Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Btline]

No, I think the idea of damming the River Avon, just to run a water taxi from Avonmouth to central Bristol, has been 'sunk without trace'. 

Excellent. 

Perhaps they will move onto something more worthwhile!

[dking]

Our conference last Saturday (see 'Social Enterprise and the Railways' posting) suggested the idea of using Parry People Movers on that line - having them supplied by a 'Social Enterprise RoSCo' and operated either by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (as the Stourbridge Town line is operated by the local TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)) or by a communuty organisation. With a bit of tweaking it would be eminently suitable. Alex Lawrie <alex@somerset.coop> was the speaker - John Parry was in the audience.

[Lee]

Our conference last Saturday (see 'Social Enterprise and the Railways' posting) suggested the idea of using Parry People Movers on that line - having them supplied by a 'Social Enterprise RoSCo' and operated either by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (as the Stourbridge Town line is operated by the local TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)) or by a communuty organisation. With a bit of tweaking it would be eminently suitable. Alex Lawrie <alex@somerset.coop> was the speaker - John Parry was in the audience.

See quote below :

Another new idea was outlined by Alex Lawrie of Somerset Co-operative Development. The agency was working with Parry People Movers who manufacture a form of lightweight tram which operates on existing (but segregated) rail lines without external overhead lines. Alex and PPM^‡(resolve) were exploring with other agencies the possibilities of supporting local and community rail transport operators by entering into leasing arrangements to enable them to run everyday passenger transport services.

More on Alex Lawrie in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=677.msg2442#msg2442

Sounds like a very interesting conference.

[Graz]

Very interesting idea- I can really see it happening if Parry People Movers were allowed on the main line and into Temple Meads. There seems to be a lot of capacity for terminating trains from the West at Bristol TM^‡(resolve)- platform 4 is hardly used at all these days.

[eightf48544]

Why trams on segrgated lines? Bristol seems an ideal place to run trams on heavy rail.

You would have trams using Portishead possibly to Aston Junction and the  docks or BTM^▸ (Bristol Temple Meads (strictly, it should be BRI)) and then coming off onto the street and then picking up the Severn Beach branch somewhere and possibly following the road out towards Yate and picking up the old Midland alingment and terminating in Tytherington.

You could also electrify the heavy rail parts at 25KV in anticipation of mainline electrification and use dual voltage trams. There are also ED trams available if you din't want to say electrify on either voltage to Portishaed or Tytherington.

Trams could also run Avonmuth Henbury Filton back to BTM. They could be a segrated track if the 4 tracks down the hill from Filton were restored.

Why are we so scared of trams. They are the best congetion relieving  device available, especialy if they have priority at traffic lights. Who'd want to drive if you risk getting your car  hit by a tram (as happened to poor old boy when I was on a tram in Rostock) very definitely Tram 1 Car 0 there wasn't a scratch on the tram, but you should have seen the dent in his door.

Also why would you drive if you had fast, quite, efficient and  civilised public transport available?

There are absolutely no health and safety issues involved in doing this trams can be equipped with ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) just as trains will be. To say a tram is not strong enough to withstand a collision with a freight train is stupid a 142 wouldn't come off too well either. But that's beside the point you ensure he system doesn't allow a tram to collide with a freight train.

As for pedestrians go and  see how the locals dodge in between the trams in Picadilly Gardens. 

[grahame]

I was at that conference - yes, very interesting and indeed Mr Parry himself was there. Problem with H&S^▸ (Health and Safety) issues on running a lightweight such as a PPM^‡(resolve) on a line with regular trains would preclude it coming into Temple Meads (a gent just behind me poked me and suggested that it would suit the TransWilts until this matter came up ... but there are other issues there which make a 150 / 14x / 153 more suitable)

[John R]

I think the capacity of a PPM^‡(resolve) would be inadequate for Portishead. Given the need to leave paths for the freight services (which after all were the reason and justification for the rebuild to Portbury), the most frequent the service could be would be half hourly (and I suspect even the infrastructure improvements required for that will be more than is currently envisaged.) So a Class 150 capable of holding 200 including standing would be needed.

[Lee]

Given the need to leave paths for the freight services (which after all were the reason and justification for the rebuild to Portbury), the most frequent the service could be would be half hourly (and I suspect even the infrastructure improvements required for that will be more than is currently envisaged.)

My gut reaction is to go with John on that. When we looked into the feasibility of running an all-day half-hourly service to Portishead, we came down on the side of the following desirable enhancements :

This upgrade would include the provision of two short double - track sections on the Portishead line , in the Ashton Gate & Pill areas , as proposed by Andrew Griffiths of First Great Western. This would allow 2 freight and 4 passenger trains (in total, not in each direction) to run on the line per hour.

This, of course, would be in addition to the work needed to allow passenger services to run in the first place.

Another option would be to run an hourly off-peak Portishead-Avonmouth service, with a 2 train per hour Parson Street-Portishead shuttle service operating during the peaks, as envisaged in the link below.
http://www.raildocuments.org.uk/jan08/stage2.doc

[John R]

I think that's why the cost of ^30m is likely. You think what's it's costing to rebuild 3 miles of line and a platform at Axminster - (^18m I recall). Here you would have at least one platform, 3 miles rebuilt, a junction at Portbury, one or two loops, (which would presumably have to be freight train length not unit length so that the freight service could be held in the loop whilst the passenger service passed)  and general fettling to give a slightly higher line speed. Plus signalling changes. It's depressing, but I can easily see ^30m being needed in this day and age of boiling frogs.

Does anyone know how many freight services use the line each day? I'm always seeing car trains or coal trains at TM^‡(resolve). Presumably they have fixed paths elsewhere on the network, so that would need to be taken into consideration too. 

   

[Lee]

Does anyone know how many freight services use the line each day? I'm always seeing car trains or coal trains at TM^‡(resolve). Presumably they have fixed paths elsewhere on the network, so that would need to be taken into consideration too.

According to Network Rail, up to 5 freight trains each way per day currently use the Portbury line. However, up to 10 additional freight trains each way are planned.

It is also worth noting that the take-up rate of paths is 95% for container trains and 45% for coal trains.

[John R]

Not bad for a line that only reopened 5 years ago. Now if that 5 becomes 15 then surely there will be justification in reinstating the down relief as far as Parson St? I presume if a Portbury bound freight service is held awaiting an up passenger service to pass before it can enter the branch then by the time it gets going again it must block the main line for around 10 minutes in total? 

[Lee]

Not bad for a line that only reopened 5 years ago. Now if that 5 becomes 15 then surely there will be justification in reinstating the down relief as far as Parson St? I presume if a Portbury bound freight service is held awaiting an up passenger service to pass before it can enter the branch then by the time it gets going again it must block the main line for around 10 minutes in total? 

Certainly when we looked at a half-hourly Portishead service, we did so in the context of a future network that included resignalling and provision of more lines into Bristol Temple Meads.

My personal view is that Portishead should start off with a lesser frequency than that (I give an example proposal above) , prove the demand is there (which I think it quickly would) and then push for improvements as part of an overall Greater Bristol package.

[eightf48544]

Not bad for a line that only reopened 5 years ago. Now if that 5 becomes 15 then surely there will be justification in reinstating the down relief as far as Parson St? I presume if a Portbury bound freight service is held awaiting an up passenger service to pass before it can enter the branch then by the time it gets going again it must block the main line for around 10 minutes in total? 

Certainly when we looked at a half-hourly Portishead service, we did so in the context of a future network that included resignalling and provision of more lines into Bristol Temple Meads.

My personal view is that Portishead should start off with a lesser frequency than that (I give an example proposal above) , prove the demand is there (which I think it quickly would) and then push for improvements as part of an overall Greater Bristol package.

I can see Lee's point off view that it would be better to go for the least costly option to get passenger services going. However with the boiling frog syndrome mentioned previously what might be ^30 million at today's prices will be ^60 million in 5 years time so go for the ultimate solution it will actually be cheaper in the long term. However, you will have to change the Treasury's mindset of requiring payback from day one so good luck

There are ways of cutting station costs and providing disabled access for both directions. This is done by having one long platform with the loop entering half way. The loop can then be longer than the platform. It's quite disconcerting to run into the platform with the train waiting in the other half of the platform, stop and then start off towards it only to veer off into the loop. I've got the video to prove it.

Thus two passenger can pass, or a passenger can pass or overtake a freight which remains in the loop. With suitable siganlling you could have up freight in the loop a down passenger in the loop platform and an up passenger arrivng in the other half of the platform. The freight then leaves and the up passenger follows on the block. Thus three trains with loop.

It ought to posible with the fabulous ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) system  which is being trialled on the Cambrian. It should be incrediably cheap to install as it will use standard components from several manufactures which all Eurpean railways will use when resignalling. If remember my economics it's called economies of scale whch like many economic theories never seems to work for railways..

[Lee]

I can see Lee's point off view that it would be better to go for the least costly option to get passenger services going. However with the boiling frog syndrome mentioned previously what might be ^30 million at today's prices will be ^60 million in 5 years time so go for the ultimate solution it will actually be cheaper in the long term. However, you will have to change the Treasury's mindset of requiring payback from day one so good luck

Unfortunately (if they ever approve funding for it at all) the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) is likely to consider the cheaper (and more short-termist) option as being "best value for the taxpayer", and their attitude does shape my view on how best to get things going for Portishead. I would obviously prefer that they took a more long-term perspective.

However, their recent reply to the petition to the PM does not inspire confidence in this regard :

Here is the response to the Portishead petition :

The Government's priorities for the railway are set out in the White Paper - Delivering a Sustainable Railway. This is backed up by the High Level Output Specification - a statement of what the Government wishes to buy from the railway industry over the period 2009-2014.

Priorities for this period are to continue to improve safety, improve performance and increase capacity. In respect of the latter, the Government has stated that an additional 1300 new carriages would be added to the network. Some of these will be allocated to services in the Bristol area and the city will also benefit from the investment in the Inter City Express Project which will replace the diesel High Speed Trains. However, the White Paper also states that the 'Government does not envisage changes in the pattern or level of demand large enough in the HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) period to justify developing or opening new regional lines'.

The Government, therefore, does not include the re-opening lines as a priority. However, local transport authorities can consider whether the re-opening of a line is the best way to meet regional and local transport objectives. In Greater Bristol, the four local authorities are working together as the West of England Partnership. They have undertaken the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study to identify priorities for investment to address issues such as congestion and air quality. This study did not propose the re-opening of the Portishead line as a priority, but it remains open to the Partnership to review this and any other elements of the strategy at any time.

The official view (as stated by the Government Office Of The South West) is that a showcase bus route is the recommended scheme for this corridor in the short and medium term and possibly a rapid transit scheme in the longer term. Indeed, funding for the Portishead showcase bus route (and others) was approved in July 2006 (links below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4747277.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5157322.stm

My guess, as depressing as it sounds, is that they would prefer the railway line to remain open for Portbury freight only.

[Lee]

Tues 20 May 2008, 7:30 pm, Methodist Church High St - opposite White Lion, Portishead.