Portishead approved

[zwk500]

Have they not done the economic assessment already though, very early on? Seems a bit strange to get this far without considering the economics of the line previously.

Theyve done a business case but that was pre covid.

 

[nw1]

It would be a very quick sell to a nation of 'Brussels cant tell me what to do' and people who want houses though.

If people still believe that rubbish, of course. I think more and more people see through this propaganda by now, given that leaving the EU has not propelled us, in any shape or form, into the sunlit uplands - and indeed has generally made our life more expensive/less convenient.

Theyve done a business case but that was pre covid.

Ah ok, Even still, you'd think it's something that should have been done earlier, commuting isn't dead (contrary to what some would have you believe), and the line will presumably attract a lot of leisure travellers for which Covid is neither here nor there. You could, for example, run a standard-pattern service without any peak extras initially (and bring them in later if demand dictates).

 

[Annetts key]

Have they not done the economic assessment already though, very early on?

Theyve done a business case but that was pre covid.

The longer they dither and delay, the greater the cost will be. Inflation alone will be increasing the cost. Hence there is no point in doing another business case IMHO. That’s like asking someone to measure the height of the incoming tide. Every time you do it, the figure will obviously be higher.

And in any case, commuting in and around Bristol is mostly back to the pre-COVID19 levels from what I can see.

I was on the London Underground earlier this month during ‘rush hour’ and it was packed. The main line train to get to London was very busy as well.

As to the protection of wildlife, until we are back to 100% of the typical population that we should be, the protections should stay. Most of the delays to the work to re-open this line are due to our government and the way the are mismanaging the country.

 

[farwest]

I think the Portishead saga sums up everything that is wrong with the country?

 

[JKF]

I think the Portishead saga sums up everything that is wrong with the country?

There’s a number of cock-ups which have been discussed in this thread - mistakes made in how it was approached. The council shouldn’t have bought the unused part of the line which as a consequence of the purchase lost certain grandfather rights; some of the planning should have been for the closed bit only as the Gorge part was already in use; they shouldn’t have allowed the line to be severed by a new road in Portishead with the assumption a level crossing would be allowed, leading to a lot of planning headaches and a sub-optimal station location (not that foreseeable tbh, as that was largely a policy brought forward by a rail crash).

One of the biggest factors was the scrapping of the County of Avon, which meant it didn’t progress for years because neither local authority born out of this reorganisation wanted to fund something perceived to benefit the other. It’s also a bit of a shame that they didn’t push for one of the earlier plans for a service to Wapping Wharf, far more central for the city. Perhaps that could have allowed an half-hour frequency, one to Temple Meads, one to WW. Unfortunately that formation/potential station site has now been lost to development.

 

[Parham Wood]

I am a little puzzled why the detailed design work is done before the full business case is approved. If the business case is not approved then the detailed design costs are wasted. Also why so long to approve the full business case? Surely a month is long enough, but it states Summer 2024 which could be September 2024 with the full business case submitted in March 2024. This country has no go about it these days.

 

[Starmill]

I am a little puzzled why the detailed design work is done before the full business case is approved. If the business case is not approved then the detailed design costs are wasted.

Turn it on its head - the full business case requires the detailed design because it must have firm cost quotes. No construction company will offer you a firm price without detailed designs. Usually you don't begin to work up a full business case unless you're very confident of success that's correct, so this project is at huge risk of wasting money as you suggest.

There's one very good reason why this project is having so much difficulty in passing each decision, and that's that it's dreadful value for money. The appraisal process is working quite correctly, what is broken is the politically-driven decision-making to proceed despite the strong evidence not to. It should never have got this far.

This country has no go about it these days.

Yes, but that's because it's pursuing the wrong solutions altogether, rather than because the railway is doing something wrong.

Hence there is no point in doing another business case IMHO.

What do you suggest as an alternative? That we spend public money on things you happen to fancy?

Most of the delays to the work to re-open this line are due to our government and the way the are mismanaging the country.

I agree it's shocking mismanagement to build a railway in this case.

 

[Annetts key]

What do you suggest as an alternative? That we spend public money on things you happen to fancy?

No, my point is, if the project has already been subject to a business case, and it was deemed to be worthwhile, I don’t see why it needs to be subjected to another business case.

The relevant councils want this project to go ahead, lots of people in Portishead (no, I don’t know how many, I’ve not investigated) want this project to go ahead, there are no houses in the way, the route already exists, the only things that is/has/will be changing is the timing and costs.

And as I have already said, one of the things that is driving up costs is all the delays.

Elsewhere on the railways in the North Somerset Council area, there is a road over rail bridge that has a weight restriction due to the poor state of the structure. It’s actually owned by the MOD. The MOD has agreed to help fund a new bridge. But again, due to various delays, the cost of replacing it now exceeds the agreed funding… So now the request has been made for more money. What happens if the costs go up again? Which they will. Do we end up in an endless cycle?

It seems to me, this country has a very strange and silly system of managing projects.

 

[Yindee8191]

Turn it on its head - the full business case requires the detailed design because it must have firm cost quotes. No construction company will offer you a firm price without detailed designs. Usually you don't begin to work up a full business case unless you're very confident of success that's correct, so this project is at huge risk of wasting money as you suggest.

There's one very good reason why this project is having so much difficulty in passing each decision, and that's that it's dreadful value for money. The appraisal process is working quite correctly, what is broken is the politically-driven decision-making to proceed despite the strong evidence not to. It should never have got this far.


Yes, but that's because it's pursuing the wrong solutions altogether, rather than because the railway is doing something wrong.


What do you suggest as an alternative? That we spend public money on things you happen to fancy?


I agree it's shocking mismanagement to build a railway in this case.

Value for money is irrelevant. The town is in desperate need of better transport connections as the current state of affairs is unacceptable. The value is in terms of providing services instead of creating money. Still, the productivity created by unblocking congestion and enabling people to get to Bristol and the wider U.K. more easily will easily cover the costs in the long term.

 

[75A]

This is the first time I’ve ever seen it mentioned that Ashton Gate station is actually proposed to be reopened as Phase 2. Given that this is the home of Bristol City FC, such a station is likely to be incredibly busy on match days with the right service provision.

I’m sure the line has to be redoubled from Pill to Parson Street to allow the passenger service to run in addition to existing freight from the docks.

Didn't know there was ever a station @ Ashton Gate.
I used to go on the football specials from Portsmouth and they used Parson St.

 

[Annetts key]

Didn't know there was ever a station @ Ashton Gate.

Some of the former platform can be seen from the bridges that go over the line near the Cumberland Basin, such as the cycle path bridge, Brunel Way, Ashton Road. Before the bus track was built, you could also see parts of the platforms from Ashton Gate Unpas / Winterstoke Road.

Below are some Google street view links:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Before the line was singled (long before the line was reopened as a freight line to Portbury Docks), there was a platform for each direction and it was double line through the platform. At some point under BR ownership, the former Bristol direction line through the former station was reduced in status to a siding, with the points and track towards Clifton Bridge tunnel (Pill side of Ashton) being removed.

I found a website that has some old photos, https://bristolharbourrailway.co.uk/2016/11/03/tbt-ashton-gate-station-1970s1980s/
The original photos appear to have come from flickr hence I’ve not copied them here.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The whole project has been disastrously managed. Why a proposal to rebuild three miles of track (which were still in situ) ended up needing a Development Consent Order (which is reserved for projects of national significance) I will never understand. Once it was in that process it has continued to suffer delays that I cannot imagine any other country would countenance. For example, the delay in getting approval for the DCO was largely down to the presence of a few rare trees in the gorge (which remember is on part of the line which is already in use). The fact that a few of these would need to be felled for safety reasons was raised, although as it turned out, they would have had to have been removed anyway as they would have been a risk to existing traffic. But this caused a delay of several months, during which the cost soared again due to construction inflation. In the end the answer was to (and I paraphrase) take a few cuttings and plant a few new ones to replace those lost. I mean, how long should that take to work out?

 

[Annetts key]

This website http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/bristol-tm-to-portishead.html has lots of photos of Ashton station. Again, I’m not sure about copyright, and there are far too many to copy here anyway.

 

[Starmill]

Value for money is irrelevant.

Is it? So your and my money, i.e. public money, is just unlimited and can be spent because we decide so? That would be a very strange way to do the business of government.

No, my point is, if the project has already been subject to a business case, and it was deemed to be worthwhile, I don’t see why it needs to be subjected to another business case.

Because fundamentally that's how all publicly funded transport works projects are assesed. First there the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOC) then the Outline Business Case (OBC), then the Full Business Case (FBC). Few projects reach the third stage.

Still, the productivity created by unblocking congestion and enabling people to get to Bristol and the wider U.K. more easily will easily cover the costs in the long term.

It likely won't. That's precisely why the project is the wrong one, and why it's having so much difficulty passing this stage.

The relevant councils want this project to go ahead, lots of people in Portishead (no, I don’t know how many, I’ve not investigated) want this project to go ahead, there are no houses in the way, the route already exists, the only things that is/has/will be changing is the timing and costs.

With respect the money to build the line and subsidise the operating cost of the train won't be coming from the council or the residents. Fares won't ever come anywhere close to covering the operating costs, let alone anything for the capital to set up the infrastructure so it can take passenger trains. Even if the money were all coming from council tax and the project would have a positive financial case (i.e. wouldn't need an operating subsidy) it'd still be a requirement to demonstrate value for money by preparing a business case.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It likely won't. That's precisely why the project is the wrong one, and why it's having so much difficulty passing this stage.

Can you elaborate on this statement? Unless you’re intimately involved with the project, I struggle to see how anyone could have a firm view on this either way.

Incidentally I fully agree with @Yindee8191 - we’re obsessed with a narrow wealth-creation principle in this country when assessing business cases for public-funded projects, while entirely missing the wider economic and social benefits of building something. It’s exactly why European nations can get on and build things - their management seems to exist in the real world - and reap the economic benefits.

Anyone who lives on the western edge of Bristol will tell you how much this project is needed. Regardless of what the silo’d bean counters might like to think, this is a no-brainer and has been for years. Although a tram would have been far better, but sadly it also failed due to excessive bean counting and politics.

 

[zwk500]

Incidentally I fully agree with @Yindee8191 - we’re obsessed with a narrow wealth-creation principle in this country when assessing business cases for public-funded projects, while entirely missing the wider economic and social benefits of building something. It’s exactly why European nations can get on and build things - their management seems to exist in the real world - and reap the economic benefits.

Have you got a couple of business cases from Europe and the UK that we could compare to see how the wider economic benefits are accounted for in each country? I'd be most interested as a general question, not specifically Portishead.

 

[Snow1964]

The whole project has been disastrously managed. Why a proposal to rebuild three miles of track (which were still in situ) ended up needing a Development Consent Order (which is reserved for projects of national significance) I will never understand. Once it was in that process it has continued to suffer delays that I cannot imagine any other country would countenance. For example, the delay in getting approval for the DCO was largely down to the presence of a few rare trees in the gorge (which remember is on part of the line which is already in use). The fact that a few of these would need to be felled for safety reasons was raised, although as it turned out, they would have had to have been removed anyway as they would have been a risk to existing traffic. But this caused a delay of several months, during which the cost soared again due to construction inflation. In the end the answer was to (and I paraphrase) take a few cuttings and plant a few new ones to replace those lost. I mean, how long should that take to work out?

This is an example of lack of joined up thinking, trees near existing in use line causing problems, so choose not to cut the trees, but go through extra stages of development consent order, regarding trees, then having wasted time and money, cut them anyway as existing line needs them cut back (presumbably now costs more to cut as tree has got bit bigger in meantime).

Why on earth do they not do vegetation management first, before anyone has time to raise objections

 

[Dr Day]

Not in relation to last post but this gives 2019 outline business case situation, for what was then defined as Phase 1 (not just Portishead). Clearly since then capital and operating costs will have risen, and the scheme presumably redefined.

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

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

With respect the money to build the line and subsidise the operating cost of the train won't be coming from the council or the residents. Fares won't ever come anywhere close to covering the operating costs, let alone anything for the capital to set up the infrastructure so it can take passenger trains.

I'm genuinely curious why you are so negative about this project.

On the face of it, Portishead, a town of 27,000 should generate substantial commuter traffic. Penarth, a very similar town on the opposite shore of the Severn Sea has a population of 22,000 and pre-covid the two stations on the Penarth branch generated circa 700,000 passenger journeys per annum. Why would Portishead > Bristol traffic not match or exceed Penarth > Cardiff?

I agree with you that it's sensible to seek a post-covid business case but I'm at a loss as to why you are so pessimistic about the outcome.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Have you got a couple of business cases from Europe and the UK that we could compare to see how the wider economic benefits are accounted for in each country? I'd be most interested as a general question, not specifically Portishead.

Sadly I don’t, but I agree it would be a very interesting comparison.

 

[75A]

Some of the former platform can be seen from the bridges that go over the line near the Cumberland Basin, such as the cycle path bridge, Brunel Way, Ashton Road. Before the bus track was built, you could also see parts of the platforms from Ashton Gate Unpas / Winterstoke Road.

Below are some Google street view links:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

maps.app.goo.gl

Before the line was singled (long before the line was reopened as a freight line to Portbury Docks), there was a platform for each direction and it. was double line through the platform. At some point under BR ownership, the former Bristol direction line through the former station was reduced in status to a siding, with the points and track towards Clifton Bridge tunnel (Pill side of Ashton) being removed.

I found a website that has some old photos, https://bristolharbourrailway.co.uk/2016/11/03/tbt-ashton-gate-station-1970s1980s/
The original photos appear to have come from flickr hence I’ve not copied them here.

Brilliant, thanks for taking the time and trouble, really interesting

 

[Annetts key]

It likely won't. That's precisely why the project is the wrong one, and why it's having so much difficulty passing this stage.

So what’s your alternative? I take it that you have never “enjoyed” the car park / traffic congestion on the one and only main road into/out of the town of Portishead then?

With respect the money to build the line and subsidise the operating cost of the train won't be coming from the council or the residents. Fares won't ever come anywhere close to covering the operating costs, let alone anything for the capital to set up the infrastructure so it can take passenger trains. Even if the money were all coming from council tax and the project would have a positive financial case (i.e. wouldn't need an operating subsidy) it'd still be a requirement to demonstrate value for money by preparing a business case.

Some of the funding is coming from the councils:

Today, the Department for Transport have committed an additional £15.5m to deliver MetroWest Phase 1b, which would see the reopening the Portishead to Bristol rail line.

This is in addition to £10m committed by North Somerset Council at the July Council meeting. The West of England Combined Authority will meet on Friday 29 July to reach agreement on contributing a further £10m, which would close the remaining funding gap.

From here.
Reopening the Portishead line is also part of a bigger scheme, some other parts of which have already been completed, or are currently under construction. With further parts still in the pipeline.

 

[AndrewE]

Value for money is irrelevant. The town is in desperate need of better transport connections as the current state of affairs is unacceptable. The value is in terms of providing services instead of creating money. Still, the productivity created by unblocking congestion and enabling people to get to Bristol and the wider U.K. more easily will easily cover the costs in the long term.

Is it? So your and my money, i.e. public money, is just unlimited and can be spent because we decide so? That would be a very strange way to do the business of government.

The real trouble is that "business cases" are (or ought to be) cost-benefit analyses. They are the means to put a so-called forensic accountant's eye over something which needs doing but a politician or the treasury aren't commmitted to (or want to avoid doing without taking the blame.)

The curse of cost-benefit analyses is that they include weightings to allocate "value" to various things which people see very differently. I would see clock-face/turn up and go public transport in cities as highly desirable and essential to tempt people out of cars for about half a dozen reasons, to all of which I would give high weighting scores. Unfortunately the accountants don't put much value on that. Things like reducing traffic and congestion overall, decarbonising transport, cutting pollution, ensuring better mobility for all rather than just for car drivers...

You only have to look at the proposed new Lower Thames road tunnel crossing to see that additional traffic/fumes and consequent disease in surrounding areas/baking road transport into our future/etc. are completely irrelevant to the people taking the decisions - i.e. pretending to set out a justifiable decision process.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

One of the biggest factors was the scrapping of the County of Avon, which meant it didn’t progress for years because neither local authority born out of this reorganisation wanted to fund something perceived to benefit the other.

This I agree with, had Avon County Council continued we would have seen Portishead connected up to the network a lot sooner (I do think that we would have also seen the Henbury Loop and perhaps what's left of the Strawberry Line [in conjunction with Somerset County Council] being reopened too). I know of someone who lives in Portishead and they are still desperate to see the line back in service as they're fed up on having to either drive (and be penalised by Bristol Car-Free Council) or go by bus.

 

[stuu]

I'm genuinely curious why you are so negative about this project.

On the face of it, Portishead, a town of 27,000 should generate substantial commuter traffic. Penarth, a very similar town on the opposite shore of the Severn Sea has a population of 22,000 and pre-covid the two stations on the Penarth branch generated circa 700,000 passenger journeys per annum. Why would Portishead > Bristol traffic not match or exceed Penarth > Cardiff?

I agree with you that it's sensible to seek a post-covid business case but I'm at a loss as to why you are so pessimistic about the outcome.

Its got more and more pointless unfortunately. Penarth has a decent frequency, the Portishead scheme has been cut back to a three (I think) car train once an hour. For £150m or whatever it has got to now

 

[D Williams]

Its got more and more pointless unfortunately. Penarth has a decent frequency, the Portishead scheme has been cut back to a three (I think) car train once an hour. For £150m or whatever it has got to now

I thought that the perceived wisdom regarding timetable planning is that a half an hour frequency is required in order to generate sufficient business to justify the investment. eg Truro to Falmouth?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Its got more and more pointless unfortunately. Penarth has a decent frequency, the Portishead scheme has been cut back to a three (I think) car train once an hour. For £150m or whatever it has got to now

That's not good. Ideally you need 4tph so people can just "turn up and go". 2 tph can work but 1 tph creates a situation where success can breed failure due to overcrowding.

I'm not really familiar with the details of the Portishead project but logically the demand should be there for a decent rail service.

 

[stuu]

The costs have increased so much that the plans have had to be cut back. I guess if it is opened and successful it is a lot easier to get funds to improve it, but it will always be hamstrung by the single line through the Avon gorge

 

[AndrewE]

The costs have increased so much that the plans have had to be cut back. I guess if it is opened and successful it is a lot easier to get funds to improve it, but it will always be hamstrung by the single line through the Avon gorge

which will cost about 10 times as much as it would have cost to build a worthwhile bit of public transport infrastructure first time round.
Why do we always spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

 

[Starmill]

Can you elaborate on this statement? Unless you’re intimately involved with the project, I struggle to see how anyone could have a firm view on this either way.

Unfortunately no. However it's in the public domain that at the previous value for money statement the benefit cost ratio of just over 1.5:1 including wider economic benefits (the more difficult to monetise benefits which are sometimes missed - though for a small scheme like this they won't be very big) was all that could be achieved. In other words, medium value for money, but only barely. Since then the benefits will have remained broadly unchanged and the costs have continued to rise. As such, the reason for the delay isn't difficult to guess at - the full business case can't demonstrate value for money over 1:1.

It’s also really not realistic to imagine that a 1tph service of mainly two car trains making a short journey will generate that much in economic benefit. Spending a £130million capital budget on something that delivers such a thin service is clearly not going to be easy to make a value for money case for, even if every single train ran at capacity.

Incidentally I fully agree with @Yindee8191 - we’re obsessed with a narrow wealth-creation principle in this country when assessing business cases for public-funded projects, while entirely missing the wider economic and social benefits of building something.

That's not true though. Social benefits are relatively easy to monetise, things like people being able to access a greater range of leisure or public service facilities, or encouraging people to walk more having a benefit for their health. Wider economic benefits are more difficult to monetise, but monetised they have been in this case.

Anyone who lives on the western edge of Bristol will tell you how much this project is needed.

An argument against the project having no benefits. But the problem isn't that the project has no benefits, it's that the benefits are too small in relationship with the costs.

Regardless of what the silo’d bean counters might like to think, this is a no-brainer and has been for years.

Says who? It's an hourly service of short diesel trains. That's simply not going to generate significant benefits no matter how you slice it. The journey time savings are small because the bus service stops much closer to where most people want to go, savings of generalised minutes are even poorer because of the very poor maximum rail frequency.

I'm genuinely curious why you are so negative about this project.

On the face of it, Portishead, a town of 27,000 should generate substantial commuter traffic. Penarth, a very similar town on the opposite shore of the Severn Sea has a population of 22,000 and pre-covid the two stations on the Penarth branch generated circa 700,000 passenger journeys per annum. Why would Portishead > Bristol traffic not match or exceed Penarth > Cardiff?

I agree with you that it's sensible to seek a post-covid business case but I'm at a loss as to why you are so pessimistic about the outcome.

Because heavy rail is fundamentally the wrong answer to the transport needs of this corridor. It cannot possibly deliver what's needed, which is a frequent service of minimum four per hour which has quick journey times and runs directly from various parts of the town to Bristol city centre. Light rail or bus rapid transit could feasibly deliver that, but certainly not heavy rail sharing tracks at Bristol Temple Meads. It's impossible.

Notice how Penarth has that level of service and delivers people right into the city centre in Cardiff?

I thought that the perceived wisdom regarding timetable planning is that a half an hour frequency is required in order to generate sufficient business to justify the investment. eg Truro to Falmouth?

It's actually that that's the absolute bare minimum for short journeys.

which will cost about 10 times as much as it would have cost to build a worthwhile bit of public transport infrastructure first time round.
Why do we always spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

Of course, if we didn't build the ship in the first place we'd be better off than building it and then getting so little use of it in return. Unfortunately this project will probably be built now, but it will perform so poorly that there will be absolutely no chance of future funds for enhancement to a decent frequency. It will be about saving face and the sunk cost fallacy of the sponsors.

Unfortunately the accountants don't put much value on that. Things like reducing traffic and congestion overall,

User time savings are valued quite highly in economic appraisal, both for car drivers and for those switching to the new public transport. Generalised journey times fall if a service is more frequent so this is undoubtedly reflected.

So what’s your alternative? I take it that you have never “enjoyed” the car park / traffic congestion on the one and only main road into/out of the town of Portishead then?

Light rail? Bus rapid transit? Even basic bus priority? Workplace parking levy, congestion charging and significantly more space for buses (by which I mean banning general motor traffic from nearly every road) in Bristol would solve that traffic in under a year. Then in five to ten years a network of light railways would slowly find capital funding and would expand to take over this and a number of other corridors.

Now why is it that those things haven't happened? Because the local authorities and combined authority mayor don't have the spine for it. Indeed plenty British people would far rather sit in that traffic than be told they aren't allowed to park 30 seconds walk from the shops of the city centre, so that's the reality we're dealing with. Obviously I couldn't disagree more with that and my view is that private motoring in every major city centre in the UK should be prohibited completely, but that's simply not going to fly with the investors who own massive multi story car parks and the people who are accustomed to cheap parking and taking up space in city centres with their motor cars.

Reopening the Portishead line is also part of a bigger scheme, some other parts of which have already been completed, or are currently under construction. With further parts still in the pipeline.

Yes - and the other parts are better value for money. What's the right transport solution for a journey like Trowbridge to Bristol? The current heavy rail service provides a good model of that, it just needs to be slightly cheaper, slightly quicker, and have about triple the capacity.