Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[chuffed]

The proposed Portishead station plans are up for consideration on the North Somerset website. It is also referenced on the Portishead Railway group website and can be found by following this link...24/P/0474/DCW...

[Western Pathfinder]

https://planning.n-somerset.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=S9V7M4LPK5Q00.

This should get you to the right page.

[Red Squirrel]

Can anyone work our how long a train this station can accommodate? There's been some debate about whether they're going to cheese-pare it down to 3-car. These plans have the platform length as 126m, which (as far as I can tell) is just over half the length of Portway Park & Ride, which is designed for 5-car trains. But according to Wikipedia a Class 166 3-car unit is about 70m long...

[johnneyw]

It has the look of a metro style station to me...and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.  Also, I reckon I like the colour scheme for the brick wall.

[chuffed]

Looks like a pared down version of Ebbw Vale Town/Parkway. Given the exposed nature of the site at the head of the Gordano valley, I can't help thinking the whole lot will be blown away in the first good gale! As it stands, I cant see any shelter from the weather whatsoever.

[Mark A]

Can anyone work our how long a train this station can accommodate? There's been some debate about whether they're going to cheese-pare it down to 3-car. These plans have the platform length as 126m, which (as far as I can tell) is just over half the length of Portway Park & Ride, which is designed for 5-car trains. But according to Wikipedia a Class 166 3-car unit is about 70m long...

Indeed, it's reasonable to expect that that information would be easy to find.

Meanwhile, in the detailed design statement we find the following immortal words, and perhaps in the distance we hear a muffled crash as designs that would accommodate capacity enhancement are bulldozed into a remote quarry by a Treasury-funded JCB.

"A Development Consent Order (DCO^▸ (Development Consent Order, or Driver Controlled Operation (that is, operation and dispatch of the train solely by the driver even with another member of staff on board), depending on context)) was sought and obtained for this design. Subsequent to
the DCO and GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects - Network Rail's process for project management of schemes through development and implementation) 3 design, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) initiated a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) exercise which
removed the station building at Portishead."

Mark

[Mark A]

Looks like a pared down version of Ebbw Vale Town/Parkway. Given the exposed nature of the site at the head of the Gordano valley, I can't help thinking the whole lot will be blown away in the first good gale! As it stands, I cant see any shelter from the weather whatsoever.

Indeed, the canopy seems to have enough headroom to accommodate 25Kv OHLE... beneath the canopy itself. Not sure what the magic wall's for either.

Mark

[Sulis John]

"A Development Consent Order (DCO^▸ (Development Consent Order, or Driver Controlled Operation (that is, operation and dispatch of the train solely by the driver even with another member of staff on board), depending on context)) was sought and obtained for this design. Subsequent to
the DCO and GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects - Network Rail's process for project management of schemes through development and implementation) 3 design, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) initiated a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) exercise which
removed the station building at Portishead."

Mark
[/quote]

Maybe we should carry out an MVP on the various Sir Humphrey’s at the DfT and Treasury and see has they like that!

[TonyK]

"A Development Consent Order (DCO^▸ (Development Consent Order, or Driver Controlled Operation (that is, operation and dispatch of the train solely by the driver even with another member of staff on board), depending on context)) was sought and obtained for this design. Subsequent to
the DCO and GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects - Network Rail's process for project management of schemes through development and implementation) 3 design, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) initiated a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) exercise which
removed the station building at Portishead."

Mark

Maybe we should carry out an MVP on the various Sir Humphrey’s at the DfT and Treasury and see has they like that!
[/quote]

Au contraire, dear boy. Sir Humphrey would enjoy spending money. It's that nasty chancellor telling him what to do that is the problem.

As always, cheese paring will get in the way. Taking the Tarka^▸ (Line from Barnstaple to Exeter) line as the exemplar, the fairly recently improved services are turning out to be very popular, to the surprise of nobody but DfT. Early trains leave Barnstaple full and standing, to the chagrin of waiting passengers further down the line. Studies are under way to find a way to resolve this, which will cost a lot of money. I cannot imagine that the Portishead services, when they finally start, will be any less popular with commuters, given the time it takes by bus and the cost of parking a car in Bristol. Being shoehorned into a 3-car Turbo at Pill will not be an appealing experience, and before long some will ask "Why wasn't the Portishead platform built long enough for 5-car trains?"

[stuving]

Can anyone work our how long a train this station can accommodate? There's been some debate about whether they're going to cheese-pare it down to 3-car. These plans have the platform length as 126m, which (as far as I can tell) is just over half the length of Portway Park & Ride, which is designed for 5-car trains. But according to Wikipedia a Class 166 3-car unit is about 70m long...

I'm not sure where that came from for Portway - did we have planning plans? But measured off Google Earth, it's 126m too. Turbos are close to the nominal 23m per carriage, plus couplings, so 5 cars (3+2) is about 118m, which will fit (either station). Obviously that assumes sensible car stop positions, which for Portishead depends on the end of the line (buffer stop) position, but you'd expect that to be OK.

Operationally, that always did look odd. The Turbo fleet is a mix of 3s and 2s, and we all know that what's available to pick from on a given day doesn't always match the standard train plan. With only 126m, if you've no 2-car units then it's a 3-car or nothing. But by the time Portishead opens, maybe the Turbo fleet won't be relevant any more ...

[Bob_Blakey]

I may have missed it during the protracted history of this project but is there a separate Travel Plan document lurking somewhere which specifies whether buses will call at the station and what, if any, facilities for cyclists will be provided?

Also it seems to me that, in common with many recent public buildings, the design is a triumph of form over function (make it look pretty and sod providing proper protection to passengers customers from wind & rain, which I imagine is fairly common in this area).

[Red Squirrel]

There are rumours in one of the Murdoch papers today that the Portishead line may get the chop due to Treasury cuts to plug the ‘surprise’ financial hole…

[TonyK]

There are rumours in one of the Murdoch papers today that the Portishead line may get the chop due to Treasury cuts to plug the ‘surprise’ financial hole…

I read that too, and hope the rumours are unfounded. Apart from the eons spent getting as far as the project has managed to get so far, it would make absolutely no sense in a period when the economy is supposed to be growing and emissions cut.

[grahame]

There are rumours in one of the Murdoch papers today that the Portishead line may get the chop due to Treasury cuts to plug the ‘surprise’ financial hole…

I read that too, and hope the rumours are unfounded. Apart from the eons spent getting as far as the project has managed to get so far, it would make absolutely no sense in a period when the economy is supposed to be growing and emissions cut.

BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) reports at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c724g07qwdwo

The chancellor is set to announce immediate cuts worth billions of pounds, aimed at plugging a £20bn black hole in the finances, when she addresses Parliament on Monday.

Rachel Reeves’ plans are expected to include the cancellation of some road and rail projects, a reduction in spending on external consultants and a drive to cut public sector waste.

[snip]

Projects that could be paused or cancelled include: the road tunnel under Stonehenge, Boris Johnson’s New Hospital programme and the Euston section of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

[anthony215]

The guardian newspaper saying Instead there I'd a alternative way for her to.plug the black hole and raise close to £10 billion her year and that is to increase taxes on wealth and shares etc