The Bristol Railway Archive

Paragraphed...

It is about time that someone took the re-opening of the Portishead Branch seriously. Time & again local authorities with disused Stations & yards cave in to backhanders from greedy little developers who come along & build housing & it horrors me that one day I might drive past Waitrose & see a huge development hoarding on the new station site.

It puzzles me though, with the supposed long-term aim of re-opening, why were the highways authority allowed to remove the track panels at Quays Avenue? Why were the tracks not built into the road for a future level crossing? Perhaps someone was hoping that everyone would forget that there were once 4 stations in Portishead & actually want us to sit in gridlock?

You, dear reader, need to understand that ever since WW1, the railways have been unable to compete with road transport & the playing field has not been level. Successive governments have poured billions into road schemes because the treasury gets lots of money from car taxes but nothing from the railways. They do not understand that railways are a vital service that must be subsided & cannot be expected to be run as a business. We are constantly seeing railway land sold off, sidings & crossing loops removed & the infrastructure beaten back to the core, despite a huge increase in rail travel.

Network Rail is set up with no shareholders, therefore it is ônot for profitö, with all money supposedly going back into railway infrastructure. Unfortunately Network Rail only has enough money for ôshowcaseö improvements around major city stations key sections of track & life expired renewals because the rest of their money goes to reducing the treasuryÆs subsidy (back to the mentality that railways must someone pay their own way)

Also, with the decimation of British primary industry & manufacturing, Britain is a backwater of insurance companies, solicitors & consultants, tying us up in red tape. Re-openings of disused trackbed & stations, upgrading goods only lines to passenger use & redoubling single sections of track is all seen as ôriskö You see if they had the money to reopen a line, & somehow, the profits didnÆt match expectations, they would be running a loss & we are back to the government subsidy thing again. Consultants step in & get paid ridiculous sums of money to tell Network Rail that they canÆt afford to do something (because the same money that would have gone into relaying the track has just gone into the consultants pockets!)

Now you understand why the railways are in such a mess & why you have to sit in your car in a daily commuter jam so please donÆt blame Network Rail!

The way out, is for North Somerset Council to collaborate with local business, enthusiasts & the local populace, to buy & relay the tree infested tracks, build a decent 2 platform, 10 coach station, with a building in sympathetic GWR style, with run-round facilities & at least one turn back siding. Stations at Portbury, Pill, & Ashton Gate should be re-opened, along with upgrading of the Parson St. & Bedminster station facilities, currently just vandalised weed strewn eyesores.

The new service should run into the old Portishead bays at Temple Meads with the Up Relief being resignalled back to Parson St junction. The ground frame & sidings at Pylle Hill Goods should be upgraded giving separate running line access from there, all the way into Temple Meads. There used to be double track from Parson St Junction all the way to Clifton Bridge station, at Ham Green, all the way through Pill, & the last mile into Portishead. Therefore, re-insert all this capacity & you have absolutely no argument that the Passenger service would interfere with the Portbury Dock Goods trains.

Now everyone has to join forces, stop talking about it & take some ôriskö to make it happen. Oh by the way, a weekend steam service would make for a fantastic scenic railway, given some woodland management along the west bank of the Avon first.

Some good points there, but I think the idea of a weekend steam service, inclusion of run round loops and double tracking other than say, a passing loop at Pill is just dreaming and never going to happen. Dare I say, the inclusion of such things actually weakens the case a bit.

All Portishead really needs is a one/two platform station, possibly even unmanned and capacity to service (up to) 4 car dmu's - the way to get this project moved forward is by presenting those who will pay for it (ie NSC, BCC, DfT and NR) with a low capital cost. Linked with the Severn Beach service reduces the need for extra rolling stock, and provides a useful through service.

Both local authorities with a stake in this have realised the cost/benefit of taking traffic off the road, quicker more reliable commutes, etc and like as not would be prepared to offer some kind of "running" subsidy.

I, personally, do believe that we will see this reopened, although, probably not before 2012. Over the next few years, railways as a whole will start to realise the benefit of being a more efficient method of moving people than cars and as the "peak oil effect" kicks in (more), we will see them begin to pay their way again.

Some good points however we donÆt want Portishead to be given a bare bones bus shelter 2 car single platform station fenced off then the rest of the land developed, leaving no room for expansion. A run round loop is essential.

I was not advocating reinstating all the double track & loops from the 1950s, just stating what used to be & what would be idea, leaving no argument that a passenger service couldnÆt be accommodated because of the goods trains. Of course I donÆt know what the situation is with the current single alignment through the former double areas!

nineflover wrote:Some good points however we donÆt want Portishead to be given a bare bones bus shelter 2 car single platform station fenced off then the rest of the land developed, leaving no room for expansion. A run round loop is essential.

I agree that ideally a large station should be built, staffed and given a substantial car park, I believe that Crest Nicholson and NSC have set aside enough land to do build sufficient facilities, but realistically something between the facilities at Nailsea and Severn Beach is what the town will get (in the VERY long term).

As regards the RRL. The rest of the national rail network can subsist without these at the end of every branch - given that fixed formation mu's look to be the way forward (electric hopefully - now that's dreaming), the inclusion of this would be a distraction and give the impression that a rail link to the town would be mainly for the benefit of rail enthusiasts.

I think I am right in thinking that steam locos can only run forwards when hauling stock under current regulations? Should a steam service be proposed then a turning facility of some kind would be required.

Portishead Prowler wrote:I think I am right in thinking that steam locos can only run forwards when hauling stock under current regulations? Should a steam service be proposed then a turning facility of some kind would be required.

No this is not the case. Tender loco's can haul stock tender first. See note for confirmation at top of this timings page: http://www.uksteam.info/tours/t08/tshake.htm

However I think when running tender first that the maximium permitted speed is lowered due to reduced visibility.

BristleGWR wrote:[No this is not the case. Tender loco's can haul stock tender first. See note for confirmation at top of this timings page: http://www.uksteam.info/tours/t08/tshake.htm.

I stand corrected!!!

Thanks!

However a run round loop in the platform would still be required unless youre going to top and tail loco hauled...

nineflover wrote:However a run round loop in the platform would still be required unless youre going to top and tail loco hauled...

Loco haulage is dead as far as passenger trains are concerned!

Like as not, the only locos allowed down the branch would be those headed for Portbury docks

Any service to Portishead will be of an out and back nature, so what possible need would there be for two platforms?

Don't forget, two platforms could mean two trains in section, which means it has to be signalled, which means the costs and complications rise substantially. There is just no need for anything more than a basic single line terminus.

If the service were to be that frequent, a passing loop at Pill would work and any freight could stay out of the way in the docks.

Keep the aspirations basic is the key - and if anyone does want to run a steam or any other charter down there (unlikely, apart from the trip up the gorge - and then you could run round at Pill). Otherwise top'n'tail and drag the thing out backwards!

Of more importance is not the number of platforms, but the platform length - load 6 would be prudent for future expansion.

Another issue is the new road that crosses the trackbed from the roundabout - I don't know the name of it. The roundabout is so close to the trackbed that a level crossing would have very poor sighting for road trafiic. Bad planning that and I suspect a major obstacle.

Still, close a road - gain a railway!

I'm sure that there was never double track at Ham Green (see my pictures on this site) but there was a passing loop just where the branch turned away from the river.

Not only does Portishead lack a railway station; I believe it doesn't even have a bus service that connects to a railway station - certainly I couldn't find a link to either Temple Meads or Parkway when I looked.

I wonder if there can be another town of Portishead's size and significance that is so isolated from the national public transport network (with the possible exceptions of Kirkwall, Stornoway etc.)