Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

Could building a new railway constitute 'exceptional circumstances'? It certainly isn't an everyday event, at least in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

[stuving]

Is the answer in Portishead to use vehicles similar to those in use in Edinburgh 

That (ie tram/train) would be an ideal solution, but alas not on offer in the foreseeable future.

That may be so. The rules for tram-trains, where these are in use, do seem to be different.

Here's a (foreign) example: the station at La Chapelle-sur-Erdre on the newly-opened Nantes-Ch^teaubriant tram-train line. The old railway ran under the bridge and has been replaced by a road (the D38 by-passing the village). There was room for a new line at the upper level between the cutting and the cemetery, but that means a level crossing with the Rue de l'Erdre. Now I don't suppose it would be any easier getting permission for a new level crossing in France, especially as this is not at a terminus.

The crossing is a normal road/rail one with barriers and (single) red light, but the station also has a pedestrian crossing like those you find at tram stops. This is just some pavement-edge tactile strips, and no clear signage (there's a standard yellow warning notice about looking out for trams). It should be noted that there are still some pedestrian crossing at stations in France, on local lines, but the policy is to get rid of them.

In Nantes, this line has tram-style crossings with roads - no barriers and different lights - though it only crosses roads when it runs beside a tram line. The oddity about this tram-train is that the "train" part of its track is entirely isolated - it has no connection with train lines, except in Nantes station. So is it really a tram? But it does not run on the streets in Nantes either (it crosses them), nor connect with Nantes trams. So it's a ...

The difference between a tram-train and a tram isn't easy to see. The Edinburgh trams are certainly described as trams, and while they run on fenced off-road tracks out of town, they avoid railways. The Nantes ones also run to Clisson, sharing a twin-track railway line with all the other trains. On that line they never run as trams. But they look pretty tram-like on the outside, inside they are fitted out like TER trains).

[John R]

Actually, I'm sorry but you're all wrong as to what the stock will be. I've just been reading the article in the council ragazine North Somerset Life (distributed to all households) about the re-opening, and it clearly shows a double track third rail electrified line with a 4 car Class 375.

http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Your_Council/Communication_and_Information/North%20Somerset%20Life/NS%20Life%20July%202014%20(pdf).pdf

Interestingly, it does say the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have confirmed that a level crossing would not be allowed. So maybe they were asked after all.

[grahame]

Interestingly, it does say the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have confirmed that a level crossing would not be allowed. So maybe they were asked after all.

There is, of course, asking and asking.

If you ask, you'll be told the standard guidelines and in many cases the answer's "no, that doesn't fit with general policy".   If you ask, explaining why it makes sense in this particular case and bringing in a couple of heavy-hitters to support, with local community backing, you may find that there are ways and means through which the "can't" turns into "we may have a way to do that".

Were the ORR asked or asked, I wonder?

[chuffed]

Thank you grahame. That was exactly my point, which i hope is taken up by publicity conscious MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) like Charlotte Leslie, (who even found her way into the Manchester Piccadilly Wetherspoons magazine ) and our own Dr Liam Fox who has done very little to advance the cause of the railway since securing an adjournment debate way back in the mists of time.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Actually, I'm sorry but you're all wrong as to what the stock will be. I've just been reading the article in the council ragazine North Somerset Life (distributed to all households) about the re-opening, and it clearly shows a double track third rail electrified line with a 4 car Class 375.

http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/Your_Council/Communication_and_Information/North%20Somerset%20Life/NS%20Life%20July%202014%20(pdf).pdf

Interestingly, it does say the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) have confirmed that a level crossing would not be allowed. So maybe they were asked after all.

Simply to avoid duplication in posting - see also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=11558.msg156866#msg156866 

[John R]

A last throw of the die regarding the central site.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Town-centre-site-new-station-reconsidered/story-21449371-detail/story.html

[TonyK]

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s view is that level crossings are dangerous. Mine, and I pay tribute to Chris from Nailsea for helping me find an economy of words, is that "Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner". The same is true of motor cars, knives, machine guns, aircraft, dynamite, and chain saws, all of which I have operated in complete safety (except, arguably, the last. OK, or the first).

It is also very true of roads, including Quays Avenue. Consider the prospect of the station being, because of lack of permission for a LC^▸ (Level Crossing), to the east of Quays Avenue, with the 100-place car park to the west. Were there a LC in place, the car park and station would both be to the west of QA^▸ (Quality Assurance), and the train would be running at about 5 to 10 mph, the driver keenly alert for problems on the LC and planning his arrival at Portishead in terms of pulling up to a stop. Without the LC, we may well see drivers, maybe having had trouble finding a parking space and seeing the train at platform, throw caution to the winds and dash across QA without paying heed to the traffic. It only needs another driver en route to work from the estate behind the roundabout, maybe inexperienced, maybe distracted by finding the right track on the iPod, probably nearing 30mph, and the stage is set for calamity.

Put 50 people against a closed LC gate who desperately want / need to be the other side of the track, and I doubt more than two idiots would chance it (I would say none, had I not seen it before). Put them by a traffic light controlled crossing with the last train for half-an-hour in sight opposite, and I reckon that at most, you would have the vicar and the old lady with two walking sticks wait for the green man without at least thinking about it (and I'm not sure of the latter).

We could be in the situation where the relative risks are obscured by the risk assessment process. By the third inquest, Network Rail will be able to issue a standard letter to the coroner saying "ORR refused permission for a level crossing on safety grounds. No level crossing was involved in this tragic accident, which did not occur on NR^» (Network Rail - home page) property, nor involve any NR or TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) equipment, vehicle, or personnel. Our hands are clean; ask NSDC to make the path from car park to station safer".

This could make the second-best option a no-no, the first-best having been ruled out by ORR's opposition to what is essentially a piece of safety equipment, but leaving issues of potential conflict between pedestrians and cars. These will have to be dealt with by NSDC, who will, like Bristol CC when the layout of the City Centre was changed, leading to some serious accidents, including fatal collisions between pedestrians and buses, having to find answers.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I pay tribute to Chris from Nailsea for helping me find an economy of words ... "Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner".

Thank you, Four Track, Now! 

I formulated those words in my signature text quite intentionally as a sort of statement / discussion point - and, as far as I know, my wording is original.

The same is true of motor cars, knives, machine guns, aircraft, dynamite, and chain saws, all of which I have operated in complete safety (except, arguably, the last. OK, or the first).

I, too, have used motor cars, knives, machine guns and a chain saw in complete safety (although I was dutifully careful with one of the machine guns, as the MP40 is an historic masterpiece of German engineering, in my opinion).

My experiences with a German Mercedes Sprinter van are perhaps less appropriate for posting here. 

[grahame]

The same is true of motor cars, knives, machine guns, aircraft, dynamite, and chain saws, all of which I have operated in complete safety (except, arguably, the last. OK, or the first).

I, too, have used motor cars, knives, machine guns and a chain saw in complete safety (although I was dutifully careful with one of the machine guns, as the MP40 is an historic masterpiece of German engineering, in my opinion).

We had someone slip and fall down a couple of stairs yesterday - actually could have been quite serious.  The suggestion was made that we put a protective gate on each step ...

[TonyK]

I tripped over a safety notice at the top of stairs at work once, the one the cleaner puts out saying "Caution - Wet Floor" after she's finished rearranging the dirt, and before she goes home. The floor was, it goes without saying, dry. I didn't mention it, as I don't want to trip over a second saying "Caution - Safety Notice Ahead".

[ellendune]

I think the whole metro west idea should be recast as a tram-train scheme with this short street running section! Or an even longer section going right into the centre of Portishead.

[Rhydgaled]

It is also very true of roads, including Quays Avenue. Consider the prospect of the station being, because of lack of permission for a LC^▸ (Level Crossing), to the east of Quays Avenue, with the 100-place car park to the west. Were there a LC in place, the car park and station would both be to the west of QA^▸ (Quality Assurance), and the train would be running at about 5 to 10 mph, the driver keenly alert for problems on the LC and planning his arrival at Portishead in terms of pulling up to a stop. Without the LC, we may well see drivers, maybe having had trouble finding a parking space and seeing the train at platform, throw caution to the winds and dash across QA without paying heed to the traffic. It only needs another driver en route to work from the estate behind the roundabout, maybe inexperienced, maybe distracted by finding the right track on the iPod, probably nearing 30mph, and the stage is set for calamity.

Put 50 people against a closed LC gate who desperately want / need to be the other side of the track, and I doubt more than two idiots would chance it (I would say none, had I not seen it before). Put them by a traffic light controlled crossing with the last train for half-an-hour in sight opposite, and I reckon that at most, you would have the vicar and the old lady with two walking sticks wait for the green man without at least thinking about it (and I'm not sure of the latter).

I quite agree. I can't comment on this specific road in Portishead, but the point is valid. I've been in a similar suituation myself:

On board Arriva Aberystwyth to Synod Inn bus, late (again). On arrival, the Optare Tempo on the 'connection' to Cardigan, operated by Richards Bros, is already at the bus stop opposite, due to depart. Mad panic to get to the Richards bus before it left, had to cross over in a hurry. Not even a green man to wait for and a speed limit on the A487 (the road I was crossing) of 50mph. That's no typo, passengers really were required to cross a 50mph stretch of trunk road without the aid of a Zebra, Pelican, Puffin, Toucan or Pegasus crossing (have I left anything out?) to make the 'connection'. Green men are often painfully slow in coming too, although I like the crossing near Fishguard town hall which shows traffic the amber aspect as soon as you press the button. Why can't all pedestrian crossings give such priority to pedestrians?

As for the level crossing, your two 'idiots' would presumably have to be able-bodied to get over the barriers. Therefore, installing a good old-fashioned steep-stepped footbridge should make the crossing really, really, safe. Alot safer than any road you might encounter a car on. And such a footbridge should be alot eaiser and cheaper to build than either a bridge for the trains or one for the cars.

If the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) really have a blanket ban on new level crossings, even on new lines, then Portishead isn't the only place that should be worried. For example, the TrawsLinkCymru campaign (part of which is a Carmarthen - Aberystwyth rail link) might as well give up because I can't see any way of getting a new line into Aberystwyth station without a level crossing. Which leads to another question, doesn't ScotRail's new borders railway have any level crossings? If it does, ask 'em how they got that past the ORR and apply the same thing at Portishead and elsewhere.

[grahame]

doesn't ScotRail's new borders railway have any level crossings?

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/33443/borders_spring_2014_newsletter.pdf

Network Rail has a policy not to introduce new level-crossings to the rail network due to the dangers they can pose. The Borders Railway will therefore not have a single level-crossing. Instead, we are constructing a number of new footbridges and pathways to better connect local communities to each other and the new stations.

Green men are often painfully slow in coming too, although I like the crossing near Fishguard town hall which shows traffic the amber aspect as soon as you press the button. Why can't all pedestrian crossings give such priority to pedestrians?

There are often timing things on crossings to bunch people up and get more traffic through on both foot and wheel.  With many, press the button and you'll be held back until the road sensors know that it's clear, or for a certain number of seconds to give others the chance of arriving to cross with you, then crossing you in a batch (and also getting cars through in batches)

I'm not sure I spotted the complete answer in a quick look at ...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3814/ltn-2-95.pdf
... but that does give you some idea of timing (tables 4, 6, 8).   It's also an old document, and more sophisticated algorithms have probably superseded some of the timings described.

We do have one notable three way road junction near us that used to be an accident black spot.   There, the algorithm seems to be "all red until a vehicle approaches" and there's no wait period - in other words, any approaching car will trigger a change and there's rarely a need to come to a halt. Goes back to red quite fast too.  Works well when it's quiet.  As it gets to be a busier time of day, I'm pretty sure that other algorithms kick in too, leaving a green period for following vehicles to arrive ... and that may take a account of a typical convoy bunching of cars and vans.   Come to think of it, there's often going to be a convoy approach to pedestrians when (for example) a bus or train has dumped them out, the cinema has ended, or they're batched by a previous crossing on their path.

[Chris from Nailsea]

An editorial piece, from the Bristol Post:

Editor's comment:

The opening of a passenger railway line to Portishead is the catalyst that will kickstart an urban rail network and could transform Bristol's gridlocked transport system. Somehow, however, that opening has already been put back several years by the frustratingly time-consuming process of funding and consultation.

Now, ignoring the completion of public consultation by North Somerset Council on where Portishead's station should be sited, the town's own councillors are calling for the plan to be put on hold ^ while a business case is drawn up for the use of a level crossing. Despite the fact that rail authorities have ruled out a crossing for the town unless it was an "exceptional case".

The town council's persistence on this issue is unhelpful. It argues that a site for the station was identified 20 years ago. But, while this original site is closer to the centre of town than those being consulted on, it is by just 400 metres. Portishead has changed beyond recognition in 20 years. And a level crossing would not be practical for a busy road that is about to become busier.

Meanwhile, the only real achievement is more delay. And that is something this vital scheme cannot afford.