Mind you, didn’t quite a bit of work on Okehampton get going quietly before final approval - on the “nudge nudge wink wink” basis of “we’re going to approve this but can’t actually make that public yet”
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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 approved
- Thread starter fat_boy_pete
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bring back the Weston, Clevedon and Portishead line.
Last edited:
That was much more certain, as there was significant political will behind it.
Quite possibly, but that may have had a much more positive business case and have required less additional money over and above what Network Rail are obliged to do anyway.
Even if the civil servants are happy to recommend approval, could be a while before the new government get to grips with the nation's and railway's finances to be in a position to make a concrete decision to fund the construction and underwrite the net operating costs.
WesternBiker
Member
Now, that would have to be a tram-train, these days!
Probably up there with moving the airport to Filton & rebuilding the runway...
It's possible this is progressed far & solidly enough that it'll be good enough for a new govt to stamp so they can look like they're doing positive things. Hey, I'm trying to think positive too.
I understood Portishead’s funding was in place (at Autumn 2022 costs at least).
That's probably the problem - the expected costs are going up faster than the benefits, and funds previously committed by various parties aren't enough, so another round of 'Please sir, can I have some more?' to fill the gap.
Parham Wood
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 342
Perhaps they ought to start otherwise by the time work is fully underway the costs will have risen again.
I bet by the time they start there will be regular freight again and they’ll incur costs trying to fit the work around that - there’s been barely any traffic over the last five years, an opportunity missed.
It’s absurd how long it’s taken and how every delay just piles on another ten million or so. Surprised they didn’t try and get something sorted to announce before the election, though I’m increasingly of the belief that the election was called without most of the governing party expecting it.
It’s absurd how long it’s taken and how every delay just piles on another ten million or so. Surprised they didn’t try and get something sorted to announce before the election, though I’m increasingly of the belief that the election was called without most of the governing party expecting it.
There comes to a point when someone just had to grasp the nettle and JFDI it before the costs go up again.
This requires the sort of political support that Okehampton had.
It’s the sort of thing that spreads cynicism about the political and planning systems, and quite probably justifiably so.
An utter farce, forty years and nothing to show, and no doubt a change of administration will pause things like this to reset political priorities. As a project without shovels in the ground yet, and with a poorer looking outlook based on the scope reductions already made I don’t rate it’s chances.
Maybe they could get some forcibly ‘volunteered’ 18-year olds to do it under national service, navvy-style with picks and shovels?
An utter farce, forty years and nothing to show, and no doubt a change of administration will pause things like this to reset political priorities. As a project without shovels in the ground yet, and with a poorer looking outlook based on the scope reductions already made I don’t rate it’s chances.
Maybe they could get some forcibly ‘volunteered’ 18-year olds to do it under national service, navvy-style with picks and shovels?
Trainbike46
Established Member
It's absolutely about what the politicians think is a priority - the motorways and Okehampton were a priority for politicians who matter, this one doesn't appear to be, leading to procrastination
Which motorway schemes are people thinking of, out of interest?
Considering a new motorway hasn’t been built or extended since 2018, and that scheme certainly faced similar difficulties to this railway, I assume they mean motorway projects such as new junctions.
I would counter that these often are fairly simple in that the land is often already owned and there is a clear business case in that there are traffic issues, making justification a lot easier than reopening a railway, where passenger numbers are nowhere near guaranteed.
Okehampton was a drastically different project. The railway existed and was up to passenger standard, albeit upgrades were required the foundations and infrastructure were usable.
Portishead is very different, the line that does exist isn’t suitable for passenger traffic, and upgrades are required, and the rest of the line requires total rebuilding, and all the stations need building. Not all this land is owned by the railway, so compulsory purchase orders will add a fair bit of complexity, but also the funding required is orders of magnitude bigger, and so obviously is going to be harder to get.
Trainbike46
Established Member
I can't speak for others, but I was thinking of RIS2 generally, and the StoneHenge tunnel specifically (and this is undoubtedly when my limited knowledge of road plans in England shows me up)
I don't disagree that Okehampton was an easier project, clearly demonstrated by how quick it was in Railway timescales, but it wouldn't have happened if the right politicians hadn't gotten behind it - whether projects spend ages in various semi-approved stages depends on political will at the end of the day
Ah yes, that one which has taken a third of a century to be ‘pushed through’ - and still hasn’t started construction.
The best rail term I can think of is that RIS2 is like control period funding. Yes there are upgrades to roads, but there is also a lot of maintenance included in that. To equate that to rail it's like the maintenance of the railways plus funding for things like the Transpennine Route Upgrade. What that doesn't include is building a totally new road (I would say reopening but the roads never got their Beeching).
I think the Stonehenge situation is quite aptly mentioned above, that has been going on far longer than Portishead.
Stonehenge tunnel is a critical link in a national trunk transport network. Portishead is a local commuter link. The idea that Portishead should be equated to a Motorway or major A-road project is somewhere between tenuous and indefensible. The Portishead Line would be more comparable to something like a local link road. Equally, Portishead isn't going under a UNESCO world heritage site, although the Avon Gorge's scientific protections have caused more than their fair share of problems.
[Edited to provide Example] - something like the South Bristol Link Road:
https://travelwest.info/app/uploads/2020/05/metrobus-south-bristol-link-construction-facts.pdf,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38628379
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14239878
£45m cost in 2017 for 4.5 miles of road and cycle path, Originally bid for funding in 2011, approval granted in 2015 and Opened in 2017.
Last edited:
I wasn't saying they were, just that the Stonehange tunnel isn't exactly an example of a road tunnel being pushed through and faster.
The Stonehenge tunnel has been subject to decades of delay, cancellation, restarting, redesign etc.
As an example, there building one over the ECML at the moment (can't remember where exactly, but south of Grantham).
So no, you can't name a scheme.
(I'll dig around and see if I can find a link).EDIT to add: the only scheme involving a new alignment over the ECML in a quick look on National Highways website was the Black Cat Roundabout scheme which could hardly be held up as 'sailing though'. All other projects listed on the NH website are either routine maintenance dressed up, or enhancements. A couple have some little bit of off-line replacement. However, as I mentioned, Portishead should not be compared to a major national trunk infrastructure, but more local Link, Distributor or Connector roads.
Last edited:
So no, you can't name a scheme.
No, not really. I just see it being built every time I go by on the train !
But you have no idea what it is, and therefore have no idea what it's planning process was like. So how can you say 'Portishead's been held up unfairly but road schemes are being pushed through' with any credence at all?
I will also reiterate my point that Portishead is not a trunk railway, but a local connector. Comparisons to Motorways, therefore, are misleading. You want to be comparing Portishead to smaller link roads. I linked upthread to the South Bristol Link Road, providing local people with better access to the existing motorway network - this is far more comparable to the concept of Portishead linking people to Temple Meads.
Is it the Grantham Southern Relief Road? https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/major-projects/grantham-southern-relief-road
The timeline starts in 2007, and opening is estimated for 2025. The 3.5km road is costed at £133m.
By it's construction it's clearly some sort of routeway, and since it's not a railway or a canal, it must be a road of some description.
It's being done, and as you're suggesting it appears to be a local relief road, so Portishead is either strategically equal in importance or moreso. They need to be getting on with Portishead.
Yep the Grantham Southern Relief Road. That’s been talked about for 50 years. It was certainly being put through feasibility etc in the 90s (I have family who lived very near its route). It was approved (consents and financially) 11 years ago. And still not open.
Trust me, road scheme do not get any preferential treatment !
WesternBiker
Member
As any user of the A303 can attest - dualling was proposed in 1971...
- Status