point on the mainline to the east is perhaps at best 500 metres closer)

It doesn't necessitate the construction of a hypothetical Bristol tram/metro system

The only downside I can think of for this scheme is the extent to which service frequency can be improved at N&B. It is served once an hour by regional services between Cardiff and Taunton, which probably almost encompasses the catchment. However, the scale and importance of Bristol Airport probably demands a Bristol Parkway level of service provisioning. It's also not the best, highest capacity solution, but should be sufficient to drive some modal shift in the medium term.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Wouldn't the best solution to the lack of rail connectivity at Bristol Airport simply be a VLR/parry people mover type system from Nailsea and Backwell station?

It provides connectivity from the east and west

The vehicles should be able to cope with the gradients

It doesn't necessitate the construction of a new station (the nearest point on the mainline to the east is perhaps at best 500 metres closer)

It doesn't necessitate the construction of a hypothetical Bristol tram/metro system

The only downside I can think of for this scheme is the extent to which service frequency can be improved at N&B. It is served once an hour by regional services between Cardiff and Taunton, which probably almost encompasses the catchment. However, the scale and importance of Bristol Airport probably demands a Bristol Parkway level of service provisioning. It's also not the best, highest capacity solution, but should be sufficient to drive some modal shift in the medium term.

It would be quite a distance; about three times the distance between Luton Airport parkway to Luton Airport and as you point out 1tph wouldn't cut it.

But I agree that any solution won't be heavy rail based.

 

[Magdalia]

The vehicles should be able to cope with the gradients

I think that you underestimate the difficulty here.

I don't know the area so I looked at the Ordnance Survey Map.

The height difference between Nailsea and Backwell station (below 10 metres above sea level) and the airport (about 170 metres above sea level) is about 160 metres.

Even if the route could be built at a continuous gradient, it would need to be about 1 in 30. But that isn't possible because of the topography, the station end of the route would probably need to be steeper than 1 in 20 gradient.

How about a cable car!?

 

[Snow1964]

There is a big space that has been left between the new multi storey car park with bus terminal on top deck and terminal entrance (now closed old bus drop off area).

The reason for the bus terminal on top deck is the site drops away sharply to north and west (the airfield is virtually on a plateau). But of course had they built a station (or shell of a station) in basement of this then it would have been about 40m lower.

The masterplan does have a third multi storey car park adjacent to the old one and newly constructed second one, so could still build a station as lower level under that. Lifts and/or escalators straight to terminal level.

Clearly this would reduce gradient from main line but would involve tunnelling part of the route, not impossible, but not cheap. To the north of the airport there is a huge quarry, so fair so say not the softest material to be tunnelling through.

But in theory would be possible to build a spur from just south of Nailsea and Blackwell, on an embankment or viaduct passing Chelvey, then a tunnel under Brockley Combe to a station under proposed extra multi storey car park.

If Stansted can manage with a single track tunnel then Bristol can too, with a simple 2 platform (flanking island platform) station at end of tunnel. At the other end could start with simple junction, but if higher frequency was required would probably need an flyover for Bristol bound trains longer term.

Ideally would need electrified line throughout to Bristol and trains that currently terminate at Temple Meads (eg those from Westbury, or Gloucester, or proposed Cardiff trains) extended to airport.

 

[Envoy]

Bristol Airport should never have beeb allowed to continue development at the current site. One big airport should have been built to cover the south west portion of the UK - and that includes south Wales. Filton would have been well placed but they went and built Cribb’s Causeway retailing complex and housing in the area. The former Llanwern steelworks had loads of brownfield land once the blast furnaces were cleared away and would have been mid way between Cardiff and Bristol with excellent road and rail links - including an airport station. As things stand now, perhaps a new airport should be built by the M49 near the Amazon site but also near Pilning with an airport station on the south Wales mainline on the English side of the Severn tunnel.

 

[Acathater]

Bristol Airport should never have beeb allowed to continue development at the current site. One big airport should have been built to cover the south west portion of the UK - and that includes south Wales.

Agreed. It should have been either Filton or Weston-super-Mare. Both close to both railway and motorway

 

[Topological]

Bristol Airport should never have beeb allowed to continue development at the current site. One big airport should have been built to cover the south west portion of the UK - and that includes south Wales. Filton would have been well placed but they went and built Cribb’s Causeway retailing complex and housing in the area. The former Llanwern steelworks had loads of brownfield land once the blast furnaces were cleared away and would have been mid way between Cardiff and Bristol with excellent road and rail links - including an airport station. As things stand now, perhaps a new airport should be built by the M49 near the Amazon site but also near Pilning with an airport station on the south Wales mainline on the English side of the Severn tunnel.

Also fully agree. Filton was absolutely perfect and could even handle big planes if the airport ever grew.

Neither Cardiff, nor the present Bristol site, can support a proper regional airport so I fear that the South West and South Wales have locked in a highly suboptimal design.

For complete outlandishness: Build the Bristol to Cardiff High Speed tunnel and extend to Cardiff Airport. The tunnel has a strong case as it speeds up London to Cardiff and Cardiff to Bristol significantly. The extension from Cardiff to Cardiff Airport then allows Cardiff to take on the airport role. The journey time from central Bristol to Cardiff Airport would be similar to the current A1. The only issue is the road access so get the Newport bypass built and the stub from the M4 at Cardiff Airport. Exeter Airport can also handle a couple more flights to compensate those far South West of Bristol.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2026 ==

There is a big space that has been left between the new multi storey car park with bus terminal on top deck and terminal entrance (now closed old bus drop off area).

The reason for the bus terminal on top deck is the site drops away sharply to north and west (the airfield is virtually on a plateau). But of course had they built a station (or shell of a station) in basement of this then it would have been about 40m lower.

The masterplan does have a third multi storey car park adjacent to the old one and newly constructed second one, so could still build a station as lower level under that. Lifts and/or escalators straight to terminal level.

Clearly this would reduce gradient from main line but would involve tunnelling part of the route, not impossible, but not cheap. To the north of the airport there is a huge quarry, so fair so say not the softest material to be tunnelling through.

But in theory would be possible to build a spur from just south of Nailsea and Blackwell, on an embankment or viaduct passing Chelvey, then a tunnel under Brockley Combe to a station under proposed extra multi storey car park.

If Stansted can manage with a single track tunnel then Bristol can too, with a simple 2 platform (flanking island platform) station at end of tunnel. At the other end could start with simple junction, but if higher frequency was required would probably need an flyover for Bristol bound trains longer term.

Ideally would need electrified line throughout to Bristol and trains that currently terminate at Temple Meads (eg those from Westbury, or Gloucester, or proposed Cardiff trains) extended to airport.

I like this solution, bu worry that the airport itself is constrained and that you could not get the levels of traffic that are needed to justify such a big uptick in rail services.

 

[tumbles]

I think the Blagdon light railway line that spurs off the strawberry line would have been more suitable but that's never going to happen. I don't foresee how you can get any light/heavy railway branch to it without significant cost.

 

[iamraymond]

Monorail!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Even if the route could be built at a continuous gradient, it would need to be about 1 in 30. But that isn't possible because of the topography, the station end of the route would probably need to be steeper than 1 in 20 gradient.

Rubber-tyred trams (and I don't mean buses, I mean more like the trams in places like Clermont-Ferrand) should be able to cope with 1-in-20.

Neither Cardiff, nor the present Bristol site, can support a proper regional airport so I fear that the South West and South Wales have locked in a highly suboptimal design.

This is the real issue. In the 90s both airports were about the same size in terms of traffic, but since the turn of the century the airport traffic has concentrated on Bristol. Cardiff is a better location and is able to accept bigger aircraft- it still has a BA engineering base there- but it missed the boat because of historical mismanagement. Bristol is in a sub-optimal location for lots of reasons, but it has the established traffic flow and that traffic isn't going to move somewhere else anytime soon.

 

[Topological]

Looking at the Nailsea and Backwell station on Google Maps there is some width to the South East of the Exeter bound line. The station is on an embankment though, so any work would be expensive.

However. If really desired, you could move the through line onto a new alignment to the South East of the platform and then keep the present line as a terminating platform for trains from the Bristol direction. A single platform which sits between the running lines would be able to turn around a reasonable number of trains per hour.

For another non-rail solution: Build the road from the M5 to relieve traffic on the current A38. That would speed up the A1 to Temple Meads and potentially allow bus services from Cardiff, Newport, Taunton and Bristol Parkway to run via the M5.

 

[Envoy]

Cardiff Airport has a 2 mile bus link from Rhoose station - which at present has only 1 train per hour and these trains go from Bridgend to Rhymney in the valleys. Transport for Wales would like to run a service to Bristol Temple Meads calling at all stations - including new ones - if they are ever built. Surely it would be better to increase the train service on the Vale of Glam line to half hourly and instead of going to Rhymney - go to Bristol Temple Meads instead? Failing that, why not run the present TFW Cheltenham service to Bridgend via the VOG line and ‘plug’ Cardiff Airport into the Gloucester/Cheltenham catchment? That would also solve the problem of having terminators at Cardiff Central.

 

[tumbles]

Looking at the Nailsea and Backwell station on Google Maps there is some width to the South East of the Exeter bound line. The station is on an embankment though, so any work would be expensive.

However. If really desired, you could move the through line onto a new alignment to the South East of the platform and then keep the present line as a terminating platform for trains from the Bristol direction. A single platform which sits between the running lines would be able to turn around a reasonable number of trains per hour.

For another non-rail solution: Build the road from the M5 to relieve traffic on the current A38. That would speed up the A1 to Temple Meads and potentially allow bus services from Cardiff, Newport, Taunton and Bristol Parkway to run via the M5.

There should have been a motorway from J20 M5, but t was never built. That is why the J20 roundabout is unusually large for what is now just a single turn off into Clevedon.

While it wouldn't have run directly to the airport it would have gone a significant way and linked up with what is now the South Bristol link road.

 

[DevonshireRail]

I think that you underestimate the difficulty here.

I don't know the area so I looked at the Ordnance Survey Map.

The height difference between Nailsea and Backwell station (below 10 metres above sea level) and the airport (about 170 metres above sea level) is about 160 metres.

Even if the route could be built at a continuous gradient, it would need to be about 1 in 30. But that isn't possible because of the topography, the station end of the route would probably need to be steeper than 1 in 20 gradient.

How about a cable car!?

A cable car is a good idea. I was initially put off suggesting this because of the fact that the vehicles would be very small. They could, however, run at a very high frequency.

There also wouldn't be any compatibility with a future Bristol Metro, although I doubt such a connection would be very useful if this alternative is built.

 

[The Pelican]

The Luton DART people movers are cable powered, so should be able to climb at least a 1:10 gradient, like the Sheffield Supertram has. I'd assess it by comparison to
1. A heavy rail branch and
2. A tram train spur from the mainline, possibly with a city-end tram spur extending beyond Temple Meads to Queen's Square or similar.

 

[Topological]

Presumably, both options benefit from four-tracking through Bedminster. That would help add more services through the Bristol suburbs too. However, option 2 then raises the question as to why Portishead is not tram-train.

 

[tumbles]

Presumably, both options benefit from four-tracking through Bedminster. That would help add more services through the Bristol suburbs too. However, option 2 then raises the question as to why Portishead is not tram-train.

Because the line is already used for heavy freight

 

[Topological]

Because the line is already used for heavy freight

Is that not exactly what happens on Sheffiled Tram-Train around Rotherham?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I’ve always drawn fantasy metros on Google Earth to Bristol but I’ve only just realised what an awful location it’s in. Not even near a motorway. Bristol is a city with a huge potential for growth in my opinion and its airport would probably need expanding again at some point this century. I certainly think placing it in the Severn Estuary with a new downstream rail/road crossing would be the most fantastic option.

 

[stevieinselby]

Is that not exactly what happens on Sheffiled Tram-Train around Rotherham?

The service to Rotherham is an extension of an existing and established tram network, which uses upgraded tram-train vehicles to allow it to share tracks with heavy rail.
Putting tram-trains on Portishead would create a completely unnecessary micro-fleet when it can sensibly be run as heavy rail using the same stock as other GWR local services – and the extra cost and complexity of providing the electrification needed for tram-trains would outweigh any possible savings from building and running it as light rail several times over.
Also, tram-trains at Rotherham Central have to use a separate section of platform to heavy rail trains so that it is at the right height for their lower floor. How would that work at Parson Street, Bedminster and Temple Meads?

 

[Topological]

The service to Rotherham is an extension of an existing and established tram network, which uses upgraded tram-train vehicles to allow it to share tracks with heavy rail.
Putting tram-trains on Portishead would create a completely unnecessary micro-fleet when it can sensibly be run as heavy rail using the same stock as other GWR local services – and the extra cost and complexity of providing the electrification needed for tram-trains would outweigh any possible savings from building and running it as light rail several times over.
Also, tram-trains at Rotherham Central have to use a separate section of platform to heavy rail trains so that it is at the right height for their lower floor. How would that work at Parson Street, Bedminster and Temple Meads?

I appear to be getting the comments, but it was @The Pelican who proposed tram-train as option 2.

The answer to this one is lower platforms as per Rotherham, and then Temple Meads would have new platforms in a location suitable to connect into whatever the proposal is to run into the City Centre / Temple Quarter.

I favour a road-based option from the M5 and a bus.

 

[Bald Rick]

Rubber-tyred trams (and I don't mean buses, I mean more like the trams in places like Clermont-Ferrand) should be able to cope with 1-in-20.

steel on steel can (and does) 1:10 (10%).

 

[PMN1]

Would Filton have had any noise or flight restrictions compared to the current airport location?

 

[tumbles]

I’ve always drawn fantasy metros on Google Earth to Bristol but I’ve only just realised what an awful location it’s in. Not even near a motorway. Bristol is a city with a huge potential for growth in my opinion and its airport would probably need expanding again at some point this century. I certainly think placing it in the Severn Estuary with a new downstream rail/road crossing would be the most fantastic option.

They are applying currently to expand it - substantially - again including bigger runway and terminus to allow larger planes and in theory direct transatlantic flights. Whether or they get permission after last time is debatable (it was rejected but overturned by the Tory government at the time)

The estery is a non starter as there is too much damage to wildlife / birds - same issue as many attempts to build a hydro power plant.

Biggest issue with Bristol is its literally in a valley and makes it difficult to do anything further out than the council boundaries

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2026 ==

Would Filton have had any noise or flight restrictions compared to the current airport location?

Probably in more urban area so quite possible.

 

[The exile]

Monorail!

Having just experienced the Bologna Airport shuttle - never in a million years. Ghastly!

 

[Topological]

Having just experienced the Bologna Airport shuttle - never in a million years. Ghastly!

I quite like that. The time I went to Bologna and the replacement bus was running definitely made me appreciate the monorail.

 

[The exile]

Wouldn't the best solution to the lack of rail connectivity at Bristol Airport simply be a VLR/parry people mover type system from Nailsea and Backwell station.

Any connection that requires a change to get to central Bristol (and a second change to get to rail-served towns east of Bristol) is not worth spending vast quantities of money on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2026 ==

I quite like that. The time I went to Bologna and the replacement bus was running definitely made me appreciate the monorail.

12.80EUR for the privilege of standing in a stuffy pod with a ride quality than makes a pacer feel good is not my idea of a quality service.

 

[brad465]

How deep are the Heathrow stations below the terminal buildings? I'd have gone for a rail link branching off due north of the airport, then rising to around the same level below ground as the Heathrow stations, maybe a bit lower if plenty of deep lift shafts can be provided. I certainly don't think an above-ground station is viable or necessary (although I wouldn't be surprised if an above ground station and steeper gradient is cheaper than a below ground station). It would also have to be electrified, or at a minimum be BEMU-only, as diesel wouldn't be as powerful and wouldn't be ideal in an underground station.

 

[Snow1964]

How deep are the Heathrow stations below the terminal buildings? I'd have gone for a rail link branching off due north of the airport, then rising to around the same level below ground as the Heathrow stations, maybe a bit lower if plenty of deep lift shafts can be provided. I certainly don't think an above-ground station is viable or necessary (although I wouldn't be surprised if an above ground station and steeper gradient is cheaper than a below ground station). It would also have to be electrified, or at a minimum be BEMU-only, as diesel wouldn't be as powerful and wouldn't be ideal in an underground station.

The central terminal station is deeper as a dug tunnel, completely underground.

Terminal 5 is a basement level sub surface, built in a trench as lower floor of the building as it was built. There are provision for 6 platforms, (currently 2 Piccadilly line, 2 Express, 2 not yet fitted out)

 

[zwk500]

Wouldn't the best solution to the lack of rail connectivity at Bristol Airport simply be a VLR/parry people mover type system from Nailsea and Backwell station?

No, it wouldn't have the passenger capacity to be senisble.

It doesn't necessitate the construction of a hypothetical Bristol tram/metro system

The best solution for serving Bristol airport is as an extension of a theoretical Bristol Tram system that connects the Airport to Bristol Temple Meads *And the City Centre*

An interchange from Nailsea and Backwell is very sub-optimal because of the requirement to get a train out of Bristol at first.