Portishead Approved - Construction Updates Thread - No speculation

[weeklycommuter]

I wonder if the Mayor jumped the gun on the announcement and it was supposed to be saved for the spending review.

The additional thirty million pounds is from the West of England Combined Mayoral Authority and North Somerset Council.

Council strives to close funding gap for Portishead rail line

Council strives to close remaining funding gap on Portishead rail line

n-somerset.gov.uk

Council strives to close funding gap for Portishead rail line
5:50pm - 10 February 2025
The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority and North Somerset Council have come together to announce that they are looking to contribute the additional funds needed to deliver the Portishead to Bristol rail line.
The Full Business Case for the long-awaited reopening of the rail line was submitted to the Department for Transport in December last year. Through detailed design, the business case identified an emerging gap in the scheme’s funding, caused by delays, inflation and rising costs across the construction industry.
To tackle this challenge, the West of England Combined Authority are set to contribute another £27m to this important railway scheme, with North Somerset looking to provide the remaining £3m.
The additional funding from the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority is set to be ratified at their March Committee meeting with North Somerset Council's contribution to be approved at their Council meeting in February.
If the additional funding is committed and the Full Business Case is approved by the Department for Transport, which they have indicated will follow quickly, construction of the rail line and stations at Portishead and Pill could begin soon afterward.
Councillor Mike Bell, Leader of North Somerset Council and Executive Member for Major Projects, said: “The reopening of the Portishead to Bristol rail line is set to be a transformative project for our area, connecting 50,000 people back into the rail network so that they can use a regular and sustainable transport service to reach a wealth of opportunities across the southwest.
“Not only would this essential investment in local communities slash travel times in half and reduce car commuting by 5.5%, it would also unlock an estimated £43 million in economic growth every year.
“This makes the Portishead to Bristol rail line a scheme of significant long-term benefit and something we’re proud to be pushing forward in partnership with the West of England Combined Authority, the Department for Transport and Network Rail.
“The additional funding from both the West of England Combined Authority and North Somerset Council would close the gap on this shovel ready scheme, bringing us ever closer to the first trains making their journeys in 2027 – the first passenger trains to do so since the line was originally closed almost 60 years ago.
“As ever, I’d like to thank everyone who has put the work in over the past few years to get this vital project so close to construction. In particular, I’d like to thank Mayor Dan Norris for his strong support and North Somerset MP Sadik Al-Hassan for his continued backing.”

 

[duffield]

I wonder if the Mayor jumped the gun on the announcement and it was supposed to be saved for the spending review.

There are lots of posts pointing out the imperfections of the plan. I think that is far too negative. Get something built and running! I think it will be much much easier to campaign for enhancements once the service exists and it can be seen how busy it is rather than relying on modelling.

Exactly. From my (admittedly dated) knowledge of the dire road traffic situation between Bristol and Portishead, I'd imagine this service will very quickly be full & standing at peak times which will hopefully create a clear case for expedited enhancements.

 

[zwk500]

Good to see something - but this had been value engineered so severely that the service will be sub-optimal and do little to ease congestion.

On suburban lines 4 tph is the bare minimum to achieve turn up and go status. 1 tph is better than nothing, I guess, but still pretty pathetic. This is something politicians should be ashamed of, rather than trumpeting it as some major achievement.

This is commuter rail, not metro. 1tph is sub-optimal but far from pathetic and 4tph isn't needed from day one, even if the capacity existed for it anywhere. 2tph should be the short-term goal for minimum service but plenty of stations have an hourly service and get respectable patronage.
The key is that the services arrive into Bristol at useful times, and don't lead to long 40+ minute waits hanging around between trains.

 

[tumbles]

I wonder if the Mayor jumped the gun on the announcement and it was supposed to be saved for the spending review.

There are lots of posts pointing out the imperfections of the plan. I think that is far too negative. Get something built and running! I think it will be much much easier to campaign for enhancements once the service exists and it can be seen how busy it is rather than relying on modelling.

Worth remembering the mayor is also a labour MP. He does love a photo opportunity so probably wanted to be the one who broke the news even if really it should be NSCs continued persistence over last 20 odd years to deliver this.

Exactly. From my (admittedly dated) knowledge of the dire road traffic situation between Bristol and Portishead, I'd imagine this service will very quickly be full & standing at peak times which will hopefully create a clear case for expedited enhancements.

It actually isn’t as bad since they reworked the motorway roundabout ten or so years ago. However it’s still not a lot of fun and that roundabout is still unable to deal with the quota of traffic it gets particularly during the summer months when the queue in and out of the services clogs up the whole roundabout

 

[Snow1964]

AIUI there is a separate set of proposals for additional stations around the WECA area, of which Ashton Gate is one. I'm fairly sure that Ashton Gate is not included in the initial phase of the reopening. Happy to be corrected but I think this is the news getting slightly jumbled in a flurry of announcements.

It is worth pointing out that the proposal for Ashton Gate is not where old station was, but just south of Barons Close.

Linking the detailed document (which is 10 years old, with prices 11 years ago from Feb 2014), but not aware of any updated background document

https://travelwest.info/app/uploads/2020/05/MetroWest-Stations-Package-Ashton-Gate.pdf

 

[JKF]

It is worth pointing out that the proposal for Ashton Gate is not where old station was, but just south of Barons Close.

Linking the detailed document (which is 10 years old, with prices 11 years ago from Feb 2014), but not aware of any updated background document

https://travelwest.info/app/uploads/2020/05/MetroWest-Stations-Package-Ashton-Gate.pdf

That would be good location for the stadium and a bit closer to housing (although there’s lots of flats currently going up on the old CCE yard adjacent to the old station). Though the old station site could have just about served Hotwells/parts of Clifton with a bit of a walk, located right next to a cycleway from there.

A shame we can’t route it through the harbour (as was one old proposal) but that’d add another zero to the price tag.

 

[och aye]

Great news for all the hard work that have campaigned for this line for the last couple of decades or so. Hopefully there aren't any spanners thrown in at the last minute, they've been many false dawns for realising this scheme.

As an aside, am I the only one who immediately thinks of the trip-hop band also named 'Portishead' before the town itself?

 

[Ashley Hill]

I think it will be much much easier to campaign for enhancements once the service exists

But cheaper to provide them at the start. Future upgrades need money, line closures and lots more beside.

 

[John R]

But cheaper to provide them at the start. Future upgrades need money, line closures and lots more beside.

But the scheme was descoped to get it over the line. The alternative was no scheme. I know which I prefer, and I’m sure the residents of Portishead who have been campaigning for the railway would agree with me.

 

[DH1Commuter]

But the scheme was descoped to get it over the line. The alternative was no scheme. I know which I prefer, and I’m sure the residents of Portishead who have been campaigning for the railway would agree with me.

Absolutely this. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good-enough.

This scheme has been needed for too long already.

 

[DDB]

They also need to maintain slots for freight trains to the harbour.
I belive the orginal plan was hourly with peak extras. I assume that the peak extras used the freight slots so freight slots would only be avaliable off peak.
If/when it is popular and driven by commuter peak time travel I would think the enhancement plan would be to do whatever was in the orginal plan.

 

[AeM]

Absolutely this. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good-enough.

This scheme has been needed for too long already.

Bang on. Get it over the line and get it built.

 

[freetoview33]

It was definitely the case of get the line open how ever minimum the service. Then to expand at a later date. To have a higher frequency Bristol West Junction would need upgrading ect.

 

[John R]

It was definitely the case of get the line open how ever minimum the service. Then to expand at a later date. To have a higher frequency Bristol West Junction would need upgrading ect.

Surely the key constraint is how long it takes for a train to travel the single line section to the terminus, turnaround, and then return to the first available passing place?

 

[zwk500]

Surely the key constraint is how long it takes for a train to travel the single line section to the terminus, turnaround, and then return to the first available passing place?

There can be multiple constraints on the frequency. AIUI the single line section from Ashton Gate to Portishead and back limits the frequency to c.45mins at the absolute max, but the capacity between Bristol TM and Parson Street, and the platform capacity at BTM are also issues.

 

[Snow1964]

There can be multiple constraints on the frequency. AIUI the single line section from Ashton Gate to Portishead and back limits the frequency to c.45mins at the absolute max, but the capacity between Bristol TM and Parson Street, and the platform capacity at BTM are also issues.

The track capacity from junction just west of Parson Street to Temple Meads is more due to rationalisation, there are 6 tracks from Temple Meads to just before Bedminster (although not all fully signalled running lines), then were 4 tracks through to the junction (Bedminster and Parson Street both have two island platforms). This was one of the 1930s quadruplings. I think only 3 tracks now exist, but don't think centre one can be used reversibly, so is just one track in one direction.

As for platforms, not really a shortage at South end of Bristol Temple Meads, as a number of services only use north end and reverse, so south end platforms (numbered separately) are used less. Both Bedminster and Parson Street have platforms that are over 200m long (but only about half the length is currently in use), so could eventually be restored to take 8car peak hour BEMUs (or even triple 3 car 23m)

 

[brad465]

Parson Street technically has three platforms, however only the centre lines can be called at currently, as the third line is only accessible off the Portishead branch as the crossover is just beyond the station in the direction of Bristol. Does the current work include reinstating that platform for branch-line services?

 

[John R]

The centre line is reversible as far as Bedminster, and indeed is often used that way, when a local train is held at the station to allow a southbound express to pass.

 

[Annetts key]

So let's be clear. There is no significant capacity issue for up direction trains coming off the Portishead/Portbury branch at Parson Street junction to Bristol Temple Meads station.

For trains running in this direction, the Up Relief line is available for the entire length.

For trains coming along the main line, they can use the Up Main, or, if the Up Relief line is free, cross over from the Up Main just east (Bristol side) of Parson Street station or just before (west of) Bedminster station.

There are suitable platform faces for both the Up Relief and the Up Main lines at both Parson Street station and Bedminster station.

The only snag is that I don't know if the part of the Up Relief line between the branch and the points on the east side of Parson Street station has signalling suitable for passenger trains, as under the previous BR signalling design, this section on the line was only classed as a freight line (IIRC it was called the Up Goods or similar).

There is likely to be a capacity issue for down trains going to Portishead. The Up Main is reversible between Bristol Temple Meads and just West of Bedminster station. Then all down trains have to use the Down Main. But that's not the biggest problem. The more significant issue is that any train to Portishead has to cross over from the Down Main over the Up Main to get to the branch plus it can only proceed on to the branch if the branch can accommodate it.

Now, this is not a new problem. It's why the signallers made a case for the double track to be retained between the existing single lead point junction on the branch just West of Parson Street Junction and where the token hut and protecting signal for the single line token instrument is (just east of Barons Close) when the line was prepared for freight trains for Portbury Docks.

But this double section doesn't have fully capable signalling, you can hold a train from Bristol here, but there are limitations for trains going to Bristol. They have to be signalled all the way through.

Hence if there is disruption, down trains for Portishead will be held at Bristol Temple Heads just like freight trains for Portbury get held at Bristol Temple Meads. Why, because the signallers will not want to find themselves with a branch line train blocking the Down Main to other services. That will mess up any branch timetable.

 

[John R]

That's a great summary @Annetts key, and broadly in line with my understanding, except for the detail of the limitations of the signalling on the double section where your knowledge is clearly greater than mine!

I have always thought that the simple answer would be to reinstate the fourth track (Down Relief?) until just beyond Parson St. It's hardly a long section of track, would require no particularly heavy earthworks, let alone land acquisition, and would have the added benefit of improving the resilience for the existing fast and slow services between Bristol and Nailsea and beyond (because the stopping services could travel further and make their Parson St call whilst a fast service is passing it.)

But of course it all costs money, just like redoubling part of the Weston loop, and other projects which would predominately be about improving resilience, and those never seem to get high up enough on the discretionary spend list to go ahead.

 

[Annetts key]

Reinstating the Down Relief is on the Network Rail wish list, but it's currently unfunded.

 

[JKF]

Hence if there is disruption, down trains for Portishead will be held at Bristol Temple Heads just like freight trains for Portbury get held at Bristol Temple Meads. Why, because the signallers will not want to find themselves with a branch line train blocking the Down Main to other services. That will mess up any branch timetable.

I have seen one of the steel trains wait for a bit at Parson St last year, the RHTT had only just come off the branch and passed it as it came into the station on the down main, but it was only ‘held’ at the branch signal for a couple of minutes at most, so guess that doesn’t count. When there’s been two steel trains running (the morning one is quite often late getting out of the docks) the inbound service has either waited at BTM as you’ve mentioned or sat in the loop at the start of the branch.

If it was signalled bidirectionally, could the up relief be used for Portishead trains both ways, running into the old motorrail platform at Temple Meads? This would keep them off or from crossing the main completely. Though I think there was talk of them running through to Henbury or Severn Beach (similar to what they now do with Weston locals).


(Below comment automated and not related to reply above!)

There has been some work in the gorge in the last couple of years which may benefit passenger use. Steel mesh has been installed on cutting/slope sides adjacent to the track in several locations with vegetation cleared (other than a few protected Bristol Whitebeams that are left to poke through). A photo attached shows some of this work around the southern portal of Tunnel No.3.

It’s also worth mentioning that you can just follow a track over the top of this tunnel here with no boundary fence (though you do pass through a hole knocked in the wall, possibly by contractors that did the bank works). When I took this picture back in the autumn there were also several large sections of tree trunk lying around at the top of the tunnel mouth. If I was a bored teenager I could imagine that rolling them down the slope onto the track might seem like a fun game. Didn’t seem like very good housekeeping to me.

In general the boundary through the gorge is a bit sketchy (low stone walls, dilapidated post and wire fencing and in some places nothing at all) and trespass is frequent - people have got used to there not really being trains running. I did have to warn someone the other day when out taking pictures of the 6Z53 that the no refuges viaduct they were about to walk onto would have a train coming over it in the next few minutes. This is likely an area they will need to spend a bit of money on putting right as with frequent services it will present a much higher risk.

Tree falls are also a fairly frequent issue and have affected several freights over the last year. Steep banks are not easy to access and the area being a SSSI (site of specific scientific interest) will place some restrictions on tree management. A few weeks back there was a huge tree that had fallen immediately north of the Clifton Bridge tunnel and was held in place by a series of straps to stop it plummeting onto the line below. I can’t imagine it was very easy to get that safely out, it might even still be there. I imagine the acceptable risk for things like this will be a lot lower for passenger services.

 

[freetoview33]

It's currently planned to take around 23mins Temple meads to Portishead so only 1 set is needed

 

[Annetts key]

If it was signalled bidirectionally, could the up relief be used for Portishead trains both ways, running into the old motorrail platform at Temple Meads?

We are in danger of straying into speculation... But the answer is yes to it being upgraded to become a bidirectional line. Bringing platform 2 (former Motorrail) back into service for passenger trains is not so simple as that will need changes to the track layout including new points.

 

[Pat31]

We are in danger of straying into speculation... But the answer is yes to it being upgraded to become a bidirectional line. Bringing platform 2 (former Motorrail) back into service for passenger trains is not so simple as that will need changes to the track layout including new points.

Am I right in thinking that Bristol west Junction is being upgraded in a few years? or is that simply track renovations, sleeper replacement etc. I do remember reading somewhere that the intention was to bring platform 2 back to use as well as a west junction upgrade.

 

[John R]

I recall the track renovations were done a year or so back. I’m not aware of any wider plans for the junction or Platform 2.

 

[Snow1964]

Am I right in thinking that Bristol west Junction is being upgraded in a few years? or is that simply track renovations, sleeper replacement etc. I do remember reading somewhere that the intention was to bring platform 2 back to use as well as a west junction upgrade.

Work is still going on the area.

A new set of proposals called Southern Gateway which involves building a multi storey car park (to replace many of the scattered railway parking) was issued just 3 weeks ago (see link). This adjoins the western end of Temple Mills station (there is an interactive map on page 8 which appears to include a track layout)

Although it adjoins Bath Road, it is not the old diesel depot site of that name (which I think is now referred to as Temple Island)

The Southern Gateway

Plans for a new transport hub at Bristol Temple Meads station can be found on this page. We call this the Southern Gateway.

www.bristoltemplequarter.com

 

[Annetts key]

Am I right in thinking that Bristol west Junction is being upgraded in a few years? or is that simply track renovations, sleeper replacement etc. I do remember reading somewhere that the intention was to bring platform 2 back to use as well as a west junction upgrade.

No. Two years ago Network Rail planned to relay the junction. I believe it included rationalisation (reduce the complexity because the current layout dates from 1970 when trains were formed from an engine and coaches).

However, these plans were abandoned. I don’t know why (may have been a change in funding). Instead they carried out rail and sleeper replacements like for like. Hence there were no signalling changes and no layout changes.

I’m not aware of any funded plans to bring platform 2 back into use for passenger trains (*). I’m sure it’s on a wish list though. However, a new passenger entrance to platform 4 is planned. Unless a new footbridge and lift is provided, that would be incompatible with reopening platform 2 back into use for passenger trains.

* platform 2 is used to stable empty DMUs.

 

[The exile]

I’m not aware of any funded plans to bring platform 2 back into use for passenger trains (*). I’m sure it’s on a wish list though. However, a new passenger entrance to platform 4 is planned. Unless a new footbridge and lift is provided, that would be incompatible with reopening platform 2 back into use for passenger trains.

* platform 2 is used to stable empty DMUs.

Surely a new entrance at the Southern end would either obliterate pl.2 completely (and with it the DMU stabling) or need a lift anyway as ground level is well below track level.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Surely a new entrance at the Southern end would either obliterate pl.2 completely (and with it the DMU stabling) or need a lift anyway as ground level is well below track level.

I don’t really see a need for another entrance unless P2 is reinstated for Portishead. A lift shaft existed by the platform entrance to Collet House but was removed and replaced with a portacabin. It was only ever a goods lift though.