Why the Portishead Delay?

[Bald Rick]

If there are any laws which serve no other purpose than to prevent railways from reopening and allow cars to continue damaging the environment and ruin the lives of the residents of Portishead, Pill and Ashton Gate (where there should also be a station) then they simply need to be repealed immediately.

There aren’t.

That is Project SPEED.

No it is not.

 

[The exile]

NR (who I assume are undertaking the works) should have produced an Environmental Impact Assessment. Are we saying that this has not been done?

How much time has passed since it was done? Plants have an irritating habit of appearing where they weren't six months ago....

 

[Annetts key]

Having passed Parson Street Junction on my way to Okehampton, it is obvious that from there as far as the 2002 Pill junction is an operational (goods only) railway and any necessary redoubling work on that section would be permitted development. All that needs to be built is 3 miles of single track on which the last train ran presumably at some point in the 1980s if not a few years later and a couple of basic stations. Surely this can be accomplished at some point this century if the needless bureaucracy is done away with. Most people in the West Country and some elsewhere who are particularly interested are aware that the road traffic congestion on the Portbury Hundred, the sole road (and therefore the sole route of any mode) is absolutely extraordinary and that all of these drivers are absolutely desperate for alternatives, the most obvious of these being a GWR branch line.

Before anyone thinks differently, I'm very much in favour of Portishead reopening (almost in the jfdi camp!). However, as far as I know there are no protected plant species that are unique to any location along the Okehampton branch - unlike the Avon Gorge, where there are apparently several. I suspect the issue in terms of these may not be so much the existing trackbed - which should have been kept reasonably clear - nor even any bits of former trackbed required for doubling, but land which might need to be cleared for access for heavy plant. There would an awful lot of egg on various faces if it turned out that half of the world's examples of Sorbus bristoliensis had been wiped out to create a turning circle needed for 3 weeks when research beforehand could have led to careful uprooting and replanting.

Here are extracts of the sectional appendix:


Here is a Google maps link to the location of the junction near Pill.

And here is the former site of Pill station.

Here’s a link to the Wikipedia page about the Portishead Railway if you want to read about the history of the line.

The vast majority of the line that needs work is to the west of the M5 motorway. From the junction near Pill through to the town of Portishead. So nowhere near the Avon Gorge. The line that runs from Parson Street Junction via Ashton through the Avon Gorge and through Pill, then on to Portbury Docks is an open, operational freight line.

As far as I’m aware, for the first stage, there is not intended to be any doubling of the existing operational line through the Avon Gorge area.

There would need to be some works, as the line between Ashton Junction/Ashton Crossing and the Network Rail boundary at Portbury Docks is currently a token section. So some signalling improvements would be needed to increase the capacity of the line and make it more flexible.

Here’s a YouTube video showing the currently disused section

Link if you want to go to the YouTube web site

 

[Dr Day]

Even if the DCO goes through there is presumably still a funding hurdle to be overcome?

 

[mmh]

"pro-road environmentalists" if they exist, deserve to be roundly pilloried.

I think you'll find there's actually an awful lot of people who'd say they fit that, very clumsy, definition.

 

[Envoy]

When/if they ever re-build this route into Portishead, will they lower the new track at bridges in order to allow clearance for possible future electrification?

 

[John R]

Even if the DCO goes through there is presumably still a funding hurdle to be overcome?

The project is fully funded, but if consent is not obtained in Jan the delay will push it back several months, due to timings of environmental work, at considerable (unfunded) cost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Dec 2021 ==

When/if they ever re-build this route into Portishead, will they lower the new track at bridges in order to allow clearance for possible future electrification?

I would imagine the environmental hoops needed to get approval for wires through the gorge will be a big challenge. Might be easier to run battery trains given the relatively short length of the line.

 

[Envoy]

Amazing how overhead wires seem to be no problem through scenic areas of Switzerland and Norway for example.

 

[zwk500]

Amazing how overhead wires seem to be no problem through scenic areas of Switzerland and Norway for example.

That could well be a difference in the residents, rather than the regulations.

 

[Bald Rick]

That could well be a difference in the residents, rather than the regulations.

And the availability of energy supply.

 

[WesternBiker]

I would imagine the environmental hoops needed to get approval for wires through the gorge will be a big challenge. Might be easier to run battery trains given the relatively short length of the line.

I'm guessing the tunnel under the Clifton Suspension Bridge might be expensive to install overhead wires too - unless it has generous clearance?

It would be ironic for people to object on aesthetic grounds, given the opposite bank has a road, concrete avalanche shelter and (the last time I rode along it) a derelict pier structure on Hotwell Road that looked a complete eyesore.

But I can see hybrid may be the way to go.

 

[Annetts key]

When/if they ever re-build this route into Portishead, will they lower the new track at bridges in order to allow clearance for possible future electrification?

The bigger problem is the single bore, single track tunnels.

And the availability of energy supply.

Not a huge problem at the northern end, it’s just across from Avonmouth where there is a very large substation (the national grid links up here, plus the new power lines that are under construction from Hinckley Point go to Avonmouth).

I'm guessing the tunnel under the Clifton Suspension Bridge might be expensive to install overhead wires too - unless it has generous clearance?

That is just one of a number of tunnels (see above, and post #63).

It would be ironic for people to object on aesthetic grounds, given the opposite bank has a road, concrete avalanche shelter and (the last time I rode along it) a derelict pier structure on Hotwell Road that looked a complete eyesore.

But I can see hybrid may be the way to go.

As far as I am aware, no decision has been taken on future electrification, or other alternatives. However, some of the signalling infrastructure that is being provided is being designed with electrification in mind.

If you look at the planning application sites, it’s clear that the potential impact of a possible electrification has been discussed.

Certainly some of the electrification infrastructure could be screened by trees.

 

[507020]

Here is a Google maps link to the location of the junction near Pill.

And here is the former site of Pill station.

Here’s a link to the Wikipedia page about the Portishead Railway if you want to read about the history of the line.

I am already familiar with all of these things and found them very interesting. An intermediate station at Ashton Gate is as essential as the one at Pill.

When/if they ever re-build this route into Portishead, will they lower the new track at bridges in order to allow clearance for possible future electrification?

I think I heard something about providing passive provision for electrification, but this may only be at stations, on the new build section or where enabling work takes place on the operational goods line, but since the lines to Temple Meads, Bromsgrove and Wootton Bassett Junction are still unelectrified, lack of electrification on a branch line to Portishead that isn't even open isn't likely to cause problems any time soon.

The project is fully funded, but if consent is not obtained in Jan the delay will push it back several months, due to timings of environmental work, at considerable (unfunded) cost.

If no one will fund the costs of such unnecessary delays, then there simply can't be any costs associated when no money exists to be wasted on them.

 

[w1bbl3]

When/if they ever re-build this route into Portishead, will they lower the new track at bridges in order to allow clearance for possible future electrification?

That's not part of the phase 1 works but has been costed under the phase 2 proposal which is a further £60m over and above the phase 1 cost of £116m.

I recall from the planning applications that various work compounds need to established strengthening works in the section from Pill to Ashton Court. IIRC 15? underbridges need works to bring them up-to standard for passenger use mostly in the various SSSI's / SAC's. Quarry underbridge 22 needs the deck replacing with the methodology requiring formation of a new access road to the compound for the works, proposal is to use a precast deck lifted into place. The Gorge area needs work on the rock faces, some cutting back, pinning and general slope stabilisation works all in the, all quite obviously in the Gorge SSSI area.

If no one will fund the costs of such unnecessary delays, then there simply can't be any costs associated when no money exists to be wasted on them.

Now in the real world its up to the applicant to fund their application and provide an adequate level of detail to alleviate concerns raised by any statutory consultees, it seems somewhat unclear what the remaining environmental concerns are currently.
I would suspect the underlying issue is that five rounds of consultation have been needed for agreement to reached from all the statutory consultees and other key consultees. Then the secretary of state then not unreasonably needing a number of months to prepare a final report having reviewed all the further submissions from the applicant and writing up the accompanying decision note to consent.
The SoS did at one stage write to the applicant (North Somerset Council) asking them to resubmit the book of reference with the numerous identified anomalies corrected, its not unusual for books of reference to be have anomalies. Indeed the SoS writing asking for these to be corrected is a fairly positive sign that application is going to be consented eventually. The book of reference would be cited in any attempt for a judicial review.

The broad topic of environmental grounds is one of the few reasons that a party not happy with the decision could try and mount a case for judicial review, so an area where the SoS will want to ensure any decision to grant or deny is watertight.

The difficulty of course with sorting out all the paperwork and process prior to consenting being that certain works are best done in the spring a summer period rather than autumn and winter, and moreover that works done in areas subject to nesting birds can only be done outside of nesting season. As just two examples where unfortunate delays can result in additional cost. These are not unusual so shouldn't be unexpected.

 

[Annetts key]

I recall from the planning applications that various work compounds need to established strengthening works in the section from Pill to Ashton Court. IIRC 15? underbridges need works to bring them up-to standard for passenger use mostly in the various SSSI's / SAC's. Quarry underbridge 22 needs the deck replacing with the methodology requiring formation of a new access road to the compound for the works, proposal is to use a precast deck lifted into place. The Gorge area needs work on the rock faces, some cutting back, pinning and general slope stabilisation works all in the, all quite obviously in the Gorge SSSI area.

I don’t doubt what you say, but considering that a sizeable amount of money was spent on the line between Parson Street Junction to Pill (and on to the Network Rail/Port boundary) not that many years ago to enable fully laden coal trains and car/van trains to run, I’m slightly surprised that any rail over ‘road’ bridges on this section need strengthening works.

Or do you mean road overbridges?

The only reason that there are no more coal trains, is that the two coal power stations that Portbury used to supply have now closed (the last was Aberthaw and previously Didcot).

I’ll read through the proposed works document to see what is actually said when I get time (sorry, it’s far to large to copy here).

 

[John R]

Agree it would seem bizarre if bridges that have carried fully laden coal trains for the best part of 20 years following re- opening are suddenly not fit for purpose for dmus.

 

[JKF]

The bridge west of Pill station is to be rebuilt to take two tracks, one for the docks and one to continue to Portishead. Effectively ‘Pill Junction’ will be created east of the station, allowing passenger trains to spend less time obstructing freight traffic from the docks. A lot of vegetation along the embankment was cleared in the last couple of years.

There is currently no freight from the docks, a short term contract to move stone for HS2 ran out in September so it’s just been test trains and RHTT since then, although a route learner (66205) did make two trips into the docks yesterday which could be indicative of more freight traffic in the pipeline. Prior to the stone traffic there were no movements for about a year, prior to this were intermittent deliveries of new stock, rarely more than a couple of moves a month. This ‘downtime’ feels wasted, though I’m aware of the bureaucracy and finance required to put shovels in the ground.

There was an article in the local weekly paper last week covering the delay issues. A prize quote from the council leader in response to a claim that the phasing out of diesel trains would require them to wire up the branch by 2040

“If we did accommodate an overhead electrical line then it would mean trains could not join with services past Bath, as it does not have the same line. However, technology such as a third rail means that we can easily meet the government’s demands”

 

[507020]

The bridge west of Pill station is to be rebuilt to take two tracks, one for the docks and one to continue to Portishead. Effectively ‘Pill Junction’ will be created east of the station, allowing passenger trains to spend less time obstructing freight traffic from the docks. A lot of vegetation along the embankment was cleared in the last couple of years.

So will the arrangement be similar to the one on the Okehampton reopening, where the only access to Yeoford station is from Barnstaple but trains to Okehampton pass it on a parallel single line, making Pill station and platform only accessible from the Portishead line and bypassed by the goods line?

“If we did accommodate an overhead electrical line then it would mean trains could not join with services past Bath, as it does not have the same line. However, technology such as a third rail means that we can easily meet the government’s demands”

This is just total gibberish. Not only is there no 3rd rail at all on the Western Region or wires to Bath, Bristol or Portishead, but the main line to Bath and Bristol will obviously be done first before the branch line to Portishead (assuming it is even open by then) so any Portishead electrification can simply follow the GWML? Why are such delusional individuals allowed anywhere near the railway or to speak a word about it?

 

[Annetts key]

There is currently no freight from the docks, a short term contract to move stone for HS2 ran out in September so it’s just been test trains and RHTT since then, although a route learner (66205) did make two trips into the docks yesterday which could be indicative of more freight traffic in the pipeline.

Shown in the attached screen grabs from RealTimeTrains.

So will the arrangement be similar to the one on the Okehampton reopening, where the only access to Yeoford station is from Barnstaple but trains to Okehampton pass it on a parallel single line, making Pill station and platform only accessible from the Portishead line and bypassed by the goods line?

At Pill currently, there are still remains of the up (to Bristol direction) and downside platforms. The existing line runs alongside the up side platform. The plan is to lay the new passenger line along the formation on the downside. Rebuild the downside platform and provide a new station access on the downside. The upside platform would remain out of use with the existing line remaining as a freight only line to Portbury Docks.

The new junction will be on the Bristol side of Pill just before Pill tunnel (which is only suitable for a single line).

This is just total gibberish. Not only is there no 3rd rail at all on the Western Region or wires to Bath, Bristol or Portishead, but the main line to Bath and Bristol will obviously be done first before the branch line to Portishead (assuming it is even open by then) so any Portishead electrification can simply follow the GWML?

The nearest electrified line is the South Wales main line going through Pilning, Patchway, Stoke Gifford, Bristol Parkway and on to Swindon, all of which is OHL.

On the main line from Swindon, the OHL electrification ends at Chippenham. So Bristol Temple Meads and all surrounding junctions are not electrified.

Before the Portishead / Portbury line is considered for OHL electrification, a solution is needed for the railway under Bath Road bridge, just to the south of Bristol Temple Meads. The railway lines already visibly dip under this bridge, so where/how space for a OHL can be found needs to be investigated.

 

[Web4160]

Speaking as a resident of Portishead the reasons given for the 6 month delay make no sense at all. None of the environmental groups in the area are opposed to the reopening and the overgrowth on the line has been regularly cleared most recently in the last month.

If it takes this long to get approval to reopen less than 2 miles of line with no significant blockages I wouldn't have much hope for any of the more complicated reopening schemes which the government are supposedly supporting.

 

[Annetts key]

Speaking as a resident of Portishead the reasons given for the 6 month delay make no sense at all. None of the environmental groups in the area are opposed to the reopening and the overgrowth on the line has been regularly cleared most recently in the last month.

Reading through some of the letters and emails on the planning site, I get the impression that it may be people and organisations opposed to the railway reopening rather than actual the normal environmental groups. Some of the reasons they use are “environmental” such as the emissions from a trains diesel engines as they pass the school at Portishead, or the overall rise in emissions due to diesel trains being used.

 

[JKF]

At Pill currently, there are still remains of the up (to Bristol direction) and downside platforms. The existing line runs alongside the up side platform. The plan is to lay the new passenger line along the formation on the downside. Rebuild the downside platform and provide a new station access on the downside. The upside platform would remain out of use with the existing line remaining as a freight only line to Portbury Docks.

The new junction will be on the Bristol side of Pill just before Pill tunnel (which is only suitable for a single line).

it’s a shame that the up platform can’t be used, it would be much better than the down platform as there could be access from both ends, via steps from the bridge end (which I believe are still there) and also level access from the former goods yard end, which is also near to a lot of housing, not being to get in that side would add a five minute walk for people coming from down by the river.

Access from the goods yard would be suitable for the mobility impaired too with little infrastructure required, whereas the up platform will presumably need a massive ramp (like at Clifton down) to access the platform, which won’t be cheap. The old access to the down platform was also through the booking office, which I think is still a shop (was a DIY shop for years and years) so may need to impinge on this building a bit, unless they access from the goods yard end via a massive footbridge.

In my mind it would make sense to use the up platform for these reasons, with points or crossings at the dock junction to swap the lines back over, which although a bit more complex/costly may not be as much as the cost of footbridge type access to the down platform.

Against this i guess one benefit of refurbishing the down platform would be that it could be started on immediately without obstructing the live line through the up platform, although at the moment there is nothing to obstruct!

 

[Envoy]

I think a solution to getting electrification under Bath Road bridge may be to blast some insulation underneath - as happened in Cardiff where the valley lines bridge crosses the mainline just east of Central. Alternatively, could they not just have a neutral section under the bridge and the trains coast through?

 

[John R]

I think a solution to getting electrification under Bath Road bridge may be to blast some insulation underneath - as happened in Cardiff where the valley lines bridge crosses the mainline just west of Central. Alternatively, could they not just have a neutral section under the bridge and the trains coast through?

Given its very close proximity to the platforms at Temple Meads and the prevailing low speed in the area, I doubt a neutral section and coasting would be a good idea.

 

[Annetts key]

it’s a shame that the up platform can’t be used…

The more flexible layout would be to have a crossover at the Portishead/Portbury end of the station (where the current junction is) in addition to the proposed new points near Pill Tunnel. Then if there are no freight services, up (to Bristol) trains can use the up platform leaving the down platform available for down (Portishead) services, thus allowing two trains to pass. But of course, that would cost more money.

Given its very close proximity to the platforms at Temple Meads and the prevailing low speed in the area, I doubt a neutral section and coasting would be a good idea.

I think the problem would be the lack of time to lower the pantograph before a train leaving BTM got to the bridge. So pantograph lowering is not practical. Is an insulated ‘dead’ fixed section possible?

 

[John R]

The more flexible layout would be to have a crossover at the Portishead/Portbury end of the station (where the current junction is) in addition to the proposed new points near Pill Tunnel. Then if there are no freight services, up (to Bristol) trains can use the up platform leaving the down platform available for down (Portishead) services, thus allowing two trains to pass. But of course, that would cost more money.



I think the problem would be the lack of time to lower the pantograph before a train leaving BTM got to the bridge. So pantograph lowering is not practical. Is an insulated ‘dead’ fixed section possible?

I believe those are being used on the Valleys electrification. But I would worry that at such a slow speed, coasting runs a much greater risk of being stopped in the neutral section, as the bridge is less than a long train length from the platform end. Also, would there be space to put the additional infrastructure needed at the transition points, bearing in mind that the switches and crossings on the station exit extend as far as the bridge?

 

[Annetts key]

I believe those are being used on the Valleys electrification. But I would worry that at such a slow speed, coasting runs a much greater risk of being stopped in the neutral section, as the bridge is less than a long train length from the platform end. Also, would there be space to put the additional infrastructure needed at the transition points, bearing in mind that the switches and crossings on the station exit extend as far as the bridge?

One point end is under the bridge!

Bristol West Junction is in the Network Rail plans for relaying. As I understand it they want to change the layout. So maybe they will consider how to do electrification in their plans.

I agree that coasting so close to the station is does not sound like a very good idea. Especially for trains departing. Not only are they potentially starting from a stop at one of the even numbered platforms at the western end of the platform (e.g. platforms 4, 6, 8 etc.), but the line speed is only 25MPH (and only 15MPH from platform 15). So not much opportunity to build up much speed.

Similarly, for up direction trains approaching BTM, if they have a AWS, TPWS activation or other problem at a west gantry signal while passing towards the station, it’s certainly possible for the unit with the pantograph to stop in the dead section. That would cause all kinds of chaos…

 

[Chester1]

Reading through some of the letters and emails on the planning site, I get the impression that it may be people and organisations opposed to the railway reopening rather than actual the normal environmental groups. Some of the reasons they use are “environmental” such as the emissions from a trains diesel engines as they pass the school at Portishead, or the overall rise in emissions due to diesel trains being used.

It only takes one angry person, if they are persistent. The delays to the Ordsall chord are an excellent case study of what one person can manage if they are prepared to pay for legal challenges. The 6 month delay means the line probably won't be reopened by the next general election scheduled for May 2024. I doubt ministers would have authorised the delay if they had an alternative.

 

[24Grange]

Devon County Council have been trying to get Okehampton line operational for a daily regular passenger service since they started the Sunday service in 1997 (and probably before that) and have only just succeeded (24 years later) so maybe delay on Portishead is comparable to that ?

 

[John R]

Devon County Council have been trying to get Okehampton line operational for a daily regular passenger service since they started the Sunday service in 1997 (and probably before that) and have only just succeeded (24 years later) so maybe delay on Portishead is comparable to that ?

Different issue. DCC was funding. The funding is all there for Portishead - it's just the grindingly slow Development Consent Order process, which is currently paused at the most critical point (SoS decision).