Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

A passing loop somewhere between Ham Green and Paradise Bottom would, one might think, add a great deal of flexibility. A quick check of the 1946 aerial view (see here: http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition= ) suggests that the formation here was once double track.

[chuffed]

In Mike Vincents book 'Reflections on the Portishead branch' it mentions that the Oakwood loop and signal box  were put in on 14th May 1929 and taken out again in September 1960 (P.78)

[johnneyw]

The current plan is indeed a single platform at Portishead.  During the consultation I did suggest a second for resiliance but I'm sure it was ignored on cost grounds.  No reason a platform couldn't be long enough for a 6 car ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) to arrive and split into the first and second departure of 3 cars each. (Assuming it will be turbos running the line - they could of course get the pacers out of retirement!)

My understanding from the latest presentation is the twin track at pill, one line will be for freight and the other for passenger.  The points won't be restored where the Portishead splits from Portbury Docks, it will be two separate lines until after the Pill platform where they merge into 1.  I guess if there's no freight due a passenger unit can fester on the freight section, but Pill was not designed nor would be any use as a passenger passing facility.

Cheers
Alan

Well, if it's Pacers or nothing!
I have to admit that I have no idea how long the Portishead platform will be although I will be having another look but if you can fit two 3 car sets onto it then that would be a solution to upping the morning peak frequency.

Edit: Subsequent research seems to indicate 130m platorm, revised from the earlier 105m plans. I understand this increases provision from 4 to 5 car but I suppose this also depends on the actual lengths of the cars.

[Red Squirrel]

In Mike Vincents book 'Reflections on the Portishead branch' it mentions that the Oakwood loop and signal box  were put in on 14th May 1929 and taken out again in September 1960 (P.78)

Gosh, I've just found a copy among the books I inherited from my Dad - turns out I gave it to him for Xmas in 1983! Oakwood Loop appears to have been pretty much where I was suggesting, just to the north of No.3 (Sandstone) Tunnel.

[Robin Summerhill]

A passing loop somewhere between Ham Green and Paradise Bottom would, one might think, add a great deal of flexibility. A quick check of the 1946 aerial view (see here: http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition= ) suggests that the formation here was once double track.

The winter 1959 Working Timetable reads as follows:

"Single line Clifton Bridge to Portishead worked by electric train token. Crossing places Oak Wood, Pill and Portbury Shipyard"

[martyjon]

A passing loop somewhere between Ham Green and Paradise Bottom would, one might think, add a great deal of flexibility. A quick check of the 1946 aerial view (see here: http://maps.bristol.gov.uk/kyp/?edition= ) suggests that the formation here was once double track.

The winter 1959 Working Timetable reads as follows:

"Single line Clifton Bridge to Portishead worked by electric train token. Crossing places Oak Wood, Pill and Portbury Shipyard"

Oak Wood was indeed a passing loop but only for a passenger and goods train, the passenger train using the Down/Up single line and the goods train using the loop. There is a signal box diagram for the Oak Wood Box on the signalling society website.

[alan_s]

Edit: Subsequent research seems to indicate 130m platorm, revised from the earlier 105m plans. I understand this increases provision from 4 to 5 car but I suppose this also depends on the actual lengths of the cars.

Thanks for the update - yes train coaches are about 20-22m long - so I think 130m would just get a 6 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) in.  Assuming the track runs all the way along the platform - they don't put the buffers half way along or something daft!

[martyjon]

The link to Oak Wood Signal Box ;

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwb/S644.htm

[johnneyw]

Edit: Subsequent research seems to indicate 130m platorm, revised from the earlier 105m plans. I understand this increases provision from 4 to 5 car but I suppose this also depends on the actual lengths of the cars.

Thanks for the update - yes train coaches are about 20-22m long - so I think 130m would just get a 6 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) in.  Assuming the track runs all the way along the platform - they don't put the buffers half way along or something daft!

But of a squeeze though. I can picture the concerned looks on the H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) people's faces. Failing that a 1 x 3 set and a 1 x 2 might still be a help.

[SandTEngineer]

The Portishead end of the line will probably be an 'One Train Working' signal section, so no splitting of services allowed.

[johnneyw]

The Portishead end of the line will probably be an 'One Train Working' signal section, so no splitting of services allowed.

That does rather end the talk (including that on the Portishead railway group's website) of some peak time extra services beyond hourly. Seems the only remaining option is to maximise the number of cars per set.

[Noggin]

I rather suspect that it will be as the Valley Lines reopening (and the Borders railway) - minimum viable product to make the numbers work, only to be proved wholly inadequate when services start, a period of "coping", followed by a lengthy, disruptive and expensive rebuilding to how it should have been done in the first place.

Nonetheless, it is at least a railway, and will be Turbos rather than Pacers. It should help prove that there is a market and business case for heavy rail in the mid-west, and build the case for electrification, resignalling, further investment etc. 

[johnneyw]

An unusually well written article on the future for the PortZ line on Bristol Live. At bit long to put on here so here is the link.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/portishead-rail-link-really-more-2740619

[grahame]

An unusually well written article on the future for the PortZ line on Bristol Live. At bit long to put on here so here is the link.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/portishead-rail-link-really-more-2740619

Re-iterating that comment - well worth a read.

[Red Squirrel]

Portishead Railway Group had written a piece containing their best guess at a likely timeframe for reopening, along with an explanation of why it will take some time.

...a possible overall programme from a July 2019 DCO^▸ (Driver Controlled Operation) application could look like this:

o DCO process, to signature   18 months (end Jan 2021)
o Contracts start-up time       6 months (end Jul  2021) See Note *
o Railway and road works      21 months (end Apr 2023)
o Testing period                   4 months (end Aug 2023)

[...]

* A note regarding the contract start-up period

No contracts should be signed until after the DCO has been signed. 

Contractors will then require reasonable contract start-up times – the period during which they will marshal materials, machinery and labour, perhaps also placing subcontracts on other organisations. This all takes time. 

Even then, very little ‘rail’ work can be carried until the various compounds and temporary roadways have been built, and these cannot be built until the DCO is signed off.

In the programme estimate above, PRG Committee has assumed a start-up period of six months. This is generous; the start-up period could be shorter if there is a will to make it so.

You can read their full article here: https://www.portisheadrailwaygroup.org/apr19.html