Great Western Coffee Shop

Are there any plans to reopen the Bristol and Bath Railway between Temple Meads, Yate and Thornbury via Mangotsfield?

Seeing as most of that route is now a cycle track (and bits have been since the early 1970s) along which various councils occasionally want to run buses, it seems very unlikely. However, people who know will probably be along soon.

I've heard a whisper that it's mentioned in the IIP for CP409...

_{(that's the 5-year period starting in the year 4034)}

The perfect location for a tram/train system

Yes, I do believe the track actually exists from Yate southward down as far as the motorway (M4). However, given the geological time it's taken to get a diluted Metrowest off the ground, I'm not sure we've got the sort local/regional government round these parts for that kind of thing.

The track from Yate south to the M4 (and in fact directly under the M4) serves the oil terminal at Westerleigh, right next to the M4, and apparently also a rail training centre.

The only section that would be difficult to reinstate would be between Warmley and the Pucklechurch roundabout where the A4174 has being built on the trackbed in places. All the rest of the formation as far as the edge of Bath is intact as far as Newbridge Station, after that its mostly succumbed to development.

It depends on how you define 'difficult':

The section between Days Rd and Lawrence Hill would present a challenge of a similar in scale to the A720 in Edinburgh where it is crossed by the new Borders Railway - not insurmountable, but certainly expensive. At Clay Bottom, there are several houses built on the trackbed. There would be a bit of a squeeze at Fishponds (especially if you wanted a station there), and then as you say there's the mile or so that's been appropriated for the Avon Ring Road. But then what would you do when you got to Bath? Joining on to the GW line near Newbridge? It's worth noting that the route already takes a very significant flow of cycling commuters, who have a voice and who probably wouldn't want to be shoved back onto Fishponds Rd.

Difficult as in well difficult but not impossible - when there is a will there is a way. There is a small vertical level difference between the Midland and the GWR but a link could be done on the approach into bath where they are only about 400m apart, but it is a nice cycle path too for riding along and busy all the time.

Or reinstate a branch only going out of Bristol Temple Meads as far as Staple Hill and link it to the Avonmouth branch again too now that would be interesting...

I cannot see a good reason to reopen these lines as heavy rail.  However there is possibly case for them as light rail as part of a Bristol/Avon Metro system.

Very interesting! Especially the bit where the thirteen arches were demolished to allow the building of the M32...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ud_2XslsrA

As ellendune suggests, these routes could be more interesting in the context of a tram or tram-train system (something that my grandchildren may get to see, if I have any, after the revolution). Street running sections could get round some of the more gnarly obstacles.

We seem to have sidestepped from "Bristol to Yate via Mangotsfield" to "Bristol to Bath via Warmley". I'm sure such a line would have some use (and get some use) but it doesn't look like a sensible way to get to Bath. It might make sense, as others have said, as a suburban line, in which case trams or something of that type. But we'd be more likely to end up with a "WamleyBus".

I don't think it unreasonable to take the OP to encompass any or all of the former Midlands lines that converged at Mangotsfield, plus the Thornbury branch.

Administrator interjection:

We have no problem with this topic continuing to include discussions of all possible permutations of any such 'restored' route.  ;) :D ;D

The tram/light rail option seems the only realistic choice to utilise the existing/remaining trackbed north east and east of Bristol. I have little doubt that it would be a popular option, given a chance. However, unless there is a big change in transport political will, I think we are a long way from exploiting this promising opportunity. That said,  I would not up the stakes on it's impossibility Gary Lineker style!

Reading the Secretary of State's decision on the Leeds trolleybus scheme, I fear that "Green Light for Light Rail"  (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-light-for-light-rail) has hit the recycling box, and the despised BRT (Bust Rabid Transit) is now the favoured model for such corridors.

Not necessarily. The Leeds trolleybus was BRT with overhead wires, so doesn't necessarily set a precedent for support for doing it properly with light rail. At least I hope not.

Bear in mind, though, that it was the watered-down substitute plan after Leeds' supertram plans were scuppered by Darling Alistair at the same time that Bristol's similar hopes were dashed. The SoS said (and I paraphrase) that the progress in engine technology for buses meant that the benefits of electric vehicles no longer outweighed the costs and environmental considerations. I took it to read that light rail, other than for expansion of existing systems or for London, need not apply.

Interesting, that. Presumably he's referring to clean diesel (http://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/what-is-clean-diesel).

There was a dash for diesel back in Darling's day, but don't we know better? Surely no-one who isn't in the pay of the fossil fuel industry would seriously advocate this now?

I note that there are diesel hybrid buses (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-35266916) running round these days - how much more efficient would these be if they collected their volts from wires instead of lugging their generators round with them?

I'm pretty confident that this particulater fuel will diesel the deathsel within 20 years, for all but a few specialist purposes. Spending money on diesel-bus-based transport systems (http://travelwest.info/metrobus) in 2016 seems like at best an opportunity lost, at worst money squandered.

He may well have been, or he may be referring to the micro-hybrids, such as are found on the number 1 and 2 routes in Bristol. The engine cuts out at stops, which is a little disconcerting at first for anyone used to the engine failing to restart. I travel on these reasonably often, and they are good for that and for other reasons. Or hhe may have had the virtual electric buses (https://www.firstgroup.com/bristol-bath-and-west/news-and-service-updates/news/first-west-england-launch-new-electric-buses) in use on the UWE routes. These have a charging system at UWE, and a small diesel engine that charges the batteries if and when necessary. It seems to have a 25-minute dwell at UWE, presumably to top up the power.

I gave a little thought to the practicality of electric buses in Bristol. The number 72 route takes 40 minutes to complete from one end to the other, and yet despite its convoluted journey, it is only 9 miles in length. In 2 hours, it will cover a maximum 27 miles, with at least one 25-minute charging period at UWE. That doesn't sound much of a range, and I assume much of the power is consumed by lighting, wifi, and other non-motive uses.

He may also be thinking of the new  gas powered double decker buses. (http://www.scania.co.uk/about-scania/media/press-releases/2016/new%20double%20decker%20gas%20bus.aspx) First bus have ordered 45 buses which ay be gas powered if the government ponies up the extra cash - see  here  (http://www.route-one.net/articles/Operations/First_spends__70m_on_305_vehicles) for details.

Like you, I see it as opportunity lost. Despite the delays in Sheffield, with the new tram-trains sitting in their shed, guarantees ticking down, tram-train could yet revolutionise urban transport, but the emphasis needs to be on steel wheel on steel rail with electric power. There is a glimmer of hope for the Bristol area, in that funding for new projects may be contingent upon the creation of a metro-Mayoral area. Given that the odds on the two neighbouring parish councils agreeing to this are longer than Friends of the Earth advocating fracking, we may be left starved of investment until something worthwhile comes along, unlike with MetroBust. Unless, of course, when the predictable cry of "Over my dead body!" is heard by the seaside, someone takes him at his word.

"Who will rid me of this turbulent councillor?"

;)

On a pernickety note, isn't it three other councils that have to agree to the metro-mayor concept (BaNES, S Glos and N Som)? Either way, it ain't going to happen any time soon.

BaNES and S. Gloucs can probably be persuaded with the right incentives.

It's the Little Englanders in North Somerset that are more problematical.

It is three other councils. I had excluded BaNES from my vitriol for a couple of reasons. Unlike South Glos, they are separated from Bristol by more than a change in colour of wheelie bin, and unlike North Somerset, they don't pretend to be grander than the big metropolis up the A370. I don't think either can be talked round easily under the present composition of the councils. Both are instinctively road builders, both are motivated by the s108 and council tax receipts that will follow development to fill in the gaps. Filton Airfield is an obvious example, but there are others. All three will recall the Bristocentric nature of Avon County Council, with justifiable shuddering. That poisons discussion, even now.

The local authorities that surround the the Bristol City Council area are justified in being wary of a return to an Avon County Council style governance.

However, an integrated transport authority can, and should be, beneficial to all. The surrounding LAs surely realise that a large proportion of their Council Tax payers are where they are precisely because there is a big city next door. They work there, shop there, use the leisure facilities there.

Bins, education, section 108, social housing, social care, parks and recreation... they can stay with those local authorities. A sensible transport policy needs a broader, regional control.

A PTE, an ITA, call it what you will. Bristol and the surrounding areas should have one. Yesterday.

Yes, and the right to levy a charge, like Police and Fire, to build and maintain public transport.

Any large urban area needs public transport, and it needs funding by users and the general populace for the benefit of all.

I don't think that a reopening of the old Midland route is impossible, most of the trackbed is there, it would not be overly difficult to build a connection between the GW mainline to the west of Bath (though it probably would have to be grade-separated), services could run through to Chippenham where there is plenty of space to terminate. It would serve a large built-up area that is very heavily car-dependent etc. Yes, you could build it as light rail, but it would probably be far less complicated to rebuild as straight heavy rail, with 200m platforms so you can have 8-car EMU's. The only other consideration is whether there is enough capacity on the stretch of line through Bath.

On a political level, we would need a consensus that a) it's important enough to spend the money, b) it's important enough to evict the steam railway, c) it's important enough to re-route (and likely rebuild) the cyclepath. I wouldn't underestimate how difficult the third could be.

In order to get that consensus, what rail in the Bristol area needs is a success story, and enough capacity to build upon that success. The Severn Beach line is of course a huge success in a quiet way, but the problem is that it is constrained by the infrastructure and the availability of DMUs to run on it. Resignalling, quadrupling and electrification of the Filton Bank, along with the cascading of a large number of DMUs from the Thames Valley should provide the capacity to build on that success.

I think the game-changer though will be the reopening of the Portishead line (and the impact of a more frequent and regular service on intermediate stations like Pill, Parson Street and Bedminster). Once politicians see the difference that a decent rail service can make, I suspect that there will be a swift rebuilding and electrification of the Severn Beach line, reopenings of stations and then the obvious hole in the route map will be east Bristol.     

A good argument, Noggin. However, I don't believe that stops at Parson Street and Bemmy are envisaged for trains from Portishead. The timings don't allow for it, and apparently the same consideration is true for Ashton Gate. Which is a shame, although I would hope that this could be reviewed once services have run for a while.

The Severn Beach Line is, IMHO, its own feasibility study and a true success story. I was on P1 this morning at BRI as the 0836 pulled in, three carriages long. A multitude descended, and a TM was still busy selling tickets. Compare that with pre-May 2008, on a two-car slam-door, when passengers were sometimes outnumbered by staff when I boarded at Redland.

Whilst I see the reopening of the Bristol-Bath railway as something of a pipe-dream, I would not be disappointed to be proven wrong. The comments made by bignosemac and simonw are good ones - Avon must not be re-invented, but opportunities must be seized to share resources and cut costs, whilst improving services. Transport is an obvious candidate for a degree of centralisation, and the notion of a ring-fenced budget administered independently is a very good idea, so long as it cannot be wrecked by planning refusal. In that case, why not have a refuse disposal service that covers both Bristol and South Glos, for example? Economies of scale can work, as the administration of Bristol City Council's pensions by BANES shows.

I'm surprised that Portishead trains are not to stop at Parson St and Bedminster. But I couldn't say for sure I'd actually known they would, I'd just assumed it. Sort of made sense to me! Also, Ashton Gate; I thought that wasn't to be reopened?

Suspect you'd have to go back to sometime in the mid eighties to have been on slam-door stock on the Severn Beach line.

I was under the impression that the Portishead Line trains would stop at Bedminster and Parson Street, at least on some services. Looks like I might have interpreted what I read as what I wanted to read.