-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Portishead reopening - speculative / suggestions thread.
- Thread starter jazzy
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
They just need to look where a bit of future proofing can be put in place without adding to cost. In terms of platform length there should be no issue extending Pill, and maybe leave enough land at Portishead clear for an extension or second platform there - in the meantime this land could be used as parking spaces providing a bit of revenue.
Passing loops may also be possible at a later date although that starts getting costly with signalling etc. and I think the optimal place for one in terms of timetable ends up being somewhere in the gorge which is harder to do. Pill could accommodate one, and I think the original alignment had space for two tracks from the start of the branch at least as far as the tunnel under the suspension bridge which is double width.
Passing loops may also be possible at a later date although that starts getting costly with signalling etc. and I think the optimal place for one in terms of timetable ends up being somewhere in the gorge which is harder to do. Pill could accommodate one, and I think the original alignment had space for two tracks from the start of the branch at least as far as the tunnel under the suspension bridge which is double width.
brad465
Established Member
The document cited further up regarding past Ashton Gate proposals had the existing loop being extended to the site of the new station, so the station was on the loop. If any enhancements follow this would seem reasonable, as the existing loop would be better utilised and a passenger train held awaiting passage further along can at least wait in a station.
That makes some sense when considered with the site of the new station, which is south of the current level crossing for the trading estate at Ashton. If they needed to redouble the crossing it would add more cost and complexity, although not sure it would offset the cost of adding another platform and presumably means to cross the line. The gates are currently positioned for a single track, and it looks like the line might have been slewed towards the centre when it was relaid for freight.
'They' have - extensively - and where it could, it has. But the problem is future proofing has costs that aren't delivering immediate benefits, and so struggle to contribute to the overall business case.
Portishead station is being built closest to the road, so any extension would be towards bristol, the handful of car parking spaces you might fit probably wouldn't be noticed in the scheme of things.
You can develop a timetable for several different options of loop placement, and which is the most optimal depends heavily on how you are serving the branch (i.e. is it linked into the existing commuter services or a standalone service) and what the freight requirements are.
Snow1964
Established Member
To some extent the loops spacings are also set by the turnaround times at Portishead.
Let's say for simplicity its decided that 6-10 minutes is ideal (6 mins with the existing DMUs, 10 mins with faster accelerating BEMUs in few years time), then if you set the branch frequency at an hour, they need to be 25minutes running time from Portishead (half 50 minutes from loop to Portishead and back), if going for a half hourly peak service then need a second loop about 10 mins running from Portishead.
If put loop in wrong place end up the same problem as on the Severn Beach line, where the service runs at an irregular 26 and 34 minute intervals rather than every half hour.
I dunno, the old formation between Wapping Road and Guinea Street has only been partly built on. The Chalonner Court development is the one with all the red tiled roofs and most of it is road or garages just with occupied buildings round the perimeter.
tumbles
Member
I think even bulldozing through there would cost millions in just CPO alone. The trouble is also the other side of the redcliffe tunnel to BTM.
I also wouldn't like to run regular trains on the new cut, already had one expensive landslip on it but I don't think much of the rest of the walls are great. I run along it quite a lot and it's basically had no maintenance since they stopped using the rear lock gates in the mid 1930s! Think the only thing holding some sections up is mud and vegetation.. which the council are about to clear..!
The trains to the coal depot in the 80s had to only run at high tide when the weight of the water would help hold up the formation. Doesn’t sound too promising. I’d go for the Wuppertal style solution along the length of the new cut right up to Temple Meads.
How you're even thinking of this idea is crazy haha. That whole area is about to built up where that car park is on the left. The CPO for the red tile development would be in the hundreds of millions. Let alone even the idea of running a heavy rail line through a dense and extremely busy tourist destination. Then the tunnel modernisation works. This whole idea is in the billions.
I doubt Bristol Council have any interest in the idea otherwise why would they have built the m3 Metrobus guided busway
From what I've heard the route isn't used very much. The council have announced plans to provide subsidies for later evening and Sunday services.
From what I've heard the route isn't used very much. The council have announced plans to provide subsidies for later evening and Sunday services.
Annetts key
Established Member
Bristol Council don't have the money for any expensive infrastructure projects I believe...
I think they originally sent the airport buses that way, but they crawl through Bedminster instead now.
tumbles
Member
The guided part was only installed to meet funding criteria. What it does do to some extent is preserve the route of the old line to where it joined up with the Portishead Branch.
brad465
Established Member
Does any council?
No, they're all skint.
They’re currently building crappy flats to the north of the harbour branch, including a vehicle crossing over the busway. Given the ORR’s reticence in allowing new level crossings, that effectively kills off any chance of a heavy rail reinstatement here. I guess at best we can hope for trams…
I was living in Bristol when the harbour lines closed. Later the North Somerset line to Radstock shut, its demise hastened by the 1968 floods, then the Midland line through Mangotsfield. All these routes could have formed the basis of a light rail system but sadly the rights of way were not protected because transport planning back then was all about cars. At least the MR line trackbed is now a busy cycle/pedestrian route and I doubt that it could be given up now to make way for a tramway. Hindsight, as they say.
I think the MR route did feature on one of the recent proposed metro plans, but they anticipated that the line would be following the route underground - I suppose in that way it’s protected, although would be extremely disruptive to build!
As an alternative, coming from Redcliff make the sharp right turn over Prince Street bridge and on to the Centre.........
tumbles
Member
I've always thought you could divert it across redcliffe basin bridge and along the path of portwall lane.. obviously you've got the crossings issue again so no heavy rail..
tumbles
Member
Funding signed off by WECA.
www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk
Approved: £27m for Bristol & Portishead Line - West of England Combined Authority
www.westofengland-ca.gov.uk
Last edited:
overthere 2
On Moderation
I dont know if it is still the case as this was a while ago, but in one of those "you couldn't make it up" story's that you hear with depressing regularity was about Coventry city football club who moved to a new stadium and a new railway station was built next door so the fans could get too and from the stadium the only problem was the rail company said they were not going to strengthen the usual 2 carriage trains that ran on the line for match days so on match days the station was closed.
So if they do open a station at Ashton Gate and want to avoid the same problems they could build one or two platforms as through platforms to take a 2/3/4 carriage train and then two bay platforms to take 8/10 carriage trains.
At the moment you have GWR trains from London and XC trains from Manchester that terminate at Bristol Temple Meads, So on match days or any other events concerts, shows etc you extend these services to terminat/start at Ashton Gate this would be useful to get large amounts of people in and out quickly avoiding traffic congestion around the stadium also for people particularly if they are leaving a evening event and are worried about catching a local train in case it is late and they miss the last long distance train home.
Also the police would like it because if it is a match where there could be trouble they could say to the away fans you have to go to Temple Meads and get your ticket stamped and then use the train to get too and from the stadium warning that "NO stamp No entrance".
There is not the space for 2x 200m bay platforms at Ashton Gate.
Extending these trains would be really silly as they take a long time to board or alight from. Running 5-car Turbos shuttling back and forth would handle the crowds far better. Not to mention that plenty of the GWRs that terminate at Bristol don't spend enough time laying over in the platform to shuttle off to Ashton Gate and back.
The police would hate it because there's nowhere to hold the crowds at Ashton Gate after the game, and they'd particularly hate the idea of sending away fans into a sea of home fans at a small local station when they're *expecting* trouble. At Temple Meads they can meet fans off the train and guide them into a waiting bus direct to the ground.
If Ashton Gate reopens, it should be with platforms long enough for 5 cars, and on match-days a shuttle would be run using a 2+3 turbo set to augment the 1tph (or hopefully 2tph by that point) running ordinarily to Portishead. The 'regular' trains could even skip Ashton Gate to avoid locals trying to get home being crowded off. The ground is 25,000 max capacity, which in the scheme of things for rail services isn't actually that much once you factor out those who'll make their own way to the ground or use the shuttle buses in from the P&R sites and city centre. It would, however, be quite a job to shift them all in the short time frame.
How long is the platform on the loop line at Parson St? That could be refurbished for a fraction of the cost, though a bit of a trek to the ground and hundreds of fans crossing the main road there would be disruptive.
The proposed Ashton station is south of the level crossing. Perhaps two tracks could be installed up to the old station and shuttle stock stabled there while the match is on. Though I can’t see the numbers for such infrastructure changes stacking up unless the club chips in.
The proposed Ashton station is south of the level crossing. Perhaps two tracks could be installed up to the old station and shuttle stock stabled there while the match is on. Though I can’t see the numbers for such infrastructure changes stacking up unless the club chips in.
a tad over 90m, from google maps. It's probably as close if not closer than many other nearest stations to grounds in the top 2 tiers of English football.
You'd run the stock back to Temple Meads/St Philip's Marsh to stable it, it's hardly far. If more capacity is needed to hold trains in the Bristol area, there's the old goods sidings on the Up side of the line that could be refurbed more easily than adding new sidings at Ashton Gate, and would be far more useful.
Annetts key
Established Member
Do you mean Parson Street station?
Currently passenger trains can only call at this station on the Up Main or the Down Main lines. Both platforms are island platforms.
The Up Relief (previously known as the Up Goods under B.R.) is on the other face of the Up Main island platform. Trains from Portbury/Portishead are able to call at this platform face. However, currently the existing signalling does not provide any facilities for down direction trains to use this line.
Before the layout was rationalised, there was a line on the other face of the Down Main island platform. At one stage in the past, this was the Down Relief. But the thorough siding that existed from the 1970s was lifted in the 1990s by accident (contractors getting carried away lifted more than was planned apparently, at least, that was the rumour).
The biggest problem with Parson Street station is that access to all platforms is via staircases. Which both lead up to the road bridge above. There is nowhere for cars, busses or anything else to park or wait. And you can't really hold or control groups consisting of large numbers of people. As the space is limited. And the locals (it's a residential area) would not be delighted for their street to be used.
The ideal answer would be to build a specific platform complete with separate bay line that is long enough nearer the ground. But I can't see anyone finding the money to build this.
There was at one time plenty of land for this under/near the A370 overbridge. But that land has been taken up by the guided bus route.
There is space for sidings on both the upside and downside near Parson Street station. Just west of here, you have the former Freightliner depot on the upside. And the area where the downside sidings have been lifted opposite.
tumbles
Member
The police are absolutely against any Ashton Gate being used for match day and will actively object to any plans to try and do so. They don't want to police it basically.
The real issue would be capacity of the line/size of platforms. Ashton Gate station would probably be built like the rest of the new stations on the line for 3 cars so it would be completely inadequate for any match day traffic.