Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 17:15 18 Mar 2025
 
- First picture of North Sea tanker collision crew released
* Does cutting benefits actually work?
- How did Nasa's Suni and Butch fill nine months in space?
- Pedestrian dies and others hurt in crash on Strand
- The Matrix film producer files for bankruptcy
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 tomorrow - WWRUG AGM
tomorrow - Forum offline 00:00 - 02:00
20/03/25 - MTUG Committee arrangement
21/03/25 - TravelWatch SouthWest

On this day
18th Mar (1960)
Naming of "Evening Star" (link)

Train RunningCancelled
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
19/03/25 06:19 Par to Plymouth
Short Run
15:28 Weymouth to Gloucester
16:13 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
16:31 Barnstaple to Axminster
17:15 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
17:25 Okehampton to Exeter Central
17:33 Barnstaple to Exeter Central
17:35 Exeter Central to Okehampton
18:15 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
19:17 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
19:31 Okehampton to Exeter Central
20:19 Exeter Central to Barnstaple
Delayed
14:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:29 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 18, 2025, 17:33:16 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[155] Photo enquiry: Abingdon Branch: pannier tank engine + canvas k...
[121] 2025 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[99] Bath to Ciren and back: 8/3/25
[78] Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through Wes...
[57] Our contributor base and membership base.
[41] ASLEF call strikes for April and May (Hull Trains)
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Plan for M4 to south coast corridor to avoid Bath, through West Wiltshire  (Read 4608 times)
Mark A
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1888


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2025, 12:14:36 »

Yes that is their problem, the strategic route they had before doesn't work any more so they need a new one.  When they planned it I think they assumed they could build the now aborted Swainswick - Batheaston bypass to avoid Bath. 

You are spot on there !  When the "proper" A46/A36 link was cancelled, that really made the remaining work that was carried out on the A46/A4 a complete waste of time and money and achieved absolutely zilch.


The A36 via the Limpley Stoke valley is... marginal... and a connection to it from the Batheaston bypass would be grim. A 'Proper' A46/A36 link would involve a dual carriageway connection from the east end of the current bypass via an 'A20-at-Folkestone' style tunnel to take it out of the valley and then to rejoin the existing road at Beckington. Awkward as the UK (United Kingdom) has been reluctant to undertake that sort of engineering task.

Mark
Logged
John D
Full Member
***
Posts: 45


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2025, 19:09:54 »

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

Logged
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 971



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2025, 21:26:00 »

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

35 years ago - and all they have managed to do since then is close the Cleveland Bridge to anything over 18 tonnes.
Logged
Mark A
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1888


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 09:16:41 »

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html


At the inquiry the potential of the new road to generate noise pollution was recognised, with various mitigations. Concerning the A36/46 link component, this was identified as a problem, as vehicles would come to a stand for its junction and then need to accelerate again for some distance, and uphill for good measure. Short of putting the whole thing underground, there wasn't a way to mitigate this, and also there was the issue that it then dumped the problem on the er, suboptimal A36 route through the Limpley Stoke Valley.

Another aspect of this road is the 50mph speed restriction throughout, but particularly on the flat bit past Batheaston. People who aren't keen on speed restrictions tend to rail against this thinking its for safety reasons, but again, it's an environmental restriction - vehicles are far noisier at 70mph than they are at 50mph.

Mark
Logged
Mark A
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1888


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 09:30:20 »

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.

Thinking of the maximum number of bikes I've seen in an HST bike space, yes, that Sunday evening when at least 15 teenagers off the Bristol to Bath path happily piled a collection of wheeled things aboard for the trip home was memorable, and even if there were far too many of them they were helping to pay the railway's wage bill (and everything went aboard because the space was somewhat flexible and everyone including staff were in a good mood, confident, and generally less under the cosh). Of course the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) has now sorted this out with cycle accommodation on the IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) that's not particularly useable at all.

Mark
Logged
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 971



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 09:39:19 »

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do  Cheesy
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43624



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 10:07:50 »

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do  Cheesy

Certainly the A46 coming down off the M4 through Pennsylvania now dumps the traffic between Batheaston and Bathford ... with onward routes south for smaller vehicles through Bradford-on-Avon who love all the traffic they get - not sure how much is long distance stuff.  Other traffic carries on via Box - eastwards rather than south, and if it's headed south joins the A350 at Chippenham or Melksham.  I would not describe the Batheaston bypass as "wasted" investment, but I would agree that it misses an element that would have made it much more valuable.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 43624



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 10:30:40 »

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.


I am seeing what I'm pretty sure is some good-natured bantering there, but it does remind me that the railways showed startling levels of reliability when there were hardly any passengers travelling during covid - but I then remind myself that there was hardly any income to the railways either and in the continuum there is a need for income, even if it requires the harding of a wide range of passengers.

* Those with heavy luggage.
* Those bringing a bicycle with them
* Those who need customer information
* Those who require boarding assistance
* Those who'll want help buying a ticket
* Those who can't read and understand signs and notices in English or Welsh
* Those who wish to have a guaranteed seat
* Those who are otherwise limited for health or other reasons

Would you restrict the use of the railway to people without certain needs?  Make additional charge for some of those items?

Declaration of interest - I ALWAYS fall into one of these categories, and for certain journeys have fallen into most of the other too.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:47:10 by grahame » Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
Mark A
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1888


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 10:59:58 »

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do  Cheesy

A photo of Batheaston/Swainswick bypass's river spans from beneath to follow.

Some years previous to the bypass being built, the bus service up the Swainswick Valley (number 210, hourly to the village) ceased as the buses could no longer maintain the timetable given the standing traffic on the A46. When the bypass opened, there were hopes that it would be reinstated, but nooooh.

And yes, a more economical bypass would have been good and enabled improvements elsewhere on the route. Including for people on foot. Thinking now of the feed into Melksham's bypass-that-isn't, which has murderous tendencies if you're on foot and don't know the road. One of the bus stops near the station is a good hike from... the station, and if you then innocently trot along the pavement in the direction of said station, the urban pavement, without any notice that it's going to do so, thins out slowly to nothing, and on a blind bend for good measure. Google streetview here: https://tinyurl.com/mwuw2nsb

Mark

https://i.postimg.cc/CxkWG8kC/A4-Batheaston-bypass-bridges.jpg
Logged
UstiImmigrunt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 119



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Yesterday at 15:11:46 »

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units)) TGS.

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR (Great Western Railway) that's a little ungenerous.

Thinking of the maximum number of bikes I've seen in an HST bike space, yes, that Sunday evening when at least 15 teenagers off the Bristol to Bath path happily piled a collection of wheeled things aboard for the trip home was memorable, and even if there were far too many of them they were helping to pay the railway's wage bill (and everything went aboard because the space was somewhat flexible and everyone including staff were in a good mood, confident, and generally less under the cosh). Of course the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) has now sorted this out with cycle accommodation on the IEPs (Intercity Express Program / Project. This will offer more capacity on routes, save money, give a consistent and safe service and meet customer requirements. Intended to replace HSTs.) that's not particularly useable at all.

Mark

15 bikes, so you are happy for your exit to be blocked in an emergency then? I was infamous in Wessex days for enforcing the 1600 to 1800 no bikes rule.

Yes, I agree it's a disgrace regarding bike storage on IETs (Intercity Express Train) being abysmal but that was chosen by the "experts" at DaFT» (Department for Transport - critical sounding abbreviation I discourage - about).

Dear Passenger,

When you get home do you close your front door and then block it with luggage /pram/bike?

No?

So why do you block a door as soon as you board a train?

One of the dispatchers at Barf was abused so much by cyclists he had to be supported in the 6 bike rule, if not then probably 10 plus in the van, again blocking the emergency exit.
Logged

Retired and loving it!

Pround owner of a brand new little red book and an annual first class https://oneticket.cz/networkPassSearch

It will be well used and I doubt I'll ever get any delay repay compensation.
Mark A
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1888


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Yesterday at 21:16:02 »

As an aside, the BGS borehole maps can be revealing of intentions for road construction. The site doesn't allow deep linking, so, for, e.g. the 'Bypass for the Saltford bypass' you'll need to search by placename or zoom in.

The roads, or something, had it in for Saltford, because it also finds itself on a line of boreholes between the M4 at Pucklechurch and Ilchester on the A303, not that that's useful to relieve the likes of Bradford on Avon or Melksham - though south of Frome we have boreholes for a 'Frome-Trowbridge bypass'.

Oh, and the A46 Bath to the M4 has... a new alignment indicated.

The mapping has an inclusivity control - wind that up and many more old records appear, of the mineshaft variety. At least one house in Batheaston looks to be built either beside or on top of Batheaston colliery's mine shaft, hopefully well capped. (The colliery in question recovered no coal, as its shaft was sunk outside the coalfield. It did produce slightly tepid water though, which was rather alarming)

Mark


https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?layer=BGSBoreholes
Logged
Clan Line
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 971



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Today at 09:39:33 »


What a fascinating website ! I can see myself spending many hours on this.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules via admin@railcustomer.info. Full legal statement (here).

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page