-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Portishead approved
- Thread starter fat_boy_pete
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tumbles
Member
The only part left now. I know workers at RPD would walk through it post coal use. Absolutely filthy though!
Based on the utter mess they have made of bus provision in their fiefdom, I would not let them anywhere near anything to do with transport......
And no new stations (although one is planned), signalling or rolling stock, just relaying the track.
tumbles
Member
Plenty of geotechnical work going on this week between Portishead and Portbury Docks.
Nodding Cat Ch
Member
Will the Portishead line start at Parson Street, or is a connection with the Severn Beach line around Sea Mills envisaged?
Portishead to Temple Meads via Parson St - not sure whether it’s been determined where they go (if anywhere) after that. Henbury or short workings to Clifton Down would seem possible candidates.
There is no plan to bridge the Avon at Sea Mills or anywhere else. The plan is to connect to the existing line to Portbury, with additional work on that lije.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 5,951
It was briefly discussed up-thread, but any crossing of the Avon downstream of Bristol would be so expensive that it would kill any cost/benefit analysis stone dead.
To maintain navigation, a bridge would either have to be a similar height to the M5 at Avonmouth, which is completely impractical for a railway; or would have to be an opening span, which would be very costly both to build and to operate. A tunnel would need to be long enough to get below the bed of the river without excessive gradients.
There is zero chance of either ever being considered. Re-using the existing route is expensive enough that it's taken years to get this far.
Annetts key
Established Member
Route from Bristol Temple Meads:
BTM - Bedminster station - Parson Street station - Parson Street junction - Ashton level crossing - various tunnels - Pill junction (new, see #1) - Pill station (new) - line to Portishead (new track on existing line of route) - new Portishead station (also end of line).
#1 this is where the ‘new’ passenger line splits from the existing freight line that goes to Portbury Docks.
BTM - Bedminster station - Parson Street station - Parson Street junction - Ashton level crossing - various tunnels - Pill junction (new, see #1) - Pill station (new) - line to Portishead (new track on existing line of route) - new Portishead station (also end of line).
#1 this is where the ‘new’ passenger line splits from the existing freight line that goes to Portbury Docks.
I don't believe the OP was suggesting such a bridge - no-one would do so seriously and it is not even worth discussing, I just think they were unfamilar with Bristol railway geography. For the OP's benefit, and as others have explained, the Portishead scheme is a relatively short extension, from an existing freight branch (to Portishead docks), along an old trackbed to a new station a bit nearer to the town in order to re-instate a passenger service. The site of the original passenger station was further on but is no longer available.
Admittedly, the amount of fuss, navel gazing and expenditure this minor scheme has caused, both inside and outside the industry, would do justice to a proposal to build a railway bridge from Buckingham Palace's back garden to New York Times Square, let alone a bridge across the Avon Estuary. When you consider that it has taken well over a decade* of talking and expenditure just to open the Portway Park and Ride station, a simple platform on another single-track Bristol branch line, on waste land alongside an existing bus Park & Ride car park, you cannot wonder at it.
* I moved from Bristol 13 years ago and the Portway P&R station was already being talked and argued about back then. Meanwhile square miles of new housing estates and associated roads have been built in and around Bristol over that time, with hardly a murmur.
Last edited:
My earlier (not entirely serious) suggestion was thinking of a tunnel, not a bridge. I am from the area and very familiar with the topography and know how high a bridge would need to be. I think a tunnel could be done but would likely need to start from the south side of the M5 bridge, which would mean a new station for Pill as that would preclude using the existing site.
The original site of Portishead station is taken be a petrol station, for a long time it used the actual station building but this was demolished around 30 years ago. A site was reserved for a station just behind this (next to where the Waitrose carpark is now) which would still be very close to the high street and a reasonable walking distance from the lake grounds and sea front.
Unfortunately in the late 2000s a road was built across the trackbed south of the town to provide access to a new housing development on former industrial land in the docks area. The rails were literally cut with track left on either side. The developer was supposed to provide funding for a level crossing but this wasn‘t needed immediately so wasn’t installed. The developer (or rather the company they established just for this development) then went bust as a result of the 2008 crash, and the crossing was never installed. In the intervening years NR decided that new level crossings could only be built in exceptional circumstance, so the line has to stop where it was cut (or rather slightly further north with the road diverted). This means that the station is poorly suited for people wanting to visit the town, with long walks to shopping areas and the sea front, though will likely be fine for outbound commuters.
zwk500
Veteran Member
The tidal range in the area is more than 12m, so the riverbed is presumably something like 14-15m below the High Water mark. The existing Severn beach line is a bit above the high water mark, and then you need to add on the clearance for the trains. You therefore are looking at something more than a 20m drop in elevation to get under the river, which at the recommended max gradient of 1:100 is a 2km incline. From Shirehampton to the M5 bridge (the only available space to build a new line on the eastern bank) is about 850m max. The max gradient for passenger only lines can be eased to 1:80, but to achieve that fall in that space is somewhere between 1:45-1:40 grade. The Lickey is 1:37.7, for comparison.
While certainly not an impossible operation - tunnels with similar gradients are handled all the time elsewhere in the country - it's an incredibly expensive piece of engineering, for minimal benefit. It might also trigger redoubling of the line to Stapleton Road (not necessarily a bad thing, but not cheap either), and offers similar or slower journey times to Bristol TM while it doesn't really make operations any more convenient and the existing line would need to be retained for freight purposes anyway.
WesternBiker
Member
Indeed, and the 1954 station was quite impressive for its day: a stone-faced main building with a concrete canopy at the entrance to the ticket hall, a generous forecourt, and an island platform 780 ft long with a generous (6 carriage?) concrete canopy, complete with skylights.
I believe it was paid by the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), hence no expense being spared. After closure in 1964, for many years the main building was used as a garage.
You are of course correct! The original station seemed to have been located for sailings from the port rather than the town.
Maybe one day when everyone is charging their electric cars at home and artificial intelligence somehow makes level crossings completely safe the garage site can be redeveloped and the road crossing reinstated, with a faithful replica of the 1954 station rebuilt exactly where the town station should be.
tigerroar
Member
How busy is the River Avon for shipping?
-Colly405-
Member
Should we open a speculative thread for Portishead via Shirehampton?
JohnRegular
Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 308
Not at all. Almost all cargo goes to Avonmouth or Portbury, as the Avon is not suitable for large container ships.
Leisure craft still go in to Bristol but the tidal Avon is hardly bustling with ships.
About the only thing of significant size I see going up and down is the replica of the Matthew, which has quite a tall mast. They get the odd tall ship in too. No commercial traffic, but any crossing would still need to accommodate leisure craft with masts so a bridge crossing would be impractical.
I think it’s been suitably dismissed as an option in this thread, so as the person floating the idea earlier on I’d vote no.
Quite happy to discuss Clevedon via Portishead though
Snow1964
Established Member
There has been lots of vague dates to nearest year, Portishead was phase 1 of Metrowest in Bristol, which were originally targeted for 2021, but slipped to June 2023
The line, with Portishead and Pill stations, now appears on some Metrowest maps (the current ones online) as phase 1b
The latest appears to be same time as branch to Henbury opens as part of Metrowest phase 2 which is late 2024 (presumably December timetable change).
Metrowest phase 2 were supposed to all be open by end of 2024, But parts could easily be delayed again.
Sorry to be vague, but the dates seem to be an elastic target rather than anything specific
I can’t see end of 2024 being realistic given no spades are in the ground yet.
There is some frustration that they haven‘t got spades in the ground yet, but there’s a bureaucratic process to go through (plus funding). I did wonder if it was possible to start some work ahead of major funding coming in, perhaps work on the non-contentious sections like the line from Pill Junction towards Portishead, no conflict with existing traffic, no major environmental issues. The old track needs to come out at least. But I suppose the issue might be the cost of establishing contracts and building compounds etc., more efficient to do in one bite even if it delays by a few years.
There is some frustration that they haven‘t got spades in the ground yet, but there’s a bureaucratic process to go through (plus funding). I did wonder if it was possible to start some work ahead of major funding coming in, perhaps work on the non-contentious sections like the line from Pill Junction towards Portishead, no conflict with existing traffic, no major environmental issues. The old track needs to come out at least. But I suppose the issue might be the cost of establishing contracts and building compounds etc., more efficient to do in one bite even if it delays by a few years.
see my post #226 on the thread ' projects you would build but probably will never happen'
Projects you'd build but will (probably) never happen
A link from dartford/gravesend to Essex. Instead of the new car tunnel. Similar idea floated for kenex tram but direction connection to existing rail lines will offer more connections and faster journeys. Maybe a tram could share the tunnel anyway. Also, link from fenchurch Street c2c to...
www.railforums.co.uk
tumbles
Member
The trouble with the Severn Beach line is the route it takes from Sea Mills onwards.. now if it could continue along the old port and pier route right up to the suspension bridge and then somehow route across to the old Harbour lines.. but then you could say same with Portishead route.. it could have done that too if they've not seen the possibility of that use of line.. unfortunately the line is built on after St Mary Redcliffe tunnel.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is also a useful resource:
-Colly405-
Member
Ah, the old WC&PLR!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Postishead - (river) - Portway P&R - Shire - Sea Mills - Portway Suspension Bridge - (river) - Ashton Gate - Parson St, anyone
tumbles
Member
On the face of it the vast majority of the trackbed/route from Portishead to the edge of Clevedon is pretty much untouched, you can still see some of it by Clevedon School. It's from there that it gets complicated without bulldozing through a shed load of residential. The route from outside of Clevedon to Yatton is pretty much still there from Kenn to within 1/2 mile of Yatton station. Its quite surprising looking on google maps satellite view that you can see the old route right into centre of Clevedon where station was.
tigerroar
Member
Yes, twenty years ago.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's what I thought. You could have a swing bridge neat to the BMF ground into Pill that would have to open once in a blue moon.
zwk500
Veteran Member
That's a big chunk of cash for the railway to spend on a leisure activity, and it would be the railway that is responsible for maintaining a swing bridge in openable condition. And what would be the benefits be for rail passengers over using the existing line to Temple Meads?
JohnRegular
Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 308
Not that it comes remotely close to justifying a new bridge, but I bet quite a few Portishead passengers would benefit from the much quicker connection to Clifton Down, which is equally or better located than Temple Meads for a fair chunk of employment in Bristol.
This one really is a non-starter though, even by the standards of the speculative section - we had better return to the realms of reality. Nothing happening on the ground yet, I take it?
- Status