Does this then go some way to explaining the delay in publishing the Great Western ITT? Were the DfT awaiting a decision on Bristol Metro funding in order to be able to set out the terms of the new franchise with greater certainty?
I've a letter upstairs somewhere, personally signed by the Hopwood character no less, stating quite clearly that there is no rolling stock available to increase the frequency of service in this area (we're treated to one train an hour if we're lucky enough to get one that isn't shortformed).
So I very much doubt that, out of thin air, someone will magically conjure up a shedload of extra units to provide this new service.
The rolling stock “landscape” will look drastically different come 2016 – 2018 following Great Western electrification though: Just because there are no spare trains available at the present time, or in the immediate future, does not mean that this will continue to be the case indefinitely. I’m not aware that electrification is promised as part of the Bristol Metro proposals, but nonetheless the appearance of electric trains on Thames Valley services from Paddington will release Network Turbo DMUs which will almost certainly directly or indirectly lead to many more diesel units being available for use in the Bristol area. These trains are not being conjured “out of thin air”, it is well known that the Great Western electrification will free up many of the trains presently used on Thames Valley services. Plus, in 2016 – 18 Great Western will be a different franchise: It might not even be First group in charge of it.
If electrification was part of the Bristol Metro package, then as others have said it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make use of class 315 EMUs released from Great Eastern inner-suburban services by Crossrail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd say you'd want four trains an hour to justify the "Metro" name (which is what many of the lines in Glasgow/ Birmingham have). An hourly Metro really isn't a Metro (to me).
There are only short sections of the “Bristol Metro” network that are only intended to see an hourly service though, in most areas, it is more frequent than that. A half hourly service all the way around the “Avon horseshoe” from Portishead to Severn Beach via Temple Meads is very reasonable for the size of the potential market that it serves, and I’m with
techniquest in thinking that the wording on the diagram suggests that the Bath – Bristol service will be more frequent than hourly, with an hourly extension to Severn Beach. Plus, there will be a very frequent service to be channelled through Bristol Temple Meads, particularly up to Stapleton Road, that does give the impression of warranting the Metro name, and no doubt pathing constraints through this section restrict the number of trains per hour that could be run on each separate leg of the Metro network.
Not, mind you, that I’m convinced that the Bristol Metro will go ahead, let alone in its’ entirety. I believe that there is a strong case for the improvement (and re-introduction, with regards to the Southern half) of services on the Portishead – Bristol – Severn Beach “horseshoe”, but outside of that the proposals strike me as little more than a prospectus of optimistic aspirations. I’m with others in thinking that there’s little spare capacity to accommodate a Bath to Bristol stopping service, even if it’s principal intention is to provide a more frequent service to the intermediate stations rather than to meet demand for end to end journeys.