Future of the GWR electrification

[The exile]

No but King Road is single line just south of St Andrews Road and Gloucester Road level crossing is immediately north of Avonmouth station, and you'd run at least to Avonmouth as it has the extra tph that starts/terminates there. Is there signalling to turn back to the north from Avonmouth?

Think that’s it. Unless you close Severn Beach and divert services round the Henbury loop, any sensible continuation of Henbury services westwards is going to have significant impacts on those two crossings.

 

[Annetts key]

No but King Road is single line just south of St Andrews Road and Gloucester Road level crossing is immediately north of Avonmouth station, and you'd run at least to Avonmouth as it has the extra tph that starts/terminates there. Is there signalling to turn back to the north from Avonmouth?

The three road level crossings are:
Avonmouth Dock Junction - West Town Road.
Avonmouth Station - Gloucester Road, somewhat busy, but only local traffic.
St. Andrews Junction - King Road - main docks entrance and by far the busiest crossing for road vehicles.

Currently there is no provision for a train terminating at Avonmouth Station to turn back north.

 

[brad465]

The three road level crossings are:
Avonmouth Dock Junction - West Town Road.
Avonmouth Station - Gloucester Road, somewhat busy, but only local traffic.
St. Andrews Junction - King Road - main docks entrance and by far the busiest crossing for road vehicles.

Currently there is no provision for a train terminating at Avonmouth Station to turn back north.

Perhaps the DfT could approve a Go-Op operation in the area and then make them crowdfund the cost to have those crossings upgraded

The other alternative if it was somehow cheaper/easier is to have a station at Chittening, that acts to serve the northern industrial estates and act as an interchange for Severn Beach and Avonmouth.

 

[lachlan]

There is currently a train that terminates at Avonmouth - I had always presumed the Loop proposal would see this service extended.

Of course whether running it "around the loop" would be more useful than increasing service to St Andrews Road and Severn Beach to half-hourly, I don't know.

 

[Annetts key]

Think that’s it. Unless you close Severn Beach and divert services round the Henbury loop, any sensible continuation of Henbury services westwards is going to have significant impacts on those two crossings.

You could keep the Severn Beach service. The current Avonmouth terminator would be the service you would extend through to Henbury.

Yes, the level crossings would have more trains travelling over them, but I don't think an extra train per hour is going to make that much difference.

 

[The exile]

Of course whether running it "around the loop" would be more useful than increasing service to St Andrews Road and Severn Beach to half-hourly, I don't know.

In an ideal world (ie one where awkward things like track and junction capacity didn’t feature), I’d go for Temple Meads (or beyond in all 3 cases) - Clifton Down - Severn Beach, alternating with TM - Clifton Down - Henbury - Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads - Ashley Down - Henbury

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2025 ==

Yes, the level crossings would have more trains travelling over them, but I don't think an extra train per hour is going to make that much difference.

Whoever now operates the docks did, though.

 

[zwk500]

In an ideal world (ie one where awkward things like track and junction capacity didn’t feature), I’d go for Temple Meads (or beyond in all 3 cases) - Clifton Down - Severn Beach, alternating with TM - Clifton Down - Henbury - Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads - Ashley Down - Henbury

As would I, although the TM-Henbury service would be at least 2tph.

 

[The exile]

As would I, although the TM-Henbury service would be at least 2tph.

We’re getting dangerously speculative….

 

[lachlan]

As would I, although the TM-Henbury service would be at least 2tph.

It would be a shame if the Henbury station isn't built with at least passive provision for becoming a through station.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a difference between operating an extension beyond the wires, and switching between wires and batteries multiple times on same main route

Operationally and technically, the difference is negligible. The procedures and engineering requirements are the same.

 

[MarkyT]

Operationally and technically, the difference is negligible. The procedures and engineering requirements are the same.

I agree. A secondary line cutting across from one mainline trunk to another is a very plausible use case.