Why the Portishead Delay?

[507020]

Exactly - that is why I said Britain. I would agree that Scotland and Wales have a better track record; and on reflection credit is due to the government for getting Okehampton back on the railway map. But the delay over the Portishead scheme is still ridiculous, and it is much harder for any English scheme to actually happen.

Part of the problem may be that Portishead is in the same region of England as Okehampton, which was lucky enough to the the “chosen” south west scheme. Note that the Newcastle, Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line is likely to be the next to reopen and it couldn’t be further away from Okehampton or Portishead without being in Scotland, where it would have reopened over 10 years ago. Only once the Scottish border is moved to be south of Portishead will we see any real progress unfortunately.

Nothing matters in England, except London. (Or at least that's what it seems to be)

Unfortunately you are 100% correct, while in Scotland everyone matters.

When I worked in Portishead in 2009, a colleague used to pick me up in Bristol and drive up there for an 8 am start. Around that time an 11 kV power pole collapsed onto the Portbury Hundred and it and the M5 were shut. The whole North Somerset 'peninsula' was rammed. No way in or out. It took us till 1 PM to get to Gordano Services, and the office said 'just go home'. I was back home around 3 pm. In the Gordano services I was interviewed by Radio Bristol.

This sounds representative of a regular journey between Bristol and Portishead and such a journey must be considered as the worse case scenario every time one is attempted? How exactly did you get all the way to the services if there is no other road than the one the live wire had fallen on?

 

[Envoy]

Surely, the pollution case does not stand up? Even if the train service started with 40 year old 150’s, they would not be around for long. One has only to look across the Severn to see the answer in what has been ordered for the south Wales Metro - Stadler Class 756’s which can run off overhead power and battery or the Stadler 398 tram-train which also runs off overhead power or battery. It is obvious that the main lines from Parkway down to Temple Meads and then to Bath & Chippenham will be electrified. Run a service from Henbury to Portishead and surely such trains could charge up their batteries whilst under the wires and then use battery power on the branches?

This is what has been ordered for Wales:> https://railcolornews.com/2019/12/04/uk-transport-for-wales-meet-the-fleet/

Stadler will also build Stadler Flirt TMUs (tri-mode multiple units: diesel, overhead electric, battery electric) for the Rhymney, Coryton, and Vale of Glamorgan lines. These will be known as Class 756s.

I also think that a station should be placed where the line intersects Royal Portbury Dock Road - thus serving workers going to the dock area. In addition, such a station would be right by M5 Junction 19 & thus enable a Park & Ride facility for people coming off the motorway as well as the inhabitants of nearby Portbury village.

 

[zwk500]

Part of the problem may be that Portishead is in the same region of England as Okehampton, which was lucky enough to the the “chosen” south west scheme. Note that the Newcastle, Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line is likely to be the next to reopen and it couldn’t be further away from Okehampton or Portishead without being in Scotland, where it would have reopened over 10 years ago. Only once the Scottish border is moved to be south of Portishead will we see any real progress unfortunately.

Lines are not decided on with a regional quota. Okehampton was in development for more than a decade and RYR gave it the push over the end. However it had the advantage of already having track and a passenger operation in place. Portishead does not have these advantages.

Unfortunately you are 100% correct, while in Scotland everyone matters.

Scottish people would disagree with you. The key difference in Scotland is that ministers have (possibly choose to have) far less management on individual projects, instead setting a national strategy and letting the infrastructure bodies get on with it.

This sounds representative of a regular journey between Bristol and Portishead and such a journey must be considered as the worse case scenario every time one is attempted? How exactly did you get all the way to the services if there is no other road than the one the live wire had fallen on?

This sounds extremely atypical of a regular journey as it is one example of one journey not a regular summary of a weekly commute. It's also an example that has happened to nearly every road in the country at some point. There are places far less well connected that Portishead that nobody screams for a railway every time a tree falls across them.

 

[contrex]

This sounds representative of a regular journey between Bristol and Portishead and such a journey must be considered as the worse case scenario every time one is attempted? How exactly did you get all the way to the services if there is no other road than the one the live wire had fallen on?

The wires fell on the Portbury Hundred, which links Portishead town to the Gordano access to the M5. They also closed the M5. That meant massive tailbacks, all day, on all the main roads leading into, and out of, the region bounded roughly by Clevedon - Portishead - Pill - Bristol - Nailsea. As our office was on the Hundred, there was no chance of getting there even if we could reach it. We had to snake our way along a lot of B roads using local knowledge. Tyntesfield, Failand and Abbot's Pool I seem to recall. We saw a car on its roof, abandoned, near Lower Failand. I never did find out what happened there.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I mean the group is called the "Portishead Busway Campaign". I somehow doubt that anyone should be paying attention to them on rail or climate change related matters! They certainly aren't an "environmental group" anyway! Infact I think it says everything that all I can find on Google about them is that article, this thread and some comments from them responding to the planning applications (including him trying convince guy in charge of First Bus West of England to support his campaign, which was shut down and the First Bus stance is they support the railway reopening) which all talk about this one guy and nobody else, which makes me suspect this campaign is actually just one person).

 

[JKF]

A large historical reason for the delay has been the abolition of the County of Avon a couple of decades back which meant the line straddled North Somerset and Bristol rather than a single local authority, two bodies with very different political make ups and local priorities. Why should North Somerset pay for something to benefit Bristol and vice-versa? The more recent collusions via combined authorities / transport bodies etc has helped resolve this and the MetroWest scheme is a result of this, a few decades too late.

Other issues holding back the scheme have been:

* The poor siting of Temple Meads as a station for the city, which has been partly resolved by new development - it used to be an absolute dive strangled by big roads but quite a lot of employment in the area now and you can have a pleasant (if a bit long) walk along the river into the centre.

* The 80s Avon Metro scheme being largely promoted by a local Tory politician as a private scheme against a local authority led by Labour, little chance of pragmatic compromise. Might have been better If it had politically independent leadership.

* Only really one other place (Pill) on the line worthy of a station (although Parson St/Bedminster will gain extra services which will be welcome;

* The local authority in Bristol prioritising expensive bus and P&R schemes which have had mixed success; also changes of political leadership meaning little stability in transport planning.

* The Quays Avenue fiasco and resultant placement of a station in Portishead a fair walk from the main high street and seafront. Probably not that big a deal for outbound commuters, but for incoming visitors this will make for a far less attractive proposition than the bus or car. All for want of a level crossing. Didn’t also help that the developer of housing around the docks went bust due to the recession so there was nobody to tap up for money to resolve this.

* conflicts with freight traffic, although since coal traffic had ended they’ve struggled to find a use for the line (though recent driver training runs suggest something is incoming).

I hope it gets there in the end, preferably before I hit retirement age, as it’s been on the cards since my childhood! I remember the false hopes when they suddenly did a load of vegetation clearance at pill station in the early 80s, forty years on and still waiting….

 

[nw1]

Well yes, that can't be overlooked. There is also the fact that railway emissions are obviously concentrated around railway lines, which aren't normally as close to people's lungs as a busy street.

However, I would be surprised if the tyre particulates come remotely close to some of the soot and grime belched out by some of the DMUs in the fleet.


There are currently no proposals to replace most Sprinters (which are now nearer 40 years old), let alone the Turbos I had in mind. That is a massive procurement exercise and I suspect that even if you started it tomorrow with a blank cheque, you would be hard pressed to have them all replaced in 10 years.

As we've seen above, XR are in favour of this line, but in general regarding the 'diesel' argument: I'm not sure whether, relative to other modes of transport, the impact of diesel trains is such a huge issue anyway, particularly regarding this line. It sounds a weak argument for not re-opening it if people are in fact using such an argument.

Would one extra DMU on the system per hour, running this service, really cause a huge negative environmental impact?

As for this line being a long-running saga, I recall visiting Bristol on the GWR 150 event in September 1985, and they were running a steam train to 'Portbury' (close to Portishead I think) on this line. We didn't have time to take it but given the line was able to take trains in the mid-eighties, it's really been very, very slow!

 

[The Ham]

As we've seen above, XR are in favour of this line, but in general regarding the 'diesel' argument: I'm not sure whether, relative to other modes of transport, the impact of diesel trains is such a huge issue anyway, particularly regarding this line. It sounds a weak argument for not re-opening it if people are in fact using such an argument.

Would one extra DMU on the system per hour, running this service, really cause a huge negative environmental impact?

As for this line being a long-running saga, I recall visiting Bristol on the GWR 150 event in September 1985, and they were running a steam train to 'Portbury' (close to Portishead I think) on this line. We didn't have time to take it but given the line was able to take trains in the mid-eighties, it's really been very, very slow!

Whilst the emissions from the individual train may be worse than people using their cars it's likely not that straightforward. Especially given that to be the greenest when driving requires an electric vehicle, which is still very much in the minority.

First off whilst it may open with DMU's in use that's not going to be the long term and so over time it's going to reduce emissions beyond what would otherwise be the case.

However even that's still only part of the answer, in that by having a rail service it could encourage people living/working in the area to reduce their individual reliance on car travel. This could, as an example, mean that rather than driving to (say) Reading that they go by train, given that would be mostly using electric traction it would reduce their overall emissions for that trip quite a lot.

Although what would be of more significant overall benefit would be a reduction in local travel by car. Again for example, if instead of driving an individual went to/from work by rail (which meant that it was no longer worth the cost of car ownership) and then undertook 90% of their local travel by walking, cycling and public transport it could still mean that the overall emissions created by that person was noticeably lower than I'd they had gone by car for all their travel. Even though their emissions from their rail use was slightly higher than the corresponding trips by car.

 

[och aye]

Unfortunately you are 100% correct, while in Scotland everyone matters.

Reading comments from politicians regarding East Kilbride electrification, you wouldn't think so.

 

[507020]

Reading comments from politicians regarding East Kilbride electrification, you wouldn't think so.

Of course there is an old solution to this which is to get an electric train to West Kilbride and walk

 

[InOban]

St. Bride, or is it Bridget, got around a bit. Oban's parish church is the parish of Kilmore and Kilbride, both old settlements a few miles south.

 

[nw1]

Whilst the emissions from the individual train may be worse than people using their cars it's likely not that straightforward. Especially given that to be the greenest when driving requires an electric vehicle, which is still very much in the minority.

First off whilst it may open with DMU's in use that's not going to be the long term and so over time it's going to reduce emissions beyond what would otherwise be the case.

That was the point I was trying to make; the environmental arguments for NOT re-opening this line with DMUs seem weak to me.

 

[Annetts key]

* conflicts with freight traffic, although since coal traffic had ended they’ve struggled to find a use for the line (though recent driver training runs suggest something is incoming).

Even before Aberthaw coal power station closed, trains carrying coal from Portbury to it were running infrequently. With hardly any during the summer time. Certainly well below the capacity of Avonmouth bulk handling terminal let alone the additional capacity that came from having the line to Portbury Docks.

The problem was always the cost of either improving capacity on the line so that it did not affect the freight paths significantly, or else making suitable arrangements that the freight company would be happy with.

 

[snowball]

St. Bride, or is it Bridget, got around a bit. Oban's parish church is the parish of Kilmore and Kilbride, both old settlements a few miles south.

And there's St Bride's Bay, Pembrokeshire.

 

[tbtc]

I think there's an element of "be careful what you wish for"... demanding that planning processes are sped up significantly may only create an environment where rail schemes are easier to reject out of hand (rather than keep making positive noises about them without actually progressing them at all)

I'd also sound caution regarding Scottish comparisons - plenty of places in Scotland haven't had their old railways reinstated yet (or new towns/ Airports that lack a proper station)

It took almost forty years between the Borders line closing and the 2006 Waverley Route Act passing at Holyrood, and then actually opening in 2015 - and this was just an unnelectrified partly single tracked line covering only half of the Waverley route which doesn't even serve the biggest place in the Borders, on what was probably the most high profile "Beeching" closure in the UK (with all of the "political" aspects of the Borders region having been left behind with lots of knitwear jobs being moved overseas, the traditional Liberal territory giving the region a strong voice... even with all of the arguments about an entire region not having a single station, it took almost forty years of campaigning to get it approved and then almost another decade for it to actually open).

Whilst I appreciate that anyone focussed on their pet local project in England will find that things don't go as fast as they would like, the Borders experience doesn't suggest that things move at lightening pace in Scotland either.

The short freight branch from Thornton to Methil is only now getting approved, but I'm sure the people of Peterhead/ Fraserburgh/ St Andrews/ Grangemouth etc would take rise at the "this would have been re-opened by now, if it were in Scotland" reaction that people trot out on threads like this one about Portishead. There's a long list of projects that haven't been done north of the border ... the grass is always greener

That said, Portishead makes sense in theory - it's a shortish line from a decent sized town to the nearest big city, there's a frequent enough commercial bus service to suggest that there's a market for public transport, it stands on its own two feet (i.e. there's no bluster about it being "useful" for diversions on a couple of weekends a year, it's not some romantic route rambling through rural villages, it's a simple enough plan that belongs in the same bracket as Ebbw Vale to Cardiff or Ashington to Newcastle) - but I don't know the local conditions so can't comment on the best location in the town for a station etc

However I'd rather we focussed on getting the knitting up at Temple Meads before any "new" projects are taken on in the area

Whilst the emissions from the individual train may be worse than people using their cars it's likely not that straightforward. Especially given that to be the greenest when driving requires an electric vehicle, which is still very much in the minority.

First off whilst it may open with DMU's in use that's not going to be the long term and so over time it's going to reduce emissions beyond what would otherwise be the case

Can't have it both ways though - you're pointing out that only a minority of cars are currently electric but also that the railway might eventually be electrified one day (by which time presumably there'll be a few more EVs on the road)... given how the backlog of electrification has got, I wouldn't imagine any wires to Portishead any time soon

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has an official station name finally been decided upon for the Portway station?

 

[The Ham]

Can't have it both ways though - you're pointing out that only a minority of cars are currently electric but also that the railway might eventually be electrified one day (by which time presumably there'll be a few more EVs on the road)... given how the backlog of electrification has got, I wouldn't imagine any wires to Portishead any time soon

Whilst it's true that it's likely to take some time before it's electrified there's other measures which can be implemented to reduce rail emissions, for instance the fitting of batteries to DMU's to reduce the fuel required (current discussions reference circa 20% reduction), that's likely to be something which could be seen within the timeframe that it's likely that a majority of cars become electric (even if next year every new car was electric and the average age of cars is 10 years that'll still take 5 years before we get above 50% of all cars).

That's before there's the option of battery EMU's which would reduce emissions further, even though the route hasn't gained wires.

Once we've got electric cars there's not a whole lot more that can be done to further reduce their emissions, yet we can still be using a fair amount of pure diesel running on our rail network and match what EV's can do in terms of per person per km emissions.

 

[Annetts key]

Has an official station name finally been decided upon for the Portway station?

Do you mean the proposed new station next to the current park and ride between Shirehampton and Avonmouth? That’s on the Severn Beach line so probably should go in a different topic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do you mean the proposed new station next to the current park and ride between Shirehampton and Avonmouth? That’s on the Severn Beach line so probably should go in a different topic.

My apologies. Sorry for disrupting the posting flow on this thread.

 

[DJ_K666]

Would it be prudent, assuming the reopening goes ahead, to put in the bases for overhead wires and identify power feed locations. Then if it opens as diesel the electrification thing can be written into the transport and works act order for the line. Means less bureaucratic BS and the railway industry can get on with the job of getting something running and then put the catenary up afterwards. Drivers are hopefully being trained already in how to work electric trains.

Let's see what happens.

 

[zwk500]

Would it be prudent, assuming the reopening goes ahead, to put in the bases for overhead wires and identify power feed locations. Then if it opens as diesel the electrification thing can be written into the transport and works act order for the line. Means less bureaucratic BS and the railway industry can get on with the job of getting something running and then put the catenary up afterwards. Drivers are hopefully being trained already in how to work electric trains.

Let's see what happens.

As long as it doesn't scupper the chances of the project happening at all, yes.

 

[507020]

Would it be prudent, assuming the reopening goes ahead, to put in the bases for overhead wires and identify power feed locations. Then if it opens as diesel the electrification thing can be written into the transport and works act order for the line. Means less bureaucratic BS and the railway industry can get on with the job of getting something running and then put the catenary up afterwards. Drivers are hopefully being trained already in how to work electric trains.

Let's see what happens.

The wires haven’t even reached Bristol from either Bromsgrove or Wootton Bassett yet, so there’s not much urgency to it. I’m sure they can manage Portishead as part of the Bristol - Exeter scheme whenever that gets done, assuming Portishead is even open by then.

 

[JKF]

There’s a few tunnels to deal with that might make electrification expensive, plus I can see objections to the knitting spoiling some of the views in the Avon Gorge.

I sometimes wonder if building a tunnel under the Avon to tie in with the Severn Beach line might have been worth the cost, leaving the gorge line for freight.

 

[DJ_K666]

True that. I'm just talking about putting in the footings, drilling holes and filling them with concrete as yet.
No reason ex-District line stock can't be used instead of 150s though. Reminds me, I really must go and sample them on the Bletchley line soon.

 

[Yindee8191]

There’s a few tunnels to deal with that might make electrification expensive, plus I can see objections to the knitting spoiling some of the views in the Avon Gorge.

I sometimes wonder if building a tunnel under the Avon to tie in with the Severn Beach line might have been worth the cost, leaving the gorge line for freight.

Issue with that is that it would easily double journey times to Bristol TM, the speed of which is a major selling point for the reopening at present.

 

[Envoy]

Surely, by re-opening the Portishead line you also have the opportunity to have additional stations by M5 J19 (Portbury), Pill and at Ashton Gate. So, the cost incurred is not just solely about Portishead getting the link into Bristol. In addition, with this line acting as a feeder into Temple Meads, it makes is more likely that people will then transfer to main line trains rather than use the car for longer journeys. However, I reckon that having just 1 train per hour is going to be insufficient.

 

[JKF]

Surely, by re-opening the Portishead line you also have the opportunity to have additional stations by M5 J17 (Portbury), Pill and at Ashton Gate. So, the cost incurred is not just solely about Portishead getting the link into Bristol. In addition, with this line acting as a feeder into Temple Meads, it makes is more likely that people will then transfer to main line trains rather than use the car for longer journeys. However, I reckon that having just 1 train per hour is going to be insufficient.

The difficulty with greater train frequency is where you stick the passing loop, Pill is too close to Portishead, Ashton Gate too far. It’d probably need to be somewhere in the gorge which then becomes difficult given lack of road access.

 

[Dave Beeching]

Whilst it's true that it's likely to take some time before it's electrified there's other measures which can be implemented to reduce rail emissions, for instance the fitting of batteries to DMU's to reduce the fuel required (current discussions reference circa 20% reduction), that's likely to be something which could be seen within the timeframe that it's likely that a majority of cars become electric (even if next year every new car was electric and the average age of cars is 10 years that'll still take 5 years before we get above 50% of all cars).

That's before there's the option of battery EMU's which would reduce emissions further, even though the route hasn't gained wires.

Once we've got electric cars there's not a whole lot more that can be done to further reduce their emissions, yet we can still be using a fair amount of pure diesel running on our rail network and match what EV's can do in terms of per person per km emissions.

EVs are, in my opinion, great and much better than fossil fuel driven cars but they still get stuck in traffic along with everybody else and there's all the embodied carbon in producing them over producing using an (eek) existing DMU

 

[Brissle Girl]

The galling thing about the Portishead line project is that in the last couple of year a massive compound for vehicles heading in and out of the docks was built (on a greenfield site) adjacent to the branch, at Junction 19. At an estimate it's got capacity for around 4,000 cars. A more progressive transport solution would have protected part of that site as a Park and Ride, and provided a frequent rail service into Bristol. (Trackbed marked in red on the attached.) It would have been an excellent solution for any Bristol traffic coming from the south and possibly south wales too.

 

[Annetts key]

Surely, by re-opening the Portishead line you also have the opportunity to have additional stations by M5 J17 (Portbury), Pill and at Ashton Gate. So, the cost incurred is not just solely about Portishead getting the link into Bristol. In addition, with this line acting as a feeder into Temple Meads, it makes is more likely that people will then transfer to main line trains rather than use the car for longer journeys. However, I reckon that having just 1 train per hour is going to be insufficient.

Err, junction 17 is rather far away, do you mean junction 19?
The existing plan includes reopening a station at Pill. A station at Ashton is indeed wanted in the future.

The galling thing about the Portishead line project is that in the last couple of year a massive compound for vehicles heading in and out of the docks was built (on a greenfield site) adjacent to the branch, at Junction 19. At an estimate it's got capacity for around 4,000 cars. A more progressive transport solution would have protected part of that site as a Park and Ride, and provided a frequent rail service into Bristol. (Trackbed marked in red on the attached.) It would have been an excellent solution for any Bristol traffic coming from the south and possibly south wales too.

The large “car parks” / compounds in, near and around Portbury docks are either new vehicles stored ready for export, or new vehicles stored after arriving from overseas before being distributed elsewhere in the country. There are literally thousands and thousands. The large ships that transport them are massive.

Anyway, as these large “car parks” / compounds are private land, it may be a difficult battle to get them for a park and ride.