Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[swrural]

The Waitrose site is still a helluva way from the front.  Having written that, I realise if the station (the then new post war one where the garage is) was still possible, Portishead has expanded so far to the south east, it would be quite a hike backwards for pax to reach it.  Of course those pax could always use Portbury. 

[TonyK]

Except that Portbury is on no agenda for reopening.

The expansion in Portishead, though it stalled for a while, has been high density housing around the area by Waitrose, and there must be quite a few thousand people living with a 5 to 10 minute walk  of there. There remains room for a lot more in brownfield sites, the limiting factor now being access to work. There is a lot more by way of leisure to be had since those homes were built, and I reckon the added stimulus of a railway would bring new investment on a scale not yet imagined.

[swrural]

Except that Portbury is on no agenda for reopening.
snipped

I did put a grin after my Portbury suggestion.    I am sure you are right about stimulus following re-opening btw (by the way). 

[TonyK]

Sorry swrural. It's just that get a few pedants around these parts...
 

[John R]

I think there's a big hint in the council's statement, which is the last comment as reported by the North Somerset Times (CfN's post of April 17th), and which is also on the council website. It says that the final decision on the station site will be governed by financial and operational constraints. That would seem to me as though the original site is being seen as just too expensive since the safety Taliban ruled against any new level crossings.

[TonyK]

That bothers me too. It would be the wrong answer to the wrong problem for the wrong reason.

[anthony215]

I do hope common sense prevails and teh station is built at the correct site.

[swrural]

It seems to me that the Portishead situation is similar in character (low speed entry to a terminus) as the recently reinstated level crossing at Sheringham.

I believe that the difference between such situations and one I was reading about today at Botany Bay on the East Coast line in Notts (125 mph) is like chalk and cheese.  I realise planning should move forward and not backward but there is a world of difference between such locations.

I do think that the avoidance of pedestrian access is important during a closed gate event and we all have in mind the two girls who died.

If any of you have influence or are local (or both), I am sure you can make representations when the planning application comes up. 

[Red Squirrel]

It seems to me that the Portishead situation is similar in character (low speed entry to a terminus) as the recently reinstated level crossing at Sheringham.
 

Isn't it the case that the Sheringham crossing can only be used 12 times a year?

[swrural]

True, but actually one could argue that one being used every half hour is a safer use as everyone gets used to the routine.

I wouldn't, actually, as a crossing is either safe or it isn't.  The Portishead one is bound to be safe as long as they use full barriers.

You have to think of this issue in terms of everyday road crossing use.  Does one really think one is unsafe at the many town level crossings everywhere?  No, neither do I.  I suspect decent historical data can be fished up about that. 

[JayMac]

True, but actually one could argue that one being used every half hour is a safer use as everyone gets used to the routine.

One could equally argue that routine leads to complacency.

The Portishead one is bound to be safe as long as they use full barriers.

Full barriers are no impediment to stupidity on the part of motorists and pedestrians. Full barrier crossings have also been subject to human failings by rail network employees. Many incidents and near misses, as well as one or two serious accidents, have occurred at level crossings with full barriers.

The safest way to keep railways and public highway users (both vehicle and pedestrian) apart is grade separation.

[John R]

The safest way to keep railways and public highway users (both vehicle and pedestrian) apart is grade separation.

Even if a 10mph limit is imposed over a full barriered crossing? Even grade separation isn't foolproof, as the accident at Great Heck proved.

[swrural]

And Oxshott - and Norton Fitzwarren recently and......... 

That's why they have been installing armco on the approaches to some of them but they don't stop a heavy goods vehicle,  as happened on the M42 recently.

I really think that the Portishead level crossing can be made as safe as anyone could expect and I am sure the locals would prefer that, to an inconveniently situated station or an unsightly bridge.

[TonyK]

Agreed, swrural. The crossing would be as safe as, say Avonmouth, where the trains are slowing to enter or accelerating from a full stop towards a slow curve. And agreed BNM - the British Plonker will always find a way, which is why we are having this debate in the first place.

[Red Squirrel]

According to the Bristol Post, the good burghers of Portishead are trying to enlist Dr Fox's help in securing a level crossing (and therefore a sensible location for the station):

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/MP-enlisted-station-scheme-shunt/story-18989233-detail/story.html