Portishead approved

[John R]

For a 3 mile disused branch (the track was still there) it is absurdly expensive, particularly given there is less traffic on the Portbury branch since coal traffic ceased a couple of years ago and that line was reopened and engineered for heavy freight trains 20 years ago.

 

[stuu]

So we shouldn't ask how much benefit a line will deliver and just plough money into any reopening whenever?

The business case is usually part of the DCO submission. It is definitely unusual to be granted that and then have to do another business case - road projects usually start construction within a few months or even weeks of the order being granted

 

[zwk500]

The business case is usually part of the DCO submission. It is definitely unusual to be granted that and then have to do another business case - road projects usually start construction within a few months or even weeks of the order being granted

Maybe being asked to demonstrate the business case again is because the business case is far from convincing?

And I'm not sure about the roads - e.g. nobody knows when the A303 near stonehenge will start and given the DCOs been granted if it was starting construction this year the DfT would have the contracts pretty much ready to go now.

 

[tumbles]

Here is the reopening saga in all its time wasting 'creative inertia' glory. Note how many business cases there are. Also, a 2 stage consultation, a pre-examination period, a post decision period. You what?

Timescales - Portishead Railway Group

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

www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org

I've got a feeling they had to start from GRIP 1 again in 2013, after getting to 2-3 previously.. some technicality that I can't remember now but might have been NSC buying the disused line from Pill > Portishead

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2023 ==

The branch would go through Liam Fox's constituency, and while relatively safe, his vote share is just over 50% which with the sort of swing currently predicted nationally is enough to cause concern, so a pre-election bribe is certainly possible.

I think he's under proper thread if tactical voting occurs, without getting into the political side of it. But yes fully expect the line to get the full DCO go ahead just before a GE..

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2023 ==

For a 3 mile disused branch (the track was still there) it is absurdly expensive, particularly given there is less traffic on the Portbury branch since coal traffic ceased a couple of years ago and that line was reopened and engineered for heavy freight trains 20 years ago.

Pretty much zero traffic. There was a period during the closure of the coal tip where we had no trains run for 2 years I think (other than line clearance). Remember how when they reopened the line they'd say it would take 50'000 car transporters off the road each year. It was always about the coal, nothing else!

They've been doing some driver training last week or so, so not sure if we've got some new paths likely. At present its only the one train a week running.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also, a 2 stage consultation, a pre-examination period, a post decision period. You what?

That’s required by law.

 

[stuu]

Maybe being asked to demonstrate the business case again is because the business case is far from convincing?

And I'm not sure about the roads - e.g. nobody knows when the A303 near stonehenge will start and given the DCOs been granted if it was starting construction this year the DfT would have the contracts pretty much ready to go now.

It's public knowledge. They have already placed the contracts for construction, they are ready to go once (if) the 6 week period for any appeal has passed. The plan is to start archaeology immediately and then start on compounds etc with full construction in the new year

 

[Brush 4]

I was being serious, the time taken is too long by far. The introduction of PACE is evidence of that. Is that the same thing as Project Speed? Okehampton really benefited from the new method. Started after Portishead and reopened first. (not the idea to reopen, the actual process). Other re-openings elsewhere are proceeding at um, pace. I agree the approaching GE will favour Portishead crossing the final of so very many, hurdles. Sir Humphrey at his best.

 

[pdeaves]

I was being serious, the time taken is too long by far. The introduction of PACE is evidence of that. Is that the same thing as Project Speed? Okehampton really benefited from the new method. Started after Portishead and reopened first. (not the idea to reopen, the actual process). Other re-openings elsewhere are proceeding at um, pace. I agree the approaching GE will favour Portishead crossing the final of so very many, hurdles. Sir Humphrey at his best.

It's not the whole Portishead story, but part of the problem is the main route passing through a very constrained site of scientific interest, with all the inherent hassles. Another part may be that it's council led, rather than railway led, and they didn't understand the railway bits properly (e.g., 'just' do such-and-such without realising that has wider implications elsewhere, that kind of thing).

 

[tumbles]

It's not the whole Portishead story, but part of the problem is the main route passing through a very constrained site of scientific interest, with all the inherent hassles. Another part may be that it's council led, rather than railway led, and they didn't understand the railway bits properly (e.g., 'just' do such-and-such without realising that has wider implications elsewhere, that kind of thing).

Also throw in Shapps needless timewasting for 12 months.

 

[stuu]

I was being serious, the time taken is too long by far. The introduction of PACE is evidence of that. Is that the same thing as Project Speed? Okehampton really benefited from the new method. Started after Portishead and reopened first. (not the idea to reopen, the actual process). Other re-openings elsewhere are proceeding at um, pace. I agree the approaching GE will favour Portishead crossing the final of so very many, hurdles. Sir Humphrey at his best.

Okehampton didn't need any planning permission/DCO/TWAO etc. It just needed the money

 

[Annetts key]

It's not the whole Portishead story, but part of the problem is the main route passing through a very constrained site of scientific interest, with all the inherent hassles.

Most of which relates to the existing line which is open to traffic!

Another part may be that it's council led, rather than railway led, and they didn't understand the railway bits properly (e.g., 'just' do such-and-such without realising that has wider implications elsewhere, that kind of thing).

And the reason that the council bought the disused section was to make sure that the line of route was safe. Hence preventing other development on the route.

 

[John R]

Most of which relates to the existing line which is open to traffic!

Quite. I’ve never understood what changes were required to the existing line that would be major enough to require a DCO, and whether they were really necessary.

I understood DCO’s to be for really major schemes, not something that at best would involve some relatively small localised tweaks to existing infrastructure.

 

[pdeaves]

Quite. I’ve never understood what changes were required to the existing line that would be major enough to require a DCO, and whether they were really necessary.

I think there was an over-eager response in the council and a DCO wasn't actually needed (certainly not on the existing bit of line). Unfortunately, we are now lumbered because the DCO paperwork was submitted.

 

[stuving]

I think there was an over-eager response in the council and a DCO wasn't actually needed (certainly not on the existing bit of line). Unfortunately, we are now lumbered because the DCO paperwork was submitted.

The threshold for being designated a "Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project", and so needing a DCO, is building or altering 2km or more of track not on "operational railway land". As you'd expect, the terms have their own definitions in the relevant acts and orders, and Portishead was held to fall into the NSIP category.

This threshold was set in the 2013 order* following a consultation on 2012. Before then there was no minimum - any length of railway needed a DCO under the Planning Act 2018 (which the order amended). That looked excessive for some of the shorter ones - the Ipswich Chord at 1.2 km was one I remember - hence the consutation on the proposed order.

*The Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

 

[snowball]

The threshold for being designated a "Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project", and so needing a DCO, is building or altering 2km or more of track not on "operational railway land". As you'd expect, the terms have their own definitions in the relevant acts and orders, and Portishead was held to fall into the NSIP category.

This threshold was set in the 2013 order* following a consultation on 2012. Before then there was no minimum - any length of railway needed a DCO under the Planning Act 2018 (which the order amended). That looked excessive for some of the shorter ones - the Ipswich Chord at 1.2 km was one I remember - hence the consutation on the proposed order.

*The Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

If I remember correctly the Ordsall Chord was originally applied for as a DCO project, then deemed too small and had to be resubmitted as a TWAO application.

 

[stuving]

There was an internal NR explanation that got posted on rmweb, which includes this:

Reopening the Pill to Portishead branch line is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) because legally it entails a new railway line that is more than 2km in length and outside Network Rail’s existing operational railway network.
North Somerset Council purchased the disused railway from the British Rail Residuary Board after privatisation and as a result the line no longer benefited from permitted development rights. All NSIPs are required by the 2008 Planning Act to use the DCO process for powers to build and operate the scheme.

So apparently it's all North Somerset's fault - if they hadn't bought the line to "safeguard" it, it would probably have been done under permitted rights by now.

 

[fgwrich]

So we shouldn't ask how much benefit a line will deliver and just plough money into any reopening whenever?

More seriously, GRIP has been replaced with PACE for new projects which aims to streamline the process.

Just checking, are we talking PACE as another new acronym? Rather used to PACE being Police And Criminal Evidence Act.

 

[Annetts key]

The threshold for being designated a "Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project", and so needing a DCO, is building or altering 2km or more of track not on "operational railway land". As you'd expect, the terms have their own definitions in the relevant acts and orders, and Portishead was held to fall into the NSIP category.

This threshold was set in the 2013 order* following a consultation on 2012. Before then there was no minimum - any length of railway needed a DCO under the Planning Act 2018 (which the order amended). That looked excessive for some of the shorter ones - the Ipswich Chord at 1.2 km was one I remember - hence the consutation on the proposed order.

*The Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013

So are you telling me that if I want to lay over 2km of OO gauge railway in my garden, if it’s a passenger service for a single ant, I need a DCO!

This kind of bad legislation is typical of our useless politicians and government. I would understand it if any houses, homes, businesses etc. were being required to be demolished or their land badly impacted.

But the line we are talking about did have very occasional trains or engineering vehicles on it back before BR was chopped up (the disused section). And under Railtrack/Network Rail, when the new section of line to the docks was put in, all the pointwork for a turnout was provided. Kinda demonstrating that the line towards Portishead was not officially closed. Okay, the railway removed the point soon afterwards (the remaining parts are under the vegetation nearby, I’ve walked past it).

Did anyone ever go through the legal process to formally close the line?

And as said earlier, the vast bulk of the line is in operational use.

So yet more taxpayers money is being wasted, again!

Where’s that Victor Meldrew quote “I don't believe it!”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2023 ==

So apparently it's all North Somerset's fault - if they hadn't bought the line to "safeguard" it, it would probably have been done under permitted rights by now.

Maybe we should campaign for North Somerset Council to buy Network Rail then!

 

[pdeaves]

If the situation was thought about better beforehand, it could be that a DCO was only really needed for the 'new' bit. That would have made for a simpler application. But the council did its own thing based on other things the council is good at but not railway things that it wasn't so good at.

We are, of course, where we are now and it's all moot.

 

[stuving]

If the situation was thought about better beforehand, it could be that a DCO was only really needed for the 'new' bit. That would have made for a simpler application. But the council did its own thing based on other things the council is good at but not railway things that it wasn't so good at.

We are, of course, where we are now and it's all moot.

The DCO was only needed where permitted development right had lapsed, i.e. from Pill to Portishead. But at the initial scoping stage the Government decided:

2.41 The ES should clearly describe which components of the development are to be delivered through the DCO and which are ‘permitted development’.

2.42 If a draft DCO is to be submitted, the applicant should clearly define what elements of the proposed development are integral to the NSIP and which is ‘associated development’ under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) or is an ancillary matter. Associated development is defined in the Planning Act as development which is associated with the principal development. Guidance on associated development can be found in the DCLG publication ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on associated development applications for major infrastructure projects’.

2.43 Any proposed works and/or infrastructure required as associated development, or being delivered through permitted development rights, (whether on or off-site) should be assessed as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment.

There are controls applied to permitted development for environmental impacts, but how do they get applied? Not via a DCO application, and presumably not by the Planning Inspectorate. But in this case all the parties seem to have assumed the process would be extended to the environmental assessment of the whole project, and I can't see that stated explicitly anywhere.

 

[JKF]

It's not the whole Portishead story, but part of the problem is the main route passing through a very constrained site of scientific interest, with all the inherent hassles. Another part may be that it's council led, rather than railway led, and they didn't understand the railway bits properly (e.g., 'just' do such-and-such without realising that has wider implications elsewhere, that kind of thing).

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

 

[The exile]

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

Not to mention not providing the increased service which Will boost Parson St and Bedminster, whereas the “actual areas” already have a service. Routing via Henbury would, AIUI, run into the same problem with conflict with dock access (both Road and rail) on that side of the river.

 

[Bald Rick]

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

That would be a roller coaster, not a railway!

 

[stuu]

Swing r

That would be a roller coaster, not a railway!

They could charge a premium for that

 

[Llanigraham]

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

Except that I understand there is still a requirement to provide quite a large navigation height on any bridge below Bristol Weir (now basically Cumberland Basin) and the sea, which is why the motorway bridge is so high.

 

[snowball]

Except that I understand there is still a requirement to provide quite a large navigation height on any bridge below Bristol Weir (now basically Cumberland Basin) and the sea, which is why the motorway bridge is so high.

In other words, what Bald Rick said.

 

[Annetts key]

Any volunteers to try using the tunnel that the conveyor used to use?

 

[simonw]

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

Please see my post on the thread 'projects your build (but probably will never happen).

 

[DelW]

At this point I think it would have been cheaper to build a river crossing and send trains via the Severn Beach or Henbury line. Removes conflicts with the Portbury docks trains, no gorge mitigation works, would serve actual areas of population between Pill/Portishead and town. Downside would be longer journey times I guess.

The hypothetical river crossing would be built across a tidal river with one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and would need to include an opening span to maintain river navigation. That would mean building piers in the river, at each end of the opening. The cofferdams for those would cost £10m+, before you start building the bridge in them. I'd expect the total cost to be at least £30 - 40m for the bridge alone. There's also an ongoing maintenance and operating cost for the opening span.

 

[JKF]

The hypothetical river crossing would be built across a tidal river with one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, and would need to include an opening span to maintain river navigation. That would mean building piers in the river, at each end of the opening. The cofferdams for those would cost £10m+, before you start building the bridge in them. I'd expect the total cost to be at least £30 - 40m for the bridge alone. There's also an ongoing maintenance and operating cost for the opening span.

I was thinking (not entirely seriously tbh) more of a tunnel, but that would need to branch off north of Pill for a realistic alignment, which would mean relocating Pill station north of the village, which unfortunately isn’t an easy place to build a road link to (for parking and other access).