Bristol and North Somerset Railway *Idea*

[freetoview33]

l have been looking at the former railway line that ran from Bristol Temple Meads - Frome, the main line had stations at Brislington, Whitchurch, Pensford, Clutton, Hallatrow, Farrington Gurney, Midsomer Norton and Welton, Radstock West, Mells Road and Frome. Passenger services stopped in 1959. And the rest of the line closed by the early 70's.

Reopening the line along its former alignment is all but impossible due to development along the route, but, I think I have found a potential alignment that might work.

It would take the mainline from Bristol Temple Meads to Bedminster where it would branch off behind Cotswold Road along the side of The Malago river, then following the Malago to Marksbury Road (Where 1 property might need to go). From there follow Novers Hill where half way up would be a new station to serve Knowle. From there curve around to follow Hengrove Way (on the opposite side of the road to Imperial Park).

From there cross over Hengrove Way toward Whitchurch Lane. Where another new station would be, serving Imperial Park and Hengrove Park. (Main issue would be cutting off part of Hengrove Mounds Nature Reserve).

From there Cross over Hengrove Way, and over part of Bridge Learning Campus playing fields, then a tightish curve around Lockmore Road and Longway Avenue (Where a few houses might have to be "relocated")

Then across Hill Farm, Where a new Hartcliffe station could be located. Then fairly straight to Pensford where it could pick up the former route.

A few minor route changes would be needed but all possible.

 

[daodao]

l have been looking at the former railway line that ran from Bristol Temple Meads - Frome, the main line had stations at Brislington, Whitchurch, Pensford, Clutton, Hallatrow, Farrington Gurney, Midsomer Norton and Welton, Radstock West, Mells Road and Frome. Passenger services stopped in 1959. And the rest of the line closed by the early 70's.

Reopening the line along its former alignment is all but impossible due to development along the route, but, I think I have found a potential alignment that might work.

It would take the mainline from Bristol Temple Meads to Bedminster where it would branch off behind Cotswold Road along the side of The Malago river, then following the Malago to Marksbury Road (Where 1 property might need to go). From there follow Novers Hill where half way up would be a new station to serve Knowle. From there curve around to follow Hengrove Way (on the opposite side of the road to Imperial Park).

From there cross over Hengrove Way toward Whitchurch Lane. Where another new station would be, serving Imperial Park and Hengrove Park. (Main issue would be cutting off part of Hengrove Mounds Nature Reserve).

From there Cross over Hengrove Way, and over part of Bridge Learning Campus playing fields, then a tightish curve around Lockmore Road and Longway Avenue (Where a few houses might have to be "relocated")

Then across Hill Farm, Where a new Hartcliffe station could be located. Then fairly straight to Pensford where it could pick up the former route.

A few minor route changes would be needed but all possible.

With what aim?

There is little point in re-building a line beyond the Bristol boundary into a low density rural area. Within Bristol, it would be better to build the route as a light rail line, and extend it to the city centre, from which Temple Meads is somewhat distant. However, light rail has been proposed for Bristol many times before, but never got off the ground.

 

[Chris 76]

With what aim?

There is little point in re-building a line beyond the Bristol boundary into a low density rural area. Within Bristol, it would be better to build the route as a light rail line, and extend it to the city centre, from which Temple Meads is somewhat distant. However, light rail has been proposed for Bristol many times before, but never got off the ground.

 

[Chris 76]

I grew up in North Somerset in the 70s/80s and have also wondered if the Bristol-Radstock line could be reopened. Like many lines of its kind if it hadn't closed it would now be busy. Midsomer Norton and Radstock have grown greatly since the 1970s, as have many of the villages on the route, and the area is Bristol (and Bath) commuterland (which it wasn't really in the 60s). But reopening is not realistic currently, and freetoview33's analysis of a tortuous and wayward new route through south Bristol is one of the reasons. But the main factor is cost. People are always suggesting bizarre reopenings on this forum (Carmarthen to Aberystwyth for example) while ignoring the difficulties of securing funding for no-brainer reopenings like East-West rail.
Daodao is right about the potential for light rail in Bristol. It's easy to say with hindsight but how different things might have been if the ex-Midland railway lines between Bristol, Kingswood, Yate and Bath, and lines like the North Somerset branch had been mothballed rather than closed entirely. Resurrecting the lines for light rail would have been far more possible, though with no PTE for the area funding would have been very difficult. Light rail to a Park and Ride at Whitchurch would have served north Somerset well. Even better might have been extending the route as far as Chelwood Bridge, south of Pensford, where the A368 and A37 meet, and an old mine site could have been used for park and ride.
A final flight of fancy: Electro-diesel tram trains, Kassel and Chemnitz style, continuing to Midsomer Norton, Radstock, then to Bath on the old Somerset and Dorset line, a north Somerset circle.

 

[MarkyT]

An alternative route, branching from Keynsham and meeting the old route again near Chelwood. I like the tram train idea, allowing new and reopened alignments to have level crossings more readily where intersecting country roads, and permitting steeper grades, tighter curves and short diversions onto or beside streets and pedestrian areas to better serve communities en route. At the Bristol end, tram trains could also branch off the mainline route near Temple Meads to serve the city centre.

 

[HowardGWR]

Aside from any other issues so far discussed, both suggestions follow river valleys (Malago and Chew). These are intimate landscapes and the uproar following such suggestions would be significant.

 

[MarkyT]

Aside from any other issues so far discussed, both suggestions follow river valleys (Malago and Chew). These are intimate landscapes and the uproar following such suggestions would be significant.

I don't doubt the potential for outrage! Railways, to a greater extent than roads, tend to have to follow river valleys as they can't so easily make steep ascents to climb out of them. Fast roads like motorways suffer similar constraints. At least with a local railway, stops in the affected areas might help convince people of the larger benefit. Are railways considered intrinsically ugly in the landscape by people today or is just opposition to any change whatsoever?

 

[mr_jrt]

...are gradients still the same issues now that they once were? I was under the impression that modern traction shrugs at gradients that made steam traction blush, and curvature is the far bigger issue with modern traction as it inhibits speed.

 

[MarkyT]

...are gradients still the same issues now that they once were? I was under the impression that modern traction shrugs at gradients that made steam traction blush, and curvature is the far bigger issue with modern traction as it inhibits speed.

Even in steam days locomotives increased dramatically in power over time, which allowed steeply graded routes like the Semmering Railway in the Austrian Alps to be constructed that were considered impossible only a few years previously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmering_railway . Gradients and curvature are more constrained by the type of traffic envisaged. Heavy freights want easy gradients but can tolerate fairly tight curves if speed isn't too excessive. Passenger expresses can handle steeper grades but curvature in horizontal and vertical planes is more limited if high speeds are desired. The tram train light rail paradigm could allow steeper gradients and tighter curves for comparatively low speed local passenger services over new lightly constructed branches.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

l have been looking at the former railway line that ran from Bristol Temple Meads - Frome, the main line had stations at Brislington, Whitchurch, Pensford, Clutton, Hallatrow, Farrington Gurney, Midsomer Norton and Welton, Radstock West, Mells Road and Frome. Passenger services stopped in 1959. And the rest of the line closed by the early 70's. Reopening the line along its former alignment is all but impossible due to development along the route.

There was also the Hallatrow loop line on the Bristol and North Somerset Railway that was used on the iconic film "The Titfield Thunderbolt" in which the station of Monkton Combe Halt was featured. What is the condition of the loop line area these days?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

If you can even find its alignment on a map such as Bing maps using the OS setting & using it in conjunction with aerial view.

That route has virtually returned to nature.

What I don't get is this self centred attitude that it's only the townies that matter, anyone who lives out in the countryside is completely and utterly irrelevant and that because they live in smaller towns & villages that they're not entitled to rail transport provision.

 

[Chris 76]

The Cam Valley line (Hallatrow to Limpley Stoke) has indeed returned to nature, but much is traceable especially west of Camerton. Several road bridges survive along the entire route, and Dunkerton viaduct survived until demolition in 1981. Interesting history at
http://www.highlittletonhistory.org.uk/transcriptions0905/Road and Rail/HLRailway.pdf

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What I don't get is this self centred attitude that it's only the townies that matter, anyone who lives out in the countryside is completely and utterly irrelevant and that because they live in smaller towns & villages that they're not entitled to rail transport provision.

I don't think it's that at all. It's a question of economics. In an urban area, you can build a new line and maybe 10 000 people a day will use it. That also removes several thousand car journeys a day from congested roads, which in turn additionally benefits a lot of people who don't even use the railway - because they can make their journeys more reliably on the roads.

In a rural area you could build a similar railway. Same cost to build, same cost to run and maintain it, and maybe 500 people a day will use it. That also removes a couple of hundred car journeys - but in this case, mainly from roads that weren't congested in the first place.

Yes, it would be lovely to give everyone perfect public transport access. But resources are finite. Say you can only afford to build one railway. Where do you put it? Any sensible Government is going to build it in the place that gives the greatest benefit to the most people.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Try living in the countryside in so called affluent Surrey, here they had the chance to have the line to Cranleigh reinstated, but the NIMBYS of Bramley blocked it.

It would have served two large schools within a 2 and 7 minutes walk of Bramley station and served around 15000 people in Cranleigh, removed several thousand car journeys and made things a lot better environmentally.

 

[A0wen]

Try living in the countryside in so called affluent Surrey, here they had the chance to have the line to Cranleigh reinstated, but the NIMBYS of Bramley blocked it.

It would have served two large schools within a 2 and 7 minutes walk of Bramley station and served around 15000 people in Cranleigh, removed several thousand car journeys and made things a lot better environmentally.

Though Surrey faired *very* well during the Beeching cuts - the Cranleigh line being the only one which closed.

I'm sceptical about the claim it would remove 'several thousand' car journeys - not least because whilst you might have 15,000 people in Cranleigh itself, even assuming 10% of residents use a new trainline that's less than 1500 a day.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though Surrey faired *very* well during the Beeching cuts - the Cranleigh line being the only one which closed.

I'm sceptical about the claim it would remove 'several thousand' car journeys - not least because whilst you might have 15,000 people in Cranleigh itself, even assuming 10% of residents use a new trainline that's less than 1500 a day.

Out of interest, I just checked Alton station. Similarly sized town, and like the proposed Cranleigh station, at the end of the line, so I would imagine a good example of what a station at Cranleigh could do. Wikipedia says Alton had 753K passengers in 2015-16, which means about 2000 a day. I imagine a plausible guess is that perhaps 1000 of those would be people who would otherwise have driven, either to their destination, or to a railway station further away if Alton station didn't exist.

 

[HowardGWR]

Bristol's southern urban fringe ends fairly abruptly at Whitchurch (Somerset old county) due to the Green Belt designation. The nature of all Bristol suburbs is like this, so that, if anything, a localised tram service to the fringe would work better than a train to Radstock, as there's not much in between those, except the odd expanded ex-mining village. Then there is the twin valley bowl nature of Bristol to consider (Avon and Frome). The trams used to run out to these fringes up the hills, until WW2, when the lines were torn up for buses instead. If the buses could have a totally free lane on all the approaches, they ought to be able to handle the demand, but of course are more expensive in staffing than a train carrying 400 pax.

Probably, the P and R plus tram method or P and R plus guided bus is the way forward for Bristol, such as is about to be implemented at Ashton Gate.

 

[Parham Wood]

As a resident of the area I can say that Paulton, Midsomer Norton, Radstock and all the surrounding villages are not well served by public transport for reaching Bristol and Bath quickly. There have been some improvements in bus services recently and some attempts to introduce bus lanes to speed them up. Also the Bristol to Wells/Glastonbury bus service has been revamped to run a 30 min intervals and is doing quite well. However the buses still get caught in the traffic choke points in Bath and Bristol so it is still a relatively slow journey at peak times. What is required is a rapid transport alternative from these growing small towns perhaps also extended to Frome. However the topography of the area and existing building is not well suited to this. Bristol itself is not ideal being in a bowl with steep hills. It is not helped by four councils being involved in the Bristol and surrounding area, although we have a mayor now who is supposed to work with the councils on major issues. Very few people understand how the new Bristol express busways will work. Most seem to go to Parkway rather than the town centre which will serve some purpose but would then require a change to rail to get into the city centre, rather than having more routes into the city direct. The council never have been very ambitious about transport and they seem to tinker around the edges rather than go for an innovative solution as they say there is no money (or perhaps no will to look for the money). So yes a rapid link into Bristol from the Somerset coal field would be great, but it need not necessarily follow the old railway route and any route will present challenges.

 

[Chris 76]

And the area's population is similar to other places which have rail links or which have serious plans for reopening. According to citypopulation.de Radstock is 9,000, Midsomer Norton 13,000 (22,000 combined), and several villages around 1,500-2,000, so probably at least 30,000 in the immediate catchment of the line south of Whitchurch. This is in line with Portishead and Tavistock which have advanced reopening plans.

 

[Parham Wood]

I would increase those figures as there has been massive building around and do not forget Paulton of 6000+ now. The Portishead line is relatively easy to bring back into service as some is in use to Portbury Docks and the rest is relatively flat. Unfortunately they built on the last section so the new station will be a little way from the centre but near a large housing estate. The Mendips line will be more of a challenge but as your figures show there is a reasonable catchment area. I do not see anything coming of it though as the Bristol and Bath councils are only interested in their cities. I once had a glimpse of a transport report commissioned by Bristol council and although I only glanced over it I could not find any considerations of rail (heavy or light) as options in the travel plan and nothing at all for North Somerset/BANES area.

 

[Parallel]

I think this is quite a good idea in theory. Midsomer Norton and Radstock seem to be largely commuter towns with worsening congestion around Bristol and Bath. A few people in my last job lived here and said they wish they had a train service. It's a pity the line to Bath Green Park is now closed.

 

[Chris 76]

I would increase those figures as there has been massive building around and do not forget Paulton of 6000+ now. The Portishead line is relatively easy to bring back into service as some is in use to Portbury Docks and the rest is relatively flat. Unfortunately they built on the last section so the new station will be a little way from the centre but near a large housing estate. The Mendips line will be more of a challenge but as your figures show there is a reasonable catchment area. I do not see anything coming of it though as the Bristol and Bath councils are only interested in their cities. I once had a glimpse of a transport report commissioned by Bristol council and although I only glanced over it I could not find any considerations of rail (heavy or light) as options in the travel plan and nothing at all for North Somerset/BANES area.

Totally agree; I didn't put Paulton in my catchment estimate but it's worth including. Would need a midibus shuttle to whichever station would be nearest or with best road access (I wouldn't suggest reopening all the original stations on their original sites!)

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'd most certainly like to see Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury & Street reconnected to the rail network again, it'd be most useful getting down to see friends and do shopping at the Clarkes village at the same time.

 

[kcajtam]

A Glastonbury Station would also be useful for the festival

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In any recently published regional strategic plans, how has rail been shown as part of these?

 

[HowardGWR]

A Glastonbury Station would also be useful for the festival

That's perhaps a common misconception. Glastonbury Festival isn't in Glastonbury, but the line does go right by Pilton Park, so they could have built a halte there I suppose.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Much as I abhor the battle I have with the A37 when I go to Bristol (usually once a fortnight in the rush hour), reopening the line really is a non starter for the reasons already stated. Much of the line is already heavily wooded as has been stated.

More pertinently, there has also been developments over the alignment at Pensford, at Hallatrow, next to the Spice Dunes (former Miners Arms) at Farrington, and then the Old Mills industrial estate.

To be honest, if there's not the will/money to reopen Portishead or the Henbury loop, then there's not much hope for ideas like this. Also, it will never hit the cost benefit requirements.