Why the Portishead Delay?

[Mintona]

It’s never going to happen is it?

 

[DaveHarries]

It’s never going to happen is it?

Saw this on Facebook earlier.

Dave

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1: decision deadline extended

Deadline for the decision to construct the Portishead Branch Line – MetroWest Phase 1 extended until 19 February 2023.

www.gov.uk

North Somerset still need to 'demonstrate funding has been secured'

Scheme was costed at 116m in 2017 and the supporting Development Consent Order had sufficient funding in place when it was submitted and the draft order was issued when the previous delay got announced over ecology issues now North Somerset Council say they need more time to secure funding. Looking at NS councils Feb budget meeting they say they have 91m allocated for Metro West over next four years but there is this comment

 

[Dr Day]

Portishead Railway project boosted by £15million funding

The Department for Transport (DfT) has granted more than £15 million of funding for the MetroWest Phase One scheme, which includes plans to reopen…

www.northsomersettimes.co.uk

"North Somerset Council leader, Steve Bridger, said he was 'thrilled' to hear the DfT was to pump another £15.5m of funding into the scheme - on top of the council's £10m pledge."

Assuming this is true, a major step forward.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Portishead Railway project boosted by £15million funding

The Department for Transport (DfT) has granted more than £15 million of funding for the MetroWest Phase One scheme, which includes plans to reopen…

www.northsomersettimes.co.uk

"North Somerset Council leader, Steve Bridger, said he was 'thrilled' to hear the DfT was to pump another £15.5m of funding into the scheme - on top of the council's £10m pledge."

Assuming this is true, a major step forward.

Its lose change in the grander scheme of things to unlock a project that is shovel ready and a lot less money than some of teh other fanciful projects will need to get something built the politicians can take credit for and get a photo op.

 

[Yindee8191]

If I understood Shapps’ statement when the last delay happened, the planning issues are totally dealt with now right? So if they can find the remaining bit of funding they should be able to get going right away.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If I understood Shapps’ statement when the last delay happened, the planning issues are totally dealt with now right? So if they can find the remaining bit of funding they should be able to get going right away.

That is correct.

 

[Yindee8191]

That is correct.

Seems like good news then. Fingers crossed the negotiations with WECA go well.

 

[jw]

WECA allocated a share of £10 million today, to close the funding gap.

However Mayor Norris warned that, until the Development Consent Order is approved (where the relevant Secretary of State gives national permission and consent after a recommendation from the national planning inspectorate), there were still possible minefields ahead. The Secretary of State has set a new deadline of 19 February 2023 for the decision on the application.

The Mayor said: “We need that decision as soon as possible. Inflation is going through the roof and every day’s delay adds more cost. I will be chasing the Secretary of State to accelerate this process as much as possible.”

I believe today is the last day of Parliament before the summer recess. Unsure if the Transport Secretary would take a decision until parliament reconvenes after the break - after all, things will get busy for the Conservatives in the autumn, Shapps might be moved etc. Hopefully by the time the decision is taken, inflation and other cost pressures haven't breached the new financial settlement...

 

[Brissle Girl]

This report is well worth a read for those interested.

https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s5167/MetroWest%201%20Portishead%20Line.pdf

A couple of key points - the DfT now need to approve the business case, and are releasing £14m to enable work to be done to refine the design, derisk the project etc, in advance of that. That doesn't sound like a small bit of work.

The second point is that DfT are effectively taking over the project, becoming the client, and will assume any further financial risk (ie NSC and WECA's contributions are capped.)

There has been some reduction in scope to get to this point, most notably reduction in platform lengths from 5 to 3, and omission of the station building proposed at Portishead. Unfortunate, but if it helps get it over the line then so be it. Hopefully the design will be future proofed in respect of both points.

 

[Ashley Hill]

most notably reduction in platform lengths from 5 to 3,

A backwards step there then. Either tied to 3 car formations until new units with SDO arrive or hope the line doesn’t become popular enough to warrant 5 cars. Build then for 5 now as it will be cheaper than extending them in the future.

 

[jw]

This report is well worth a read for those interested.

https://westofengland-ca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s5167/MetroWest%201%20Portishead%20Line.pdf

As part of this collaborative exercise, the following scope changes have been made:
o Reduction of scope to bring the existing freight line up to passenger train line standards
o Reduction of Portishead and Pill platform lengths from 5-Car to 3-Car
o Removal of Portishead Station building
o Reduction in selected highway scope (car parks, bridge works)
o Change in governance model, with DfT taking on the client role.

Do you think this means a very low speed limit for passenger trains over the existing freight section? I seem to recall that there was intended to be a modest 50mph maximum speed on the branch initially.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Deleted.

 

[Snow1964]

A backwards step there then. Either tied to 3 car formations until new units with SDO arrive or hope the line doesn’t become popular enough to warrant 5 cars. Build then for 5 now as it will be cheaper than extending them in the future.

It is obviously easier to do when contractors are already on site, than come back later.

However I do feel even if longer platforms not needed initially it is always better to build the lower platform face at full length. This is much harder to do when trains have started to run, but remainder (backfilling and surfacing up etc) can be done relatively easily afterwards as doesn’t require anyone on the track.

 

[mr_jrt]

Short-term, doing less is obviously cheaper than doing more, but how much realistically would that sort of cut to the platform lengths really save, assuming and signals/etc are going to be in the same locations regardless?

 

[Annetts key]

Providing shorter platforms and dropping whatever track improvements were intended on the current freight line are typical short sighted moves, that will reduce the current project cost. But if these are needed at a future date, will be significantly more expensive to do.

Also, keep in mind that the scheme is already cost reduced compared to what was originally intended.

For platforms to have been specified for five car trains, there must have been a good reason.

The current line speed of the section of line between Parson Street Junction and Pill Tunnel is 30MPH (apart from at points at the junction where it’s 25MPH). Through Pill Tunnel and up to the current end of the Network Rail part (at the Docks) is 20MPH.

If improvements are not done to raise the line speed, it will make it far more difficult to increase the frequency of the service in the future.

 

[pdeaves]

For platforms to have been specified for five car trains, there must have been a good reason.

There was good reason. It makes it easier to 'mix and match' workings through Bristol where other trains are (or are planned to be) five cars. Thus, in its way, five car platforms at Pill/Portishead allow for more efficient operation at Temple Meads.

 

[zwk500]

If improvements are not done to raise the line speed, it will make it far more difficult to increase the frequency of the service in the future.

It does not say no improvement, just a reduction in scope for the improvement. This could easily be raising it to only 40mph. If this saves a track maintenance category, or makes it easier to comply with the cant standards for freight and passenger, this could be enough to nudge the needle back into the green for the project.

If it's going to be done, and given the trouble it's had, cut the scope down to the barest minimum and get a passenger railway back in operation. The short term pain of having to close it and pay more for upgrades at a later date is outweighed by the long term gain of getting passenger trains running again!
Alternatively, if it's not worth doing without doing all the bells and whistles, build a busway (leaving the freight tracks in as street-running) and stop throwing money at consultant's reports.