Portishead approved

[Annetts key]

The existing line is single track and winding and slow, it will never permit a decent frequency to be run. It would be essentially impossible to double it, without a new tunnel

First, nothing is impossible. Lots of things in the past have been described as impossible, only to be made possible at a later date.
Secondly, significant parts of the route were previously double track.
And thirdly, there is already some double track.

Starting at Parson Street Junction, we have a single lead junction, which becomes double track. Near the former footpath at Ashton Containers crossing (end of Barons Close) the line becomes a single line. However, the route is wide enough for double track, which is what it was before Ashton Junction signal box closed.

The route continues over Ashton level crossing (Ashton Vale Road). Through the former site of Ashton Gate station. And on to the former site of Clifton Bridge station. All the route so far is wide enough for double line.

Beyond Clifton Bridge station, the line was built only as a single line. primarily because of the tunnels.

At Pill, the route is again wide enough for double line. If wanted, it could be double line from Pill all the way to Portishead.

There is a possibility of a passing loop in the section between two of the single line tunnels.

The line was originally built to Brunel’s broad gauge. The existing freight line speed limits may be able to be raised for passenger trains. Of course, this may involve some extra engineering work, so there may be additional costs for this.

But overall, if the investment was made, a very decent train service could be provided.

One of the problems that previously limited the number of passenger trains, was the need to honour the train paths that the freight company has. But with the end of the coal traffic, and only occasional freight trains, I’m sure that there could be a new negotiation about this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2023 ==

From Nailsea & Blackwell to Bath Spa in 2021-22 there were just under 11,000 journeys, or just over 7%. From Yatton to Bath Spa it's even smaller, under 9,000 per year and just over 5%.

It’s Nailsea & Backwell not Nailsea & Blackwell.

Bristol does need a tunnelled metro. But strangely enough, no one knows where to find the massive amount of money needed for such a project…

 

[Starmill]

First, nothing is impossible. Lots of things in the past have been described as impossible, only to be made possible at a later date.

That's true but we're talking in context here. The reality is any alternatives would require substantially more capital spend, which clearly is never going to be signed off. As such, they're as good as impossible.

But overall, if the investment was made, a very decent train service could be provided.

So what you're saying is that you agree that the maximum possible is 1tph on the currently proposed infrastructure? Where might the additional money come from to provide the additional double track and other infrastructure to take it back to 2tph, bearing in mind that the permissible speed will be rather low and increasing it will require a lot of work? Is that realistic, and is that going to improve the value for money on the capital spend by very much?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2023 ==

Bristol does need a tunnelled metro. But strangely enough, no one knows where to find the massive amount of money needed for such a project…

Quite so. A sensible funding authority goes back to the drawing board if value for money looks too low at the scale the capital funding available can achieve. They would then look at what might be deliverable with the capital on offer because it has a lower minimum efficient scale. For example, the well-proven benefits of bus priority work. Though that doesn't cost much, and for this kind of budget you'd get several corridors worth rather than just one.

 

[yorkie]

Just a reminder to stick to updates regarding Portishead in this thread please; if anyone would like to discuss any wider issues, please create a new thread, in the relevant forum section, thanks (if anyone would like to do so, you are welcome to link to any such thread from here)

 

[Starmill]

That's a bit like wondering how someone based in Newcastle may know about dispatch procedures at King's Cross

It always amuses me so much when people say that they know better because they happen to live nearby. I find it's so frequently the case that people who use that argument actually are actually much more at risk of missing something important, because they fall into the trap of thinking that they already know things based on their daily experiences, and so don't look them up, or don't step back and try to appreciate the bigger picture. I sympathise because I can think of times when that's happened, or very nearly happened, to me!

 

[Annetts key]

That's true but we're talking in context here. The reality is any alternatives would require substantially more capital spend, which clearly is never going to be signed off. As such, they're as good as impossible.

No, the word you are apparently struggling to use, is “practical”. I agree that it’s unlikely that money would be available to rebore the existing single line tunnels so that the entire line could be continuous double track. Especially as it’s unlikely that such a grand scheme would be needed.

So what you're saying is that you agree that the maximum possible is 1tph on the currently proposed infrastructure?

No. I never said what I thought the existing capacity was. Even without any major additional civil engineering work over that which is already planned, I think it’s possible for one than one train per hour.

My post was pointing out what is possible and what was there in the past.

 

[Starmill]

No, the word you are apparently struggling to use, is “practical”

No need to get so touchy.

My post was pointing out what is possible and what was there in the past.

Then you missed the point, which was that more than one service per hour cannot be run without substantial additional capital spend over the proposal under consideration. Unfortunately, what was there in the past doesn't change that.

 

[Yorkee]

This is excellent news.

 

[geoffk]

First, nothing is impossible. Lots of things in the past have been described as impossible, only to be made possible at a later date.
Secondly, significant parts of the route were previously double track.
And thirdly, there is already some double track.

Starting at Parson Street Junction, we have a single lead junction, which becomes double track. Near the former footpath at Ashton Containers crossing (end of Barons Close) the line becomes a single line. However, the route is wide enough for double track, which is what it was before Ashton Junction signal box closed.

Are there still three tracks through Bedminster and Parson Street and all available for use by passenger trains? I remember there being four.

 

[Yindee8191]

Are there still three tracks through Bedminster and Parson Street and all available for use by passenger trains? I remember there being four.

There are (iirc) four in situ but only three operational. Also, creating an exclusive double track line from the junction to Temple Meads would require changing which are the main lines, so probably quite a bit of upgrading/slewing/S&C work.

 

[John R]

There are two operational lines in the Bristol direction, which means that trains can come off the branch and stop at Parson St and Bedminster without conflicting with other services (although at the moment only one platform is in use, on the main line).

However, in the other direction the track stops short of Parson St, and has been out of use for over 20 years. If it were reinstated, it could be used for main line services, whilst stopping services to Portishead used the existing track, thus increasing timetable flexibility, as any conflict between stopping and through services would be avoided.

 

[zwk500]

There are two operational lines in the Bristol direction, which means that trains can come off the branch and stop at Parson St and Bedminster without conflicting with other services (although at the moment only one platform is in use, on the main line).

However, in the other direction the track stops short of Parson St, and has been out of use for over 20 years. If it were reinstated, it could be used for main line services, whilst stopping services to Portishead used the existing track, thus increasing timetable flexibility, as any conflict between stopping and through services would be avoided.

Its a single lead to Portishead ATM so there'd still be a conflict.
However pathing isn't the question holding things up right now.

 

[Annetts key]

Putting more detail in…

Up Direction

Trains coming from the branch can use the Up Relief. There is a platform face for this at Parson Street station, but at this point, the Up Relief is not (as far as I’m aware, but this may have changed when control was passed to TVSC at Didcot) considered to be a passenger line (when controlled by Bristol Panel this part was actually called the Up Goods IIRC).

Trains coming on the Up Main from Nailsea & Backwell have no access to the Up Relief on the West side of Parson Street station.

Immediately beyond Parson Street station, there is a crossover so that trains on the Up Main can cross to the Up Relief, hence from this point on, it’s considered a passenger line. Hence at Bedminster station, trains can call at this station on either the Up Relief or on the Up Main.

The Up Relief continues all the way to Bristol Temple Meads station. Hence between the crossover I mentioned, there are two lines available for up direction trains.

Down Direction

I will first describe the current layout.

The Down Relief (actually called the Down Through) ends just beyond the west signal gantry between Bristol Temple Meads station and Bedminster station. At this point, there is a crossover. Beyond these points, the former Down Relief line is a goods line and is called the Carriage Line. This line continues through Bedminster station, but at the western end, there is a stop board.

The Down Main is as you would expect, running from Bristol Temple Meads station through Bedminster station, Parson Street station and onwards to the south west.

Between Bristol Temple Meads station and a crossover just beyond Bedminster station (western end of the station), the Up Main is signalled for bidirectional working.

Hence down trains leaving Bristol Temple Meads can use either the Down Relief, then join the Down Main, use the Down Main, or use the Up Main.

This allows through services to pass a train stopped at Bedminster station in either direction. But unfortunately at Parson Street station, there isn’t this flexibility, and down trains have to use the Down Main. This is because between Bedminster station and Parson Street station, any down train running on the Up Main has to use the crossover to cross to the Down Main. There being no bidirectional signalling beyond this point.

Previous Layout Under Bristol Panel

The Carriage Line originally ran as described above and then on through Parson Street station, and on to a location known as South Liberty where there were points to allow trains to join the Down Main.

Between Bedminster station and Parson Street station, on the down side, there were various carriage sidings. This was the Malago Vale carriage cleaning depot.

Between Parson Street junction and South Liberty there were various goods sidings (part of what was known as West Depot).

The points at South Liberty were worked by a ground frame. Earlier, there was also a ground frame working points in the area of Parson Street junction.

When BR decided that as there was no traffic using the downside sidings at West Depot, and as Malago Vale carriage cleaning depot had closed, it was time to lift all these sidings, they hired contractors to carry out the work. The Carriage Line itself was supposed to be retained between Bedminster and South Liberty. However, the contractors lifted it between Malago Vale and South Liberty. If you look in the vicinity of the footbridge at Malago Vale, you can see the stopblock that was installed at the point that the line then ended.

However, when the P.Way needed some bull head rail in a hurry, they borrowed some from this line between Bedminster station and the stop block…

Previous Layout before Bristol Panel

Before Bristol Panel took control of the area, the Carriage Line was the Down Relief line. However, I don’t know the details of what points were available at Parson Street junction. So I don’t know if a train on the Down Relief line could access the branch.

 

[brad465]

There are two operational lines in the Bristol direction, which means that trains can come off the branch and stop at Parson St and Bedminster without conflicting with other services (although at the moment only one platform is in use, on the main line).

However, in the other direction the track stops short of Parson St, and has been out of use for over 20 years. If it were reinstated, it could be used for main line services, whilst stopping services to Portishead used the existing track, thus increasing timetable flexibility, as any conflict between stopping and through services would be avoided.

Given that in the down direction trains have only just left Temple Meads, I would expect the timetabling to see a Portishead train leave very soon after a faster service, as is common where fast and slow services share tracks. The old relief line wouldn't be ideal for moving fast services onto, as were it reinstated it would come with a speed restriction through Parson Street, and the mainline is 90mph through there in contrast.

 

[Annetts key]

Its a single lead to Portishead ATM so there'd still be a conflict.
However pathing isn't the question holding things up right now.

Only the junction area at Parson Street junction is single lead.

Just after the junction, the branch becomes a double line railway. But unfortunately only as far as the token hut and signal (on the approach to Ashton level crossing). At this point it becomes a single line.

This arrangement exists so that down trains can clear the main line and wait on the branch if there is another train on the single line section.

When the Ashton area was controlled by Ashton Junction signal box, the double line continued to just outside the box (which was on the west side of Ashton level crossing).

 

[John R]

Given that in the down direction trains have only just left Temple Meads, I would expect the timetabling to see a Portishead train leave very soon after a faster service, as is common where fast and slow services share tracks. The old relief line wouldn't be ideal for moving fast services onto, as were it reinstated it would come with a speed restriction through Parson Street, and the mainline is 90mph through there in contrast.

On the first point, late running XC or GW fast services can already often get held behind existing stopping services, although the existing facility to pass at Bedminster is helpful to some degree in mitigating that (which typically then delays the stopping service).

On the second point, the limitation of any speed restriction would surely be the point at which the down relief then merged onto the down main beyond Parson St, and there is plenty of room for a relatively high speed crossing if required. (That all costs though…)

 

[geoffk]

Its a single lead to Portishead ATM so there'd still be a conflict.
However pathing isn't the question holding things up right now.

Can you clarify what is holding things up - is it just funding now? I thought that was in place. Or lack of rolling stock?

 

[Pat31]

Can you clarify what is holding things up - is it just funding now? I thought that was in place. Or lack of rolling stock?

Full business case not yet approved.

Timescales - Portishead Railway Group

Portishead Railway Group - campaigning for the reopening of the Portishead to Bristol Railway.

www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org

 

[geoffk]

Full business case not yet approved.

Timescales - Portishead Railway Group

Portishead Railway Group - campaigning for the reopening of the Portishead to Bristol Railway.

www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org

Crazy isn't it. It's been ten years already. A General Election coming up soon, who knows what effect that will have.

 

[Irascible]

How much has it cost so far just to get to a full business case...

 

[Pat31]

Crazy isn't it. It's been ten years already. A General Election coming up soon, who knows what effect that will have.

Yeah for sure! It’s moving at an absolute glacial pace. Yeah i’m concerned about an election coming up next year. Will it get kicked down the road again… :/

 

[zwk500]

Yeah for sure! It’s moving at an absolute glacial pace. Yeah i’m concerned about an election coming up next year. Will it get kicked down the road again… :/

The election being next year may well be it's saving grace, as there is a considerable electoral benefit to getting some diggers on site before Parliament is dissolved for campaigning.

 

[Snow1964]

The election being next year may well be it's saving grace, as there is a considerable electoral benefit to getting some diggers on site before Parliament is dissolved for campaigning.

It is in Somerset North constituency (currently Liam Fox), predictions are currently about 34% labour, 33% conservative, 18% Lib Dem). So you might be right that an election might focus minds being fairly marginal

 

[John R]

It is in Somerset North constituency (currently Liam Fox), predictions are currently about 34% labour, 33% conservative, 18% Lib Dem). So you might be right that an election might focus minds being fairly marginal

I’m one voter who after a 40 year track record of voting Conservative will not be giving Dr Fox my vote due to the various corrupt practices of the current government which he has supported. So if my intentions are indicative of the swing from usually loyal voters in his constituency then he should be feeling a little uneasy.

 

[Yindee8191]

Yeah, North Somerset is looking a bit more marginal than the Tories would like right now. Liam Fox already lost vote share against a pretty rosy national picture for the Tories in 2019, and a lot of people have been seriously affected by the Liz Truss disaster since then. If the government have any sense they’ll make sure to get some visible progress made before election day.

 

[The exile]

Yeah, North Somerset is looking a bit more marginal than the Tories would like right now. Liam Fox already lost vote share against a pretty rosy national picture for the Tories in 2019, and a lot of people have been seriously affected by the Liz Truss disaster since then. If the government have any sense they’ll make sure to get some visible progress made before election day.

That’s a big if!!!!

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m one voter who after a 40 year track record of voting Conservative will not be giving Dr Fox my vote due to the various corrupt practices of the current government which he has supported. So if my intentions are indicative of the swing from usually loyal voters in his constituency then he should be feeling a little uneasy.

But - as someone who knows about railways - would approval for the line swing you back? Thats what they would be counting on (if approval was given) but i suspect in reality very few voters will think like that.

 

[John R]

But - as someone who knows about railways - would approval for the line swing you back? Thats what they would be counting on (if approval was given) but i suspect in reality very few voters will think like that.

No, because a) it would have been approved and b) my principles would not allow me to support an MP who has stood by and not taken a principled stand to a lot of the corrupt behaviours we have all seen.

 

[zwk500]

No, because a) it would have been approved

For the avoidance of doubt, the DCO has been given: https://travelwest.info/projects/portishead-rail-line-metrowest-phase-1/

Development Consent Order granted for the Portishead Branch Line

The Department for Transport (DfT) announced consent for the project on Monday 14th November 2022.
The Development Consent Order (DCO) includes planning consent, environmental consent and the compulsory acquisition of land and is required before nationally significant infrastructure projects can be built. The achievement of this major milestone means the project can now move forward towards the delivery phase.
Over the next 18 months the project will complete its detailed design, undertake ecology enabling works and, finally, submit its Full Business Case to funding decision makers (the Department for Transport, the Combined Authority and North Somerset Council).

So it's funding being given rather than the railway being approved that is the current issue.

b) my principles would not allow me to support an MP who has stood by and not taken a principled stand to a lot of the corrupt behaviours we have all seen.

IIRC Dr Fox would have been rather hypocritical to condemn the corrupt behaviours given his own past record as a government minister. And I note there's been several elections since his own corrupt behaviour in which he has won re-election.

 

[JKF]

It‘s been the kind of seat where you would have traditionally said you could stick a blue rosette on a pig and it would get in, but there’s been some demographic changes, spillover of urban types priced out of Bristol, lots of new development (all those mortgages coming off fixed rate will be facing a world of pain, and there’s only one party to blame for that). Will be interesting to see how it goes.

The line seems to be without freight traffic again, the ‘plonkliner’ service (containerised wine) hasn’t run for a couple of months, seems to only be monthly test trains and weekly RHTT at the moment (and I’m not sure why the latter is running given there’s no other traffic). In a sane world when such quiet periods happen you would want them to be cracking on with it, taking full possession, which would have to be cheaper than trying to fit it around an active railway.

 

[Irascible]

There are no safe seats - my own constituency was supposedly completely safe & threw out the Tories in a huge swing in a recent by-election.