The Bristol Railway Archive

Was looking for the photo of the site of the box, it's been on my Flickr site for ages, forgot it was there. The bench in the picture is on the site of the box, the black (and white) pole in the picture is at the apex of the junction. The old cycle track can be clearly seen, and the frosty green area below it is the start of the avoiding line. See other pictures in the set. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8523292@N0 ... 343894746/

I expect a lot of contributors will be familiar with this site, but here's the reference anyway (backing up my argument that the mail train used to turn anti-clockwise).

http://semaphore.avonvalleyrailway.org/ ... ology.html

A lot of people (although fewer who access this site) are probably unaware that, before the Second War, three Bristol "termini" could be accessed from Mangotsfield (Clifton Down, St. Philips Marsh. as well as Bristol T.M.

Why were the docks lines not converted into suburban railways? Why was St. Philips Marsh, so much more convenient for the centre, not preserved; (Old Market, I think, if you go back far enough, used to be the commercial centre of Bristol, although I understand that originally Brunel planned to site his terminus much more centrally - can better informed members correct me on this? And how much money would the Bristol-Bath/Bristol-Yate lines be making today, had they not been abandoned? (let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine Mangotsfield Parkway, with the Carsons cricket ground as a car park and half-hourly 125s). Unfortunately, a combination of greed (too much money in building roads) and lack of foresight prevented this dream from becoming reality.

It seems incredible that, in demolishing the Thirteen Arches (to facilitate the construction of the M32, in which, to my eternal shame, I had a bit part) we should have destroyed a direct rail link from Bath to Clifton.
Nowadays, the hapless Bathonian, bound for the North, has to change at Bristol or work round through Parkway first - is this progress?

I believe some of the local trains used to work straight through to Portishead (another lunatic casualty of the Beeching cuts). People who live on the other side of the river and work on the line's route can only sit and curse their luck as they queue for the suspension bridge.

By the way, does anyone know the motive power that was employed on the Clifton trains?

Matt

Matt Thomas wrote:I expect a lot of contributors will be familiar with this site, but here's the reference anyway (backing up my argument that the mail train used to turn anti-clockwise).

http://semaphore.avonvalleyrailway.org/ ... ology.html

I presume you are referring to the entry for 6th October 1935 which says "SJ SB closed. Crossover removed. Mail coaches now reverse round triangle clockwise instead of anti-clockwise."

However, there is also an entry for 1926 which reads: "SJ SB replaced by remote controlled points operated from MS SB."

So we are given two possible closure dates for South Junction box, 1926 and 1935 (incidentally, for those who haven't looked at the link, SJ = South Junction, SB = signal box, MS = Mangotsfield station)

The entry also says "crossover removed." However, the 1:2500 OS maps that we have been looking at do not show any changes in the track layout at South Junction. I would never say that OS maps are always 100% correct, but it does introduce an element of doubt into the apparent reason for the change.

All that said, it matters very little after all these years which way the mail was turned on the triangle at at Mangotsfield

But the main reason for posting this morning is to respond to these comments:

Matt Thomas wrote: Why was St. Philips Marsh, so much more convenient for the centre, not preserved; (Old Market, I think, if you go back far enough, used to be the commercial centre of Bristol)

You have to remember that this was a different age of the world. St Phillips station was not put there for passenger convenience, it was put there for railway operating convenience as TM could not cope with the traffic.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that many areas of the railway's management, at least up until the 1960s/ 1970s, did not understand how commercial businesses were run, what the ever-increasiong road competition could and was doing to railway revenues, and/or what their customers actually wanted.

In 1953 all the railway management could or would see was that, as Temple Meads could now cope with the St. Phillips traffic, then the latter could be closed to save some money and all trains could be diverted to TM. They could or would not see, as you have already mentioned, that Old Market/ Castle Street area was the major commercial centre of Bristol before the war and, after the Luftwaffe had done their bit, the new Broadmead shopping area was even further away from Temple Meads than the old one (OK, not a lot further away but read on )

I am told that I used St Phillips station many times in the last 15 months before closure but, being in a pram in the van along with the numerous other babies being taken into town in this way, I don't actually remember much about it

What I do remember from conversations with my father, however, is that he told me that the closure of St Phillips resulted in the vast majority of the remaining suburban traffic in north east Bristol draining away to the number 4 bus, because that did go to Old Market Street, and people were not prepared to take the extra 10 minutes walk and go by train into TM.

What is especially significant about this is that my father worked on the railway and was entitled to privilege tickets, and if even he stopped using the train to get to Bristol after St Phillip's closure, it speaks volumes about what the ordinary fare paying passenger was thinking and doing.

Matt Thomas wrote: And how much money would the Bristol-Bath/Bristol-Yate lines be making today, had they not been abandoned? (let us close our eyes for a moment and imagine Mangotsfield Parkway, with the Carsons cricket ground as a car park and half-hourly 125s).

[Unfortunately, a combination of greed (too much money in building roads) and lack of foresight prevented this dream from becoming reality.

Whilst, as I said above, there were many things wrong with railway management's thinking in years gone by, it is also possible to apply 20/20 hindsight to come to conclusions that could not reasonably have been foreseen by a more commercially-aware management. The following comments could be said for any area of the country but, as we are talking about the Bristol to Mangotsfied, I'll use that as a specific example.

As they saw it, railway receipts for both passenger and freight traffic had been falling since the 1920s. Trams and later buses had taken most of the suburban traffic away. Private transport usage had also grown, especially after the end of the war, when many men were demobbed having been taught to drive while in the services. This was seen as a permanent change - nobody was using the railways any more, they were yesterday's form of transport.

So what were railway management thinking? Temple Meads was seen as not being able to compete with the local bus network because it was incoveniently sited for the major shopping area. St Phillips was better sited but that had to go because we didn't need two stations in central Bristol if one coulld cope with all the traffic. The major population centres in Mangotsfield were nowhere near the station, but very near the number 4, 97 and 319 bus routes. The only really local source of income generation for Mangotsfield station when it was open was Carson's factory, and the income from passenger traffic from that wouldn't have paid the station staff wages bill.

Nowadays, of course (and really only in the last 10 years) we have seen major residential developments very close to Mangotsfield station. But, even if it were still open today, how many of the local residents would actually use the railway facility on their doorstep? Personally I rather doubt that many would.

Robin Summerhill wrote:All that said, it matters very little after all these years which way the mail was turned on the triangle at at Mangotsfield .

Quite!


But the main reason for posting this afternoon is to respond to these comments:

Robin Summerhill wrote: But, even if it were still open today, how many of the local residents would actually use the railway facility on their doorstep? Personally I rather doubt that many would.

I am not sure this is correct. You can't move in suburban streets in Bristol for commuters' parked cars. Clifton Down is only ten minutes' walk from the Centre. Imagine if the Thornbury branch was still open as well...

I have to admit that I have wondered how many people wanted to go from Mangotsfield to Clifton when the service was there. Perhaps not many. Which is probably why the service was discontinued in 1941 (one is reminded of the comment made at the opening of the Glastonbury-Highbridge line "going from nowhere to nowhere across a turf moor".)

But the sixties mindset that "everybody will have a car" was totally wrong; probably, less than half the adult population has unfettered access to a car. And you have to look at the national passenger mileage now - equal to the 1920s.

Then again, since hardly anyone had cars then, and the network was twice the size, I find this hard to swallow (so used to governments telling whoppers)!

Can the number-crunchers (there must be some who look at this site) give us an informed view on this statistic?

Matt

Sorry to come back so quickly but I've just dipped into the site again after being out all day

Matt Thomas wrote: But the main reason for posting this afternoon is to respond to these comments:

Robin Summerhill wrote: But, even if it were still open today, how many of the local residents would actually use the railway facility on their doorstep? Personally I rather doubt that many would.

I am not sure this is correct. You can't move in suburban streets in Bristol for commuters' parked cars. Clifton Down is only ten minutes' walk from the Centre. Imagine if the Thornbury branch was still open as well...

So the question is begged "why are these streets filled with commuters cars?" The answer must be that these motorists, for reasons only known to themselves, prefer to put up with congestion in order to use their cars rather than use the public transport that is available.

I suppose it really comes down to where you want to go to, and where you are starting from, and whether the public transport option avaiable to you is a good one.

I mentioned the new development close to Mangotsfield station in my last post, so I'll use that as an illustrative example. Your options for railborne public transport, if it still existed, would be to Staple Hill, Fishponds and Bristol TM. Clearly, if you wanted to go somewhere within a few minutes walk of any of these then rail would be a good option. Unless you are a smoker, of course, so you might want to use your car anyway

But what if you worked at Cribbs Causeway? A rail service would be no good at all because your destination isn't served by a station. I believe that there are buses that go that way (but I have to admit I'm not sure) but, even if there are and in these days of "efficient" one man operation, every time you stop you do so for somewhere near a minute as the driver deals with boarding passengers. Your bus route will also be designed to serve as many potential passengers as possible, so your journey is likely to be a lot longer than if you simply jumped into your car, got on the ring road, M32, M4 and M5. And there's free parking at the other end as well.

Or lets try Filton Abbey Wood - perhaps you work there. Well, both Mangotsfied and Filton would have stations, but the trouble is they are on different lines, so you have to go into TM and come back out again and, of course, make the connection between the two trains. Once again, its going to be far easier and quicker to do the trip in your own car round the ring road.

Or perhaps you work shifts? Trying to get public transport to get you somewhere in time for an 0600 start can be a problem at times.

As you can see, there are all manner of reasons why people might not wish to use public transport.

In 1963 or 1964 I was minding my own business trainspotting on Teewell Hill bridge when a Bath bound local came out of the tunnel at exactly the same time as a couple of my neighbours were walking across the bridge. They stopped to look at the train. Said the woman to her husband "It will be a shame when they close it." I was a bit young to answer them (it would have been known as "cheek" in those days) but I thought to myself "Well, if people like you used the bloody service they wouldn't be closing it!"

Matt Thomas wrote:I have to admit that I have wondered how many people wanted to go from Mangotsfield to Clifton when the service was there. Perhaps not many. Which is probably why the service was discontinued in 1941 (one is reminded of the comment made at the opening of the Glastonbury-Highbridge line "going from nowhere to nowhere across a turf moor".)

I can think of one. In those days my father lived in Staple Hill and his fiance lived in Redland

As regards the S&D over the Somerset levels, of course, the original intention was that this was to be the main line connecting South Wales to the Continent, hopefully picking up some traffic on the way, especially from Glastonbury.

Matt Thomas wrote: But the sixties mindset that "everybody will have a car" was totally wrong; probably, less than half the adult population has unfettered access to a car.

Some interesting stats here; http://www.poverty.org.uk/75/index.shtml

Matt Thomas wrote: And you have to look at the national passenger mileage now - equal to the 1920s.

But you need to be careful not to read things into this statistic. People travel far more in 2011 than they did in the 1920s. For example, the Bristol to Paddington service is of staggering proportions compared to 1921 (33 daily services now compared to 15 then), but that doesn't stop the M4 being chock full of cars doing the same journey. In the 1920s the roads outside large towns were hardly used, and the A4 was a quiet country lane for most of its length.

Matt Thomas wrote: Then again, since hardly anyone had cars then, and the network was twice the size, I find this hard to swallow (so used to governments telling whoppers)!

I think I've answered this abovve

I think we're all missing the basics; convenience and cost. It's more convenient to drive, the train would take time, and current services are often late, I don't believe it was any better some time ago either. If there's more than one person travelling together, it's much cheaper to drive and park in an NCP than take the bus.

mangotsfield_mauler wrote:I think we're all missing the basics; convenience and cost. It's more convenient to drive, the train would take time, and current services are often late, I don't believe it was any better some time ago either. If there's more than one person travelling together, it's much cheaper to drive and park in an NCP than take the bus.

Yes, but why sum it up in a sentence or two when you can write an epistle

If it is just you that is going from point A to point B then, provided the available public transport suits your requirements, there is usually not much in it financially between using it and using your private car.

If, however, it is you, the wife and a couple of kids going, then usually the car wins hands down every time.

and current services are often late

If you are going to make a statement such as the above, you need to quantify it. It is all too easy to say that "services are often late" (a common misconception) with no basis in reality whatsoever, which is just groundless criticism of rail's performance nowadays - and totally unfair.

Today's services are not "often late" : they are, in fact - usually on time (like 90%+ within 10 mins of scheduled time" - that is hardly "often late" by anybody's standards.

And as mentioned elsewhere on this thread, for example with Bristol- London services, there is just no comparison between the level of services provided in 2011 when compared to the 60s, 70s, 80s or even 90s.

Also, a factor here that hasn't been mentioned is that many services, particularly in the Bristol area, operate at or above full capacity. The railway, like any other transport provider, will always "charge what the traffic will stand" as the GWR put it many years ago! FGW is no different and of course it is going to cost a fortune to take your entire family on a peak AM train from Bristol to London. But buy in advance with a group ticket, choose a non-peak train etc. and you can nowadays ride the train for comparatively less than you have EVER been able to.

Especially adding in the fixed costs of running a car such as insurance, repairs, opportunity cost of ú10-20,000 of capital, depreciation, parking and dare I say it - environmental cost - and cheap, off peak, advance train tickets begin to look very good value.

jules wrote:
Today's services are not "often late" : they are, in fact - usually on time (like 90%+ within 10 mins of scheduled time" - that is hardly "often late" by anybody's standards.

Do these figures include trains that are cancelled? I have used Parkway since it opened. On several occasions, the London train just hasn't run: obviously, the cancellations I have observed must be a fraction of the total. Sure, there's another one in half an hour, but that's not the point.

jules wrote: Also, a factor here that hasn't been mentioned is that many services, particularly in the Bristol area, operate at or above full capacity. The railway, like any other transport provider, will always "charge what the traffic will stand" as the GWR put it many years ago! .

Shouldn't this read "the private companies will always charge what the traffic will stand". In the early fifties British Railways - the much maligned British Railways - had a flat fare structure of two old pence per mile across the network; in those days, there were no private companies anxious to insert a very large shovel into their passengers' wallets (the largest shovel, I understand, is reserved for commuters on the most heavily patronised lines).

O.K. yes, on the "showcase" routes like Bristol-London, the service on the whole is excellent. But if you look at some cross-country services (the Bristol-Portsmouth one may be a case in point) I think you'll find the picture is much less rosy.

Matt

jules wrote:

mangotsfield_mauler wrote:and current services are often late

If you are going to make a statement such as the above, you need to quantify it. It is all too easy to say that "services are often late" (a common misconception) with no basis in reality whatsoever, which is just groundless criticism of rail's performance nowadays - and totally unfair.

Today's services are not "often late" : they are, in fact - usually on time (like 90%+ within 10 mins of scheduled time" - that is hardly "often late" by anybody's standards.

A couple of things here. It is certainly true that there is nothing new in trains being late - indeed, I can think of examples of trains that were astonishly if not astoundely late. The day in the winter of 62/63 standing on Mangotsfield station platform waiting for the 1010 ex-Bath for example - turned up at 1150, about 90 minutes late with a standard class 5 hauling one coach tender first

I think that in those days perhaps we put up with these things far more than we do these days. Partially perhaps to do with a more hectic lifestyle, but perhaps we also now notice these things more. If all you had was public transport and your train was an hour late, you shrugged your shouilders and got on with life. These days, perhaps you're more likely to think how much quicker you could have done the journey if you'd have used your car.

Trains also waited for each other in those days, or alternatively the railway would make alternative arrangements for you. When I was ASMs clerk at BTM for a brief period in the 70s there was more than one occasion (usually Sunday nights) where I was told to go and book a taxi to Bath for passengers who arrived on a late running Newcastle and missed the 0050MO Paddington.

All that said, I do feel that the current definition of "late" is a bit of a cop out. If a train is due in at 0726 then its due in at 0726 and that is the end of the matter. 0726 is a finite point in time. So is 0727. If it arrives at 0727 then, according to my reckoning, its late.

jules wrote: The railway, like any other transport provider, will always "charge what the traffic will stand" as the GWR put it many years ago! FGW is no different and of course it is going to cost a fortune to take your entire family on a peak AM train from Bristol to London. But buy in advance with a group ticket, choose a non-peak train etc. and you can nowadays ride the train for comparatively less than you have EVER been able to.

Which is fine if you happen to know where you want to go a few weeks in advance and can vary your travelling times and/or travelling day to fit the cheapest prices. If a sudden emergency turns up, or if your employer has said "Get thee hence to London in the morning for 1000" it ain't so easy.

Time for another quick anecdote. Back in the 90s and early 00s I was often sent to meetings in London by my employer. This meant travelling up in the peak, but employer gave me a second class warrant so that was covered. However, as anyone who has had the joys of travelling up to London in the peak from this neck of the woods will know, cattle class would be a better description. I took to the practice of excessing my warrant to first class and paying the difference myself.

Then one day I noticed in the small print of my Conditions of Service that it said "first class travel warrants could be issued ar the Director's discretion." As the Director was my boss I went to him and brought this to his attention. His answer was abrupt and could be loosely translated as "Go forth and multiply" From that point on I began to drive to Hayes and Harlington station and catch the local train into Paddington, putting in a mileage claim equivalent to the cost of the second class open return to Paddington. That way the money went into my pocket rather than FGW and I had a "first class seat in my own 4-seater compartment" as far as Hayes.

The sting in the tail was when I started to time the trip, comparing how long it took me to walk to Chippenham station and go by HST to Paddington, to driving to Hayes and getting a local service in. Par for the course was 18 (yes, only eighteen) minutes longer using the driving option.

The last time I did this the open return Chippenham to Paddington was ú69 second class, ú102 first. Paying for the diesel to Hayes and a One Day Travelcard easily gave me change out of 30 quid.

"Charging what the market will bear" is one thing. Taking the Mickey is something else

jules wrote: Especially adding in the fixed costs of running a car such as insurance, repairs, opportunity cost of ú10-20,000 of capital, depreciation, parking and dare I say it - environmental cost - and cheap, off peak, advance train tickets begin to look very good value.

You're mixing fixed and variable costs ie. those you pay for the simple privilege of owning a car (ie insurance and Excise duty) which are fixed costs, and repairs/ wear and tear/ depreciation which are variable.

If you take the train instead of using your car, you are still effectively paying to insure and tax it on that day.

I always calculate repair costs at an average of 50% of the fuel cost, and depreciation will vary depending on what you paid for the car in the first place and what mileage you do. As I have been running well-maintained old cars for the last 25 years, my repair costs are probably higher than average but my depreciation is virtually sod all (ie the 1998 Mercedes 250D I bought in 2009 for ú1650 will have a "trade in" value of whatever the scrapyard gives me in 3 or 5 years time - say ú50 - so depreciation is ú1600 over 6 years front-loaded).

So to take my example of the Hayes run for one final time, taking everything into account I got change out of ú60 - still less than the price of the FGW open return.

Edited 2 hours later because the typos were annoying me

I think I'm perfectly entitled to say "often late". Every train I've been on to London recently has been late, at least 15 minutes late into Paddington, and even 10 minutes is unacceptable when you have to charge every 15 minutes of your working day. In effect 10 minutes is 10% of the total journey time, so a 10 percent error is hardly acceptable for the price of ú165. Not everyone gets to book their travel time in advance, and it's extortionate. The only advantage it gives is rapid access to the centre of London.

Robin is right, there are costs you have to bear for the almost unavoidable need to own a car , and you may as well get your money's worth from the car if it is sensible to do so.

If I had a daily commute to London, then the train makes most sense for time, but the train wouldn't compete with my 20 minute commute into Bristol in the car.

Matt Thomas wrote:


O.K. yes, on the "showcase" routes like Bristol-London, the service on the whole is excellent. But if you look at some cross-country services (the Bristol-Portsmouth one may be a case in point) I think you'll find the picture is much less rosy.

Matt

Interesting discussion on BBC breakfast this morning about cramped seating on trains in the region! I think it referred to suburban trains, but seat provision, of course, is also an issue with the 125s

As earlier posts have pointed out, the Bristol-London line is very heavily used, with traffic far in excess of pre-war (although not wartime) levels,
and more trains.

It's tempting to reply "Ah, but trains were longer then".

As indeed they were; the Saints and Stars used to bowl along with fifteen or sixteen coaches (including three or or four slips) on Brunel's billiard table.

The 125s are, after all, simply very fast DMUs (the heirs to the Blue Pullmans, so with very dated technology really). You only have five or six passenger coaches per set. So the total seating capacity is much less than that of a full length locomotive-hauled train.

The problem of overcrowding has, of course, been addressed recently with the new seating (airline-style) on 125s. (I gather in-train videos are coming in too). But the new seating configuration is just pecking at the problem; you really want decent-length trains, which can make full use of Paddington's generous platforms.

And the whole travel experience in second (sorry, standard) class is far inferior to the seventies, when coffe and sandwiches were brought round, and you could buy a pint of "Great Western" in the buffet/bar. The travel experience is not enhanced by the continual and completely unnecessary announcements from the steward, including exhortations to read the "safety card". This is on top of the selfish individuals who insist on using their mobiles in quiet carriages and adding to the din.

Having said all this, there is no doubt people travel far more than in the past. When I used the Bristol-lLondon line in the seventies, it was not uncommon, off-peak, to have the whole carriage (even, occasionally, a compartment) to oneself.

Happy days!

If the line was still open from Mangotsfield to Bristol or Bath, having lived in the Mangotsfield area for the last 39 years I believe alot more people
would use the service than people think. I commute to town by push bike which takes 20 mins and compared with the car...the wife takes 30 mins on average, you must also take into account many cars are company vehicles where the parking/fuel is paid by the company so public transfort
for those fortunate enough just won't happen. If the railway was there there would be a park and ride scheme taking people off the M4/ring road and think the path of the line skirts round the back of Emersons Green in close proximity to those said trunk roads (obviously the ring road would be somewhat different if the railway was still there !). Its incredible how many people I know who live close to the old routes ie. Warmley, Bitton, Bath who have to suffer over an hour's bus ride/then park'n'ride to get to and from work. In the late 90's I used to commute by train from Parkway to T.Meads having lived in Bradley Stoke, although Bias as an enthusiast, it was relatively stress free, 5 mins on the bike then a class 47 to boot on the 08.28 (which I will say was very punctual over a period of months) was by far the best way of getting to town from that part of the world compared to bus/bike/car ! and im suprised not more people travel in from Patchway of a morning. And without dragging this on, we now have a nice pleasant walk in from T.Meads along the river to Castle Park in under 10 mins !

It is very interesting regarding capacity of services, fortunately regular loco haulage could be had between Bristol and Paddington with up to 11 coaches right upto the mid 80's where you were guaranteed a seat even at 7.30 in the morning but more importantly timetables were more complex in those days with services running fast to London or picking up at specific stations so commuters were more likely to get a seat !

Off topic'ish any idea why they have cleared the trackbed of trees/shrubs etc.. from Shortwood right up to the M4 at Westerleigh Oil Terminal...now possible by bike/foot and right up to the fence with good views of the track under the M4 and terminal itself

50022Anson wrote:Off topic'ish any idea why they have cleared the trackbed of trees/shrubs etc.. from Shortwood right up to the M4 at Westerleigh Oil Terminal...now possible by bike/foot and right up to the fence with good views of the track under the M4 and terminal itself

I believe it is to do with a new cycle track:

https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/ ... tationHome

BristleGWR wrote:

50022Anson wrote:Off topic'ish any idea why they have cleared the trackbed of trees/shrubs etc.. from Shortwood right up to the M4 at Westerleigh Oil Terminal...now possible by bike/foot and right up to the fence with good views of the track under the M4 and terminal itself

I believe it is to do with a new cycle track:

https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/ ... tationHome

Looking at the overall plan (here : https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/ ... 5100.1.pdf ) it seems that planning permission has been granted from Coxgrove Hill to Kidney Hill, but the remainder of the route is only as yet "proposed"

It seems odd that the proposed section does not follow the course of the railway from Westerleigh sidings to the crossing on the Westerleigh to Coalpit Heath cycle track/ bridleway, instead going "on road" up Westerleigh Road as far as Broad Lane. There should be plenty of room in the railway cutting as there is only one track down there now, so it could be a similar arrangement to that seen at the AVR.