Future Bristol Temple Meads developments

[edwin_m]

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...fication-progress.83452/page-244#post-3528948

A quick win might be to wire Filton to platforms 13 and 15 (the ones normally used by Paddington trains) at Temple Meads while it's closed for four-tracking (I wish they'd called it requadrification!). It's only about five miles (20 track miles, 10 if you just did the Mains) and would enable the PR boost of electric trains all the way. Bristol East Junction would have to be redone eventually but in the overall scheme of things the 'waste' would be minimal.

The problem there is that even that small amount of eletrification would trigger the signalling immunisation mentioned, because the return currents find their way into nearby tracks as well. Although it was recently re-signalled they have left most of the trackside equipment unchanged for the time being so it isn't currently (!) immune. The plan seems to be to do it Reading-style, having got a computerised interlocking the trackside equipment can be changed over in stages as the layout is re-modelled. However all of this will need doing before electrification arrives by any route.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't know how this thread will keep alive, as there are no future developments at Temple Meads (sadly) on which there is any sign of progress..

 

[edwin_m]

I don't know how this thread will keep alive, as there are no future developments at Temple Meads (sadly) on which there is any sign of progress..

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/2million-requested-bristol-temple-meads-698053

Improvements to Bristol Temple Meads train station could move one step closer if a £2million ‘masterplan’ study is signed off.

If approved by the West of England Combined Authority (Weca), the study would look at the feasibility of opening new platforms at the station, creating better access to the northern entrance of the station and how to improve passenger experience.

I believe this has now been agreed by WECA and is out to tender.

 

[swt_passenger]

The March 2018 enhancement plan also mentions (albeit on a page last amended in 2016) that re-opening two platforms in the Midland shed would be dealt with under the station Masterplan. I don’t think it’s been abandoned yet.

 

[Hellzapoppin]

I don't know how this thread will keep alive, as there are no future developments at Temple Meads (sadly) on which there is any sign of progress..

You obviously know more than we do Howard. Bristol East junction renewal is certainly progressing.

 

[MarkyT]

The problem there is that even that small amount of eletrification would trigger the signalling immunisation mentioned, because the return currents find their way into nearby tracks as well. Although it was recently re-signalled they have left most of the trackside equipment unchanged for the time being so it isn't currently (!) immune. The plan seems to be to do it Reading-style, having got a computerised interlocking the trackside equipment can be changed over in stages as the layout is re-modelled. However all of this will need doing before electrification arrives by any route.

Train detection has been changed throughout to axle counters already, which is possibly the most significant issue regarding electrification compatibility. The main issue remaining now I think is signal structure clearance. The initial resignalling stage retains most of the original large gantries and cantilevers, which will need replacing to clear wiring. The future track layout will require most of these to move to varying extents anyway so there was little point in renewing them in their original positions. Where smaller signal structures have been replaced recently, as in the case of a number of platform starters, they were designed to take electrification into account.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Maybe, before thinking about electrifying any of the station or bringing any more platforms into use, they should fix the current speed restriction that has had to be put in because they messed up the recent resignalling?

 

[HowardGWR]

You obviously know more than we do Howard. Bristol East junction renewal is certainly progressing.

I didn't regard that as T.M., my apologies!

 

[221129]

Maybe, before thinking about electrifying any of the station or bringing any more platforms into use, they should fix the current speed restriction that has had to be put in because they messed up the recent resignalling?

The speed limit has nothing to do with this alledged messed up re signalling...

 

[edwin_m]

The speed limit has nothing to do with this alledged messed up re signalling...

Last I heard on here it was that someone decided that there was a risk of a train sticking its nose past the back-to-back signals but not occupying the section. Another train could then approach with the driver unaware that they couldn't pull right up to the signal. I think it was going to be fixed by moving one signal of each pair back by two nose lengths. Is this not so?

 

[Dai Corner]

Last I heard on here it was that someone decided that there was a risk of a train sticking its nose past the back-to-back signals but not occupying the section. Another train could then approach with the driver unaware that they couldn't pull right up to the signal. I think it was going to be fixed by moving one signal of each pair back by two nose lengths. Is this not so?

That was my understanding too.

It occurred to me that they could put up signs saying "Don't stop there, stop here" at an appropriate distance from each signal but I'm sure it's not that simple!

 

[Sean Emmett]

Bristol East junction renewal is certainly progressing.

Is there a draft diagram available?
Will there be 6 running lines i.e. 4 from Filton and 2 from Bath?

 

[221129]

Last I heard on here it was that someone decided that there was a risk of a train sticking its nose past the back-to-back signals but not occupying the section. Another train could then approach with the driver unaware that they couldn't pull right up to the signal. I think it was going to be fixed by moving one signal of each pair back by two nose lengths. Is this not so?

Not as far as I am aware... There are stopping points marked where the train should not be within a certain distance of the signal. The speed restriction is due to the collision in Plymouth and is in place while drivers get used to what is a massive change in working methods.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The speed limit has nothing to do with this alledged messed up re signalling...

Not as far as I am aware... There are stopping points marked where the train should not be within a certain distance of the signal. The speed restriction is due to the collision in Plymouth and is in place while drivers get used to what is a massive change in working methods.

In that case I take back my comment.
But I was under the same impression as edwin_m and Dai Corner, and that the limit was due to the gaps between the signals not taking into account train noses.

Either way, certainly from what I have read the limit was put in place at the last minute and was not clearly communicated within GWR (as there were staff on this and another forum discussing what the actual specifics were, with different viewpoints).

And again, either way, it does seem to be causing issues at Temple Meads where the timetable is being affected by trains taking longer than planned at the station (eating into any recovery time that may exist). The new stopping points also aren't exactly great from a passenger or service point of view (especially when you get some services that enter the Northern end of the station and reverse back out the Northern end being sent to the far Southern end of some platforms).

 

[edwin_m]

If it's only while drivers get use to the layout, why is it a PSR not a TSR?

 

[221129]

If it's only while drivers get use to the layout, why is it a PSR not a TSR?

Because you can only do a TSR for a certain amount of time.

 

[221129]

The main problems at Bristol are not to do with the PSR but mainly because TVSC don't know how to run a bath let alone a railway... that is where the majority of the delays are coming from.

 

[MarkyT]

They may have applied the restriction due to a 'package' of concerns including driver familiarity and the clearance issue at the mid platform signals. As the area is undergoing an ongoing programme of work there's probably little extra cost or difficulty in applying a permanent speed restriction rather than a temporary, even if it ends up only being there for a short time, and it's possible the project team don't know yet quite how long the restriction will have to be in place before all the issues are resolved by other means.

 

[edwin_m]

They may have applied the restriction due to a 'package' of concerns including driver familiarity and the clearance issue at the mid platform signals. As the area is undergoing an ongoing programme of work there's probably little extra cost or difficulty in applying a permanent speed restriction rather than a temporary, even if it ends up only being there for a short time, and it's possible the project team don't know yet quite how long the restriction will have to be in place before all the issues are resolved by other means.

Because you can only do a TSR for a certain amount of time.

But if it's a temporary situation such as the drivers getting used to the layout then it only needs to be there for a certain amount of time! I think the limit for a TSR is 6 months which should be well long enough to overcome that situation. A TSR also involves much less paperwork in imposing and lifting it - just a publication in an operating notice - while lifting a PSR will need some change to the signalling plans and driver briefing materials for example. Hence I can't help thinking there is some reason for this restriction that needs a further infrastructure change to resolve - with the possiblity that it will never happen.

 

[221129]

But if it's a temporary situation such as the drivers getting used to the layout then it only needs to be there for a certain amount of time! I think the limit for a TSR is 6 months which should be well long enough to overcome that situation. A TSR also involves much less paperwork in imposing and lifting it - just a publication in an operating notice - while lifting a PSR will need some change to the signalling plans and driver briefing materials for example. Hence I can't help thinking there is some reason for this restriction that needs a further infrastructure change to resolve - with the possiblity that it will never happen.

The idea is to have it in place for 12 months.

 

[MarkyT]

But if it's a temporary situation such as the drivers getting used to the layout then it only needs to be there for a certain amount of time! I think the limit for a TSR is 6 months which should be well long enough to overcome that situation. A TSR also involves much less paperwork in imposing and lifting it - just a publication in an operating notice - while lifting a PSR will need some change to the signalling plans and driver briefing materials for example. Hence I can't help thinking there is some reason for this restriction that needs a further infrastructure change to resolve - with the possiblity that it will never happen.

Agreed but as others have said there's an ongoing programme of work for Bristol East track renewals which will move many points and signals and thus require new signalling notices, updated signalling plans and sectional appendix for various stages anyway, so there's an opportunity to wrap up the speed changes with those stages too. I think their permanent status indicates the slacks are not being removed any time soon.

 

[pdeaves]

The idea is to have it in place for 12 months.

As long as 'they' keep publishing it, a TSR can be in place for any length of time. It's just a matter of the way the industry views the restriction. If it's 'permanent' it needs a network change notice with attendant costs, potential for compensation claims, etc.; if not there is an expectation that everything will get put right again in the end. A nine year TSR at Macclesfield (I think) was recently removed... replaced by an appropriate PSR. If it can sit in place for that long, there is no reason why there shouldn't be a two year (or however long) TSR at Bristol. There must be other reasons.

 

[MarkyT]

As long as 'they' keep publishing it, a TSE can be in place for any length of time. It's just a matter of the way the industry views the restriction. If it's 'permanent' it needs a network change notice with attendant costs, potential for compensation claims, etc.; if not there is an expectation that everything will get put right again in the end. A nine year TSR at Macclesfield (I think) was recently removed... replaced by an appropriate PSR. If it can sit in place for that long, there is no reason why there shouldn't be a two year (or however long) TSR at Bristol. There must be other reasons.

PSRs are always considered better and safer than TSRs. TSRs usually get put in place because of an emerging condition issue. They remain because the condition issue doesn't get sorted out quickly and putting a PSR in place needs consultation with TOCs, possible arbitration by ORR etc. So just leaving the TSR on long term is often the 'easiest' solution, even though it is not considered good practice. In an area where major ongoing work is taking place the consultation procedures are already active so a 'permanent' speed change can be introduced as part of that work even for a short period. Further changes can be accommodated at each subsequent stage of the project.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The main problems at Bristol are not to do with the PSR but mainly because TVSC don't know how to run a bath let alone a railway... that is where the majority of the delays are coming from.

Wonder if that was the cause of the madness I had this morning, where the 8.41 service to Weymouth was put into the same platform (7) as the 8.41 to Great Malvern, despite having other platforms spare and not needed by other services. Obviously that caused a delay (10 mins) as the Weymouth service waited outside the station for the Great Malvern service to come in and then depart. If Temple Meads is currently run like that now, god knows what adding more services (extras to and from Paddington, and the long rumoured extra local services) will do.

 

[221129]

Wonder if that was the cause of the madness I had this morning, where the 8.41 service to Weymouth was put into the same platform (7) as the 8.41 to Great Malvern, despite having other platforms spare and not needed by other services. Obviously that caused a delay (10 mins) as the Weymouth service waited outside the station for the Great Malvern service to come in and then depart. If Temple Meads is currently run like that now, god knows what adding more services (extras to and from Paddington, and the long rumoured extra local services) will do.

Most likely. They are an absolute joke. An over reliance on ARS it would seem.

 

[HowardGWR]

Most likely. They are an absolute joke. An over reliance on ARS it would seem.

Yes, that is an unfortunate acronym, isn't it? I wonder about the elbow though.

 

[snowball]

There's a 4-page article in the August Modern Railways, mostly about Filton Bank 4-tracking, but the last part discusses other issues around the Temple Meads area. May be of interest to readers of this thread. The Bristol East junction remodelling seems some way off. If electrification of the Bristol area has to wait for that, it may be a wait of several years.