Portishead approved

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, and it's a careful balancing act, hence context being important. I personally feel that avoiding odd gaps in the train would gain more revenue on the Morecambe - Lancaster than the bus would cost to run, and that the ferry passengers currently on the train would largely transfer to a bus heading straight for Lancaster and it's station.

It's an interesting one. The gap being at lunchtime probably means it doesn't make much difference - though I personally have been caught out by it when I was staying in Lancaster a while back and went for a lunchtime run along the old line to Morecambe expecting a train back, and had to run back extra-fast because there wasn't one and I had a meeting!

What would be handy would be if an incoming Bentham filled the gap exactly while the shuttle unit went off to Heysham, but that'd be hard to arrange.

 

[Starmill]

However, if the usage ceiling would eventually justify 2x 100m tph off-peak, to me on a line like this that's worth doing.

I certainly agree that if this business case were able to set out a credible pathway to a proper half-hourly service which fills a flur car EMU, and if English politics were to allow the kind of money to be spent, both capital and current, to achieve this for Portishead, then it would be perfectly tolerable to build this first stage on a BCR of less than one.

Unfortunately, there is no credible pathway to this. As a result this capital funding would be far better spent on something else, e.g. a station at Corsham and overhead wires extended to Bristol Temple Meads, to permit a 2tph EMU shuttle between Bristol and Swindon to run.

I think there's a not unreasonable chance that Morecambe-Heysham actually costs very close to £0

The political commitment to keep running it prevents any enhancements from taking place on the well-used Lancaster - Morecambe service. Abandoning the service to Heysham and electrifying the line to Morecambe would cost very little, but there's no chance of the case being made for that unless you can permanently displace a diesel unit and go up to 2tph. It's also wrong to suggest it doesn't cost anything because it has substantial costs associated with retaining crew knowledge and it is wasting fuel.

 

[zwk500]

I certainly agree that if this business case were able to set out a credible pathway to a proper half-hourly service which fills a flur car EMU, and if English politics were to allow the kind of money to be spent, both capital and current, to achieve this for Portishead, then it would be perfectly tolerable to build this first stage on a BCR of less than one.

Unfortunately, there is no credible pathway to this. As a result this capital funding would be far better spent on something else, e.g. a station at Corsham and overhead wires extended to Bristol Temple Meads, to permit a 2tph EMU shuttle between Bristol and Swindon to run.

If the 30-year ceiling is indeed only for 1x <100m train/hr then yes, wiring the existing lines in Bristol would be my preference to building an additional line.

 

[Starmill]

What would be handy would be if an incoming Bentham filled the gap exactly while the shuttle unit went off to Heysham, but that'd be hard to arrange.

What you seem not to understand is that this would cost money, and therefore doing it would be directly depriving another English regional rail service of resources. You can argue that this isn't a sensible structure, but it's the structure the government wants, and nobody is prepared to vote them out in favour of one which does both political and fiscal devolution properly.

 

[MarkyT]

The line to Stranraer, on the other hand, requires maintenance of a lot of line in difficult and remote country, to serve a small town and not the ferry port, with slow and inefficient operating procedures like NSTR that force poor utilisation of guards and drivers. To me, this line is worthy of potential abandonment - I'd suggest extending the OLE to Girvan and then tearing up the line south, running a bus service from Ayr through Girvan calling at Cairnryan before terminating in Stranraer. Stranraer port can then be sold off for redevelopment.

On the other hand, extreme simplification, taking out the three (THREE!) intermediate passing loops south of Girvan yet still potentially allowing a 2-hour interval service passing at Girvan, could be worth looking at as an alternative. It's under an hour journey time between Girvan and Stranraer one way today and some further time might be saved with those token exchanges removed. The port area is planned to be redeveloped anyway (assuming they can find a developer), regardless of what happens to the railway, and masterplans have identified an alternative Stranraer station location on the existing single line that would be more convenient and attractive for both the new development and the existing town. I appreciate the upkeep of the entire line has to be justified based on the minimal passenger service alone, but abandonment might leave some ongoing liabilities too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The political commitment to keep running it prevents any enhancements from taking place on the well-used Lancaster - Morecambe service. Abandoning the service to Heysham and electrifying the line to Morecambe would cost very little, but there's no chance of the case being made for that unless you can permanently displace a diesel unit and go up to 2tph. It's also wrong to suggest it doesn't cost anything because it has substantial costs associated with retaining crew knowledge and it is wasting fuel.

Actually, it doesn't prevent Heysham being run by a DMU from elsewhere, e.g. the one from Bentham if the timings suit, or running a Preston-Heysham using the Ormskirk circuit spare unit for an hour or two and leaving the EMU parked up.

It's not wasting fuel as it'd burn the same amount to do Lancaster and back.

With a running time of 10 minutes Morecambe<->Lancaster, I suspect it's paths on the WCML that is somehow preventing clockface half hourly, even if you had to leave an hour's gap at lunchtime for the single Heysham run.

 

[Starmill]

It can be

It's nine and a half miles from Portishead town centre to Bristol city centre. Where else in England (outside of Greater London) is there an hourly service, for a journey where the only meaningful flow is this short, which is well used enough to have a meaningful effect on car use?

Actually, it doesn't prevent Heysham being run by a DMU from elsewhere, e.g. the one from Bentham if the timings suit, or running a Preston-Heysham using the Ormskirk circuit spare unit for an hour or two.

It's not wasting fuel as it'd burn the same amount to do Lancaster and back.

Yes, a resource which by definition isn't standing idle in an efficient system. It certainly won't be standing idle under the Metro West proposals. But Morecambe is off topic for this thread.

 

[507020]

What would be handy would be if an incoming Bentham filled the gap exactly while the shuttle unit went off to Heysham, but that'd be hard to arrange.

Or from Carlisle.

I’m not sure it’s actually possible to cycle into Liverpool from Maghull since bikes aren’t permitted through Switch Island, it being a motorway and even if they were you would almost certainly be killed, necessitating a much longer route via either Sefton, the canal or Kirkby, whereas you can take bikes on the train even only to Old Roan and ride from there.

If the Portishead DMU is completely crush loaded, will this suppress demand from passengers wishing to take bikes to Bristol? There seems to have been a lack of consideration in recent posts that of course car ownership in Portishead is high because there is no rail link, that the only road into Bristol is operating above capacity, disproportionately increasing journey times and pollution and that many commuters would likely ditch their cars entirely in favour of using an hourly DMU, although if less 6 carriages this may lack the required capacity, necessitating at least a half hourly service.

What must be prevented at all costs is demand being suppressed by a lack of capacity after the capital expenditure has been made.

 

[Dr Day]

What must be prevented at all costs is demand being suppressed by a lack of capacity after the capital expenditure has been made.

I believe the capital costs have already been minimised by cutting out the potential double track that would be needed to run a more frequent passenger service (noting freight still has rights) and having platforms to match the length of the intended trains, rather than allow for longer trains to run in future.

 

[zwk500]

What must be prevented at all costs is demand being suppressed by a lack of capacity after the capital expenditure has been made.

Not at all costs - only at a cost that can be reasonably justified. Don't throw bad money after good(ish)

 

[Starmill]

There seems to have been a lack of consideration in recent posts that of course car ownership in Portishead is high because there is no rail link

An hourly rail service, which is the maximum possible under the scheme which is being proposed, won't influence this. Nobody rational is going to give up a private vehicle because an hourly rail service is introduced.

although if less 6 carriages this may lack the required capacity, necessitating at least a half hourly service.

Neither a six car set nor a half-hourly service will be possible under the current proposal.

 

[zwk500]

An hourly rail service, which is the maximum possible under the scheme which is being proposed, won't influence this. Nobody rational is going to give up a private vehicle because an hourly rail service is introduced.

Agree, although they might leave it at home for the journey into work and back, and that's a start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

An hourly rail service, which is the maximum possible under the scheme which is being proposed, won't influence this. Nobody rational is going to give up a private vehicle because an hourly rail service is introduced.

Most people won't give up a private vehicle if it's 10tph. But they may use it less.

Agree, although they might leave it at home for the journey into work and back, and that's a start.

Snap!

 

[Starmill]

Agree, although they might leave it at home for the journey into work and back, and that's a start.

Unfortunately may doesn't butter the metamorphical parsnips when it comes to value for money. Notice how there's been almost no discussion at all about the value for money the project can deliver in the news about the Order being made? This is because it is so poor.

 

[MarkyT]

Agree, although they might leave it at home for the journey into work and back, and that's a start.

Most people won't give up a private vehicle if it's 10tph. But they may use it less.

Some households might be able to make significant savings by giving up one of their cars which might have previously sat all day in a workplace car park.

 

[zwk500]

Unfortunately may doesn't butter the metamorphical parsnips when it comes to value for money. Notice how there's been almost no discussion at all about the value for money the project can deliver in the news about the Order being made? This is because it is so poor.

Ooh, what to the parsnips turn into? (Sorry ). I'm aware of this problem, but at some point we need to take unremunerative actions for the sake of the climate. I don't know what the car journey and bus opportunities are between Portishead and Bristol at the moment, nor do I know how well the railway is situated for Bristol employment areas, so I can't comment with any greater certainty how many car journeys will transfer.

I do know that in other places (e.g. Dronfield) 1tph is considered a perfectly fine service and people are happy to leave the car behind. Fundamentally, if the train is the better option then people will use it. 1tph at the right time can still be a better option. Does anybody know what times are proposed, or how long the journey is projected to take?

Some households might be able to make significant savings by giving up one of their cars which might have previously sat all day in a workplace car park.

Indeed.

 

[Dr Day]

https://www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MW-OBC-20190704-FINAL-V2.pdf

For those interested, the Outline Business Case documents such as the one linked above can be found on the WECA website. Note these include all schemes making up Metrowest phase 1 (the costs and benefits of extra trains to Severn Beach which has already been implemented and Westbury which is still planned in next year or so were part of the same original overall package as Portishead reopening to passengers now not expected for several more years ). They reflect the position when they were written in terms of capital/operating costs and expected demand pre-covid across all three elements of phase 1 hence will be need to be updated for the full version going to DfT for final approval for Portishead.

 

[MarkyT]

Note the original scheme years ago assumed that 2tph would be possible with no more new infrastructure than being planned today. What killed it was on further development the speed profile assumed on the single-line section through the gorge proved unrealistic. The assumption was a train could get from the end of the double track near Ashton Gate to Portishead and back in under 30 minutes. Additional block sections on the single line would allow a Portbury freight to be inserted between passenger trains, turning off just before the new Pill platform.

 

[Starmill]

I'm aware of this problem, but at some point we need to take unremunerative actions for the sake of the climate.

I'm in strong support of that, but I also believe that we should achieve it by procedurally updating the appraisal framework. What we absolutely should not be doing is permanently cutting services in some established areas while trying to open up new ones with very dubious value for money. To use another silly metaphor, we should butter the bread we have rather making the same butter stretch over more and more bread. Or alternatively get some more butter, and importantly be honest that we must raise taxes to pay for it.

Dronfield isn't a great example because it has its peak extra services. In the morning peak, three towards Sheffield and one towards Nottingham, in the afternoon peak, two towards Nottingham and a further one around 2130 from Sheffield, again towards Nottingham. Such extra services won't be possible from Portishead. Somewhere like Billingham might be a more suitable comparison.

 

[zwk500]

I'm in strong support of that, but I also believe that we should achieve it by procedurally updating the appraisal framework. What we absolutely should not be doing is permanently cutting services in some established areas while trying to open up new ones with very dubious value for money. To use another silly metaphor, we should butter the bread we have rather making the same butter stretch over more and more bread. Or alternatively get some more butter, and importantly be honest that we must raise taxes to pay for it.

A strong agree from me.

 

[Starmill]

Note the original scheme years ago assumed that 2tph would be possible with no more new infrastructure than being planned today. What killed it was on further development the speed profile assumed on the single-line section through the gorge proved unrealistic. The assumption was a train could get from the end of the double track near Ashton Gate to Portishead and back in under 30 minutes. Additional block sections on the single line would allow a Portbury freight to be inserted between passenger trains, turning off just before the new Pill platform.

The half-hourly service would have required some interventions on level crossings which are very expensive. The number of issues which level crossings cause, with everything from safety risk to line capacity to signalling complexity to stakeholder management, they really are an enormous pain in the backside.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The half-hourly service would have required some interventions on level crossings which are very expensive. The number of issues which level crossings cause, with everything from safety risk to line capacity to signalling complexity to stakeholder management, they really are an enormous pain in the backside.

Tram-train would be the obvious answer to that.

 

[MarkyT]

The number of issues which level crossings cause, with everything from safety risk to line capacity to signalling complexity to stakeholder management, they really are an enormous pain in the backside.

Oh completely agree. When I was a young designer in the WR signalling drawing office, most of my early work was updating level crossing layouts and circuits for the latest modifications required, drafting revised orders etc. It seemed as soon as one modification had been completed across all crossings of a particular type in the area I dealt with, the next one would come up and I'd be getting all the same drawings out of the plan store again, rather like painting the Forth Bridge. Crossings are a nightmare!

Tram-train would be the obvious answer to that.

Not on the sections shared with freight trains where full heavy rail standards would need to be retained.

 

[507020]

An hourly rail service, which is the maximum possible under the scheme which is being proposed, won't influence this. Nobody rational is going to give up a private vehicle because an hourly rail service is introduced.

But is the Portbury Hundred truly unusable 24 hours a day, or just when people are trying to drive to and from work in Bristol? Even if it only reduces car use for commuting it will have a huge impact on congestion and other road related issues. Anyone who has no need for a car other than commuting into Bristol will no longer have a need for one.

Neither a six car set nor a half-hourly service will be possible under the current proposal.

Will the scheme at least include passive provision for platform lengthening and further redoubling if and when the service becomes overcrowded? Otherwise it’s hardly worth bothering.

 

[Starmill]

Will the scheme at least include passive provision for platform lengthening and further redoubling if and when the service becomes overcrowded? Otherwise it’s hardly worth bothering.

Depends on what you mean by passive provision. Usually people say 'passive provision' but really mean active provision e.g. deliberately leaving the space to build platforms later, as at Kenilworth or the more complex active provision that has been included in the design of Headbolt Lane to allow its use to change in the future.

There's no active provision for doubling.

 

[507020]

Depends on what you mean by passive provision. Usually people say 'passive provision' but really mean active provision e.g. deliberately leaving the space to build platforms later, as at Kenilworth or the more complex active provision that has been included in the design of Headbolt Lane to allow its use to change in the future.

There's no active provision for doubling.

What exactly is active provision? Headbolt Lane is interesting because it serves as a purpose built terminus to avoid further safety issues that are inherent in the severed layouts at Kirkby and Ormskirk, while simultaneously not severing the line with any permanence despite its unusual layout, to allow for extension of the through line to Skelmersdale.

I would say passive provision for redoubling includes things like not slewing a single track through the centre of a double track formation, so as to allow the 2nd track to be relaid next to it without having to rip up the existing one first and certainly not severing your embankment for a motorway and only replacing it with a single track bridge.

There is not passive provision for platform lengthening at for example the Roby and Huyton island platforms, due to their length being specified for 4 car 319s and track being aligned accordingly when 6 car 331s now run. If Portishead is to have an island platform and single track sections, I do hope it will not be aligned with these capacity constraining errors.

 

[tbtc]

Good news, in theory (I’m generally against reopenings when they are “long rambling like through the middle of the an empty party of the countryside like a National Park, but I’m favourite of simple schemes to link towns to the nearest big city, e.g. Tavistock to Okehampton means lots of infrastructure through the very lightly populated Dartmoor (with some grandiose plans for Waterloo extensions and “diversionary resilience”) but Portishead is a simple project that allows locals to better access jobs/ shops in Bristol or encourages Bristolians to bring fresh blood to Portishead (you might afford a place with a spare bedroom/ garden, if you can rely on the commute being affordable compared to the rent/ mortgage saving)

However I think that the “taking cars off the road” argument is generally over-hyped. My understanding is that the half hourly (and much longer) Borders line took around fifty cars a day off the road through Sherrifhall Roundabout (despite the train usage and the populations of the Dalkeith and Galashiels catchment areas) - the train passengers appear to be doing discretionary leisure journeys/ people commuting into Edinburgh who didn’t previously before/ former bus passengers - I’m not saying that these are “the wrong type” of train passengers, but very few were driving into Edinburgh before the line opened, so it’s not like you’d notice the roads were much emptier or the pollution much changed

I think you're probably missing one key thing - just how anti-car Bristol is

Lots of Bristolians might like to be members of anti-car Facebook pages, but they haven't voted for an authority that can be bothered to even implement the proposed Workplace Parking Levy have they?

There’s certainly a noisy minority in parts of Bristol who’d love to make the place more like Brighton, but the rest of the city doesn’t seem anything like as radical

if the locals voted for parties/ policies that were “anti car” as often as they drive their vehicles to Cribbs Causeway then things would be different, but the reason local bus services struggle so much is precisely because so many cars are on the roads - if the place is “anti car” then I don’t know who all these motorists are?

I can't agree that subsidy of public transport is a bad thing, which is what you're basically doing.

In short, if you're anti-this sort of line, you're not just saying Girvan-Stranraer should close (it probably should, in exchange for electrification and an hourly service to Girvan), you're asking for Serpell.

I agree totally on the point re Chiltern's Parliamentary train replacement. The industry needs to be far more flexible about adding and removing services in response to demand, and lose the 'thin end of the wedge' mentality that blocks a lot of quite useful fat trimming.

I’m with @zwk500 here, it’s surely possible to have a grown up debate about how best to adapt the railway to a “frozen” level of subsidy (or even one with subsidies cut) without the reactions of talking about Beeching/ Serpell

it’s like that left wing thing of accusing anyone remotely near the centre of political opinion of being “far right” or “fascist” - hysterical stuff, but not very funny

I think that everyone on here wants to improve the railway, it’s just that some recognise that inevitably increasing costs in some areas mean we may have to trim some lightly used stuff, especially if we are looking for money to invest in improvements elsewhere

If we can’t touch the heavily loss making lines then we’re going to struggle to get the cash to focus on targeted lines that show genuine growth potential

In fact, instead of suggesting that basket case routes are thinned out, the suggestions on here often tend to involve building bespoke stock for them (or significantly increasing the frequency for a “trial” period)!

I'll consider changing my lifestyle voluntarily if the appropriate facilities are provided to do so. For instance, I'd use the bus in MK more if the service was acceptable (it's not, it's terrible). It's not viable, but if there was a nearby tram I'd use that even more. I cycle in MK more than I would in a city that didn't have a comprehensive network of off-road cycle paths.

For instance, I'll almost always drive into central Milton Keynes

My understanding from previous discussions is that you’re not from Milton Keynes but chose to move there… and you certainly commuted into London for a period/ worked from home (correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s information that I seem to remember you bringing up before?)

So you voluntarily decided to move to probably the least public transport “friendly” large place in the UK (i.e. ignoring significantly smaller towns/ villages)… then drive for shortish journeys because local services are “terrible”… but you’re wanting other people to embrace public transport?

Why not move to somewhere with a tram service, if that’s apparently the threshold for whether you’d sacrifice your car based commute?

The line to Heysham, for instance: Lancaster-Morecambe is well used, the Morecambe - Heysham line will remain open for the Nuclear freight, so the only costs of the line being open for passengers are the handful of services and a modest platform. It probably gives about the same net benefit that you'd get from withdrawing the service, running a Takt Morecambe and running a bus between Lancaster station and Heysham for the ferry

I think there's a not unreasonable chance that Morecambe-Heysham actually costs very close to £0. The platform at Morecambe is already there, the platform at Heysham requires little maintenance (does it even have lights or do they come from the road alongside?), the line is used for nuclear traffic and it's run by the existing unit instead of doing a Lancaster run. Thus you're down to the costs of occasional maintenance on the Heysham platform

If the nuclear trains pay the other costs for maintaining the line then great

If the nuclear trains don’t cover all of the additional expenditure then Network Rail needs to play hard ball - I want freight on the rails but we can’t charge peppercorn rates for any traffic that does come via train

Stockport-Stalybridge is, or was, putting stops in an ECS that went that way anyway, and there will be fares income from enthusiasts riding it.

Not quite- the movement used to be stock that finished at Stockport in the morning peak then ran ECS on the line that runs north west at Audenshaw reservoirs/ skirts the M60, joining the Ashton-Victoria line near the Curzon Ashton ground, en route to Newton Heath, so needed a bit of a diversion to exrebd north west to Stalybridge on a Friday morning but still a reasonable marginal use of resources if you had to serve the line with a weekly train

Then it became a return service on Saturdays and took up a lot more resource

But the logistics of improving a service that has gained a niche notoriety BECAUSE it ran so rarely is a whole other argument - you might find that an hourly service actually got barely any more passengers than a weekly train because so many of the Friday morning crowd were only doing it for the novelty factor (aka The Great Hipster Paradox)

 

[The Planner]

What’s the point of having a stadium station if it’s not going to deal with huge passenger numbers during events…

Because the NUCKLE project continually falls on its backside. The crossover to allow terminating in the longer up platform has never been put in. Therefore no shuttles to and from Coventry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My understanding from previous discussions is that you’re not from Milton Keynes but chose to move there… and you certainly commuted into London for a period/ worked from home (correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s information that I seem to remember you bringing up before?)

I moved to MK for a graduate job in 2001, that job was office based with no home working permitted (remember, it was 56K modem or nothing back then!) and in MK, so it was the only sensible option (any other option would have required a car commute). I commuted to that pretty much entirely by bicycle unless the weather was awful. I then moved to another job which has been a bit more "all over the place". It actually wasn't where I expected that company to send me - I had expected a North West placement, but it turns out that the interviewing solution centre got first dibs, and I went to an interview in MK because the date suited and I fancied a free train trip out as expenses were paid and you could choose the location! (Interesting how much that seemingly fairly minor decision impacted my life).

Like with most grads you go where the work is. The job offer (the work and the pay) was good, so I went along with it. This, at that age, is normally the right decision.

Back then Julian Peddle's MK Metro, while not perfect, offered good coverage and a reasonably reliable service, though evenings were a bit lacking. So the public transport was acceptable to me. Almost all of MK had a half hourly service, albeit one mostly operated using breadvans, within a reasonable walk, the seasons were acceptably priced and all the tenders accepted MK Metro's tickets so the system was reasonably joined up, rail aside. I actually moved here without owning a car - it rapidly became clear one would be useful, but I didn't use it *that* much.

In the meantime, the execrable Arriva has massively cut the bus service, significantly reduced its quality in many ways, and austerity and a misguided and useless DRT project have polished off almost all tendered routes which plugged some of the gaps.

When I was London commuting (which I have done a few times) my car was barely used, again mostly cycling to the station. It was also a fairly handy place when weekly commuting by air.

As things are now it is indeed questionable whether I should stay here, and there's a possibility I won't, but that's one to work out over the next year or two. I'd probably have already addressed it if COVID was not in the way. I'd indeed like to live nearer family and in a less car-dependent place. Major relocations are not a simple thing and are not generally to be done quickly, and I personally do not make big changes easily these days, not least in terms of leaving behind friends etc.

So you voluntarily decided to move to probably the least public transport “friendly” large place in the UK (i.e. ignoring significantly smaller towns/ villages)… then drive for shortish journeys because local services are “terrible”… but you’re wanting other people to embrace public transport?

It's not a situation that could arise for many reasons, but I reckon I would use a punctual, reliable hourly rail service if there was one from near my house to central MK. There can't be for lots of reasons, not least the lack of an actual railway line to run one on, but if we're playing hypotheticals...

Why not move to somewhere with a tram service, if that’s apparently the threshold for whether you’d sacrifice your car based commute?

There not being many places in the UK with a tram service render that unlikely. Though (noting the above) places served by Merseyrail may enter consideration if/when it does happen.

I don't, now, have a car based commute, nor indeed any commute, though I do do the odd business trip.

This year I've done a lot more long distance by car, though, and the dire state of Avanti West Coast has largely been responsible for that.

If the nuclear trains pay the other costs for maintaining the line then great

If the nuclear trains don’t cover all of the additional expenditure then Network Rail needs to play hard ball - I want freight on the rails but we can’t charge peppercorn rates for any traffic that does come via train

No, they really don't. That's knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Not quite- the movement used to be stock that finished at Stockport in the morning peak then ran ECS on the line that runs north west at Audenshaw reservoirs/ skirts the M60, joining the Ashton-Victoria line near the Curzon Ashton ground, en route to Newton Heath, so needed a bit of a diversion to exrebd north west to Stalybridge on a Friday morning but still a reasonable marginal use of resources if you had to serve the line with a weekly train

Then it became a return service on Saturdays and took up a lot more resource

Though Saturday does make it more likely non-passholder enthusiasts will go out for a play and pay some fares for it!

But the logistics of improving a service that has gained a niche notoriety BECAUSE it ran so rarely is a whole other argument - you might find that an hourly service actually got barely any more passengers than a weekly train because so many of the Friday morning crowd were only doing it for the novelty factor (aka The Great Hipster Paradox)

While I think the idea of running half-hourly Stockport-Victoria post HS2 may have some value, I would agree that an hourly Stockport-Stalybridge service would not be useful and should not be reinstated.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm reading this thread as someone brought up in Bristol but not having lived there for 50 years. The location of Temple Meads in relation to the central business/shopping district was always quoted as the main reason for Bristol's poor local train service. Has recent city centre development improved the situation? Several potentially useful local lines have long been abandoned or converted into a cycle route (the North Somerset line as far as Whitchurch and the Midland line to Yate/Warmley via Mangotsfield.) These, together with Portishead and Severn Beach, could have formed the basis of a light rail network linked together with on-street running in the central area and I remember writing to the Evening Post back in the 60s advocating just such an idea. But it was all about cars then and Bristol seemed to have missed the boat by the time light rail was being revived in the 1990s. A half-hourly service should be the minimum requirement for a local rail service in a large city but several services in Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool don't meet this minimum standard.

In the last couple of decades an office and hotel district has sprung up on the city side of Temple Meads, helped by the removal of the horrible road flyover and making the remaining roads more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. I never thought the walk into the city centre was that bad - at least until you hit the hill on the other side - particularly following the former inner ring road via Queen Square.

I was involved in an abortive tram-train project for Bristol in the 1990s and spend a fair bit of time trying to work out how to get them from Temple Meads to the centre, with the Broadmead shops in particular being quite hard to include. This would have re-opened the four tracks out to Abbey Wood, mainly for the tram-trains but also capable of carrying other services. Extension to Portishead, joining the railway somewhere south of the centre rather than via Temple Meads, might have been a later phase.