The Bristol Railway Archive

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/like-rai ... story.html

Seems like a waste of several ú'000's to me. Who would *object* to Ashley Down re-opening? Anyone at all? I wonder what any objection could possibly be?

Far better to ditch the residents survey, get on with re-opening plans and save the ú'000's community money for the station flowers ....

I thought they couldn't put new (or rebuild old) stations if they are on an incline? I'm not sure why I have that idea though... some dim recollection in the dark corners of my brain.

When you read the article in detail, especially between the lines, all you actually find is that one single councillor has given an interview/ made a speech about his view of the future for Ashley Hill station.

There is no official Council policy involved, and everything mentioned in the article that "may" or "may not" happen (with the exception of course of the proposed electrification, which has nothing to do with this Councillor's musings) is pure speculation.

As I'm sitting here waiting for a gas cooker to be delivered this morning and haven't got much else to do (:mrgreen:), lets look at some of this in detail:

article wrote:A STUDY could be carried out to examine the possibility of reopening a former railway station in Ashley Down.

Residents will be asked to decide if council money should be spent on looking into the case for reopening the Ashley Hill station at the bottom of Station Road.

Looks like a bit of sloppy journalism. In paragraph 1 we read that a study COULD be carried out. In the second we read that residents WILL be asked. So is this a concrete proposal or just an idea? Bearing in mind how much spare cash all Councils have at the moment for new schemes I would suspect the latter.

article wrote:Bishopston councillor David Willingham says money could be spent on a feasibility study to establish if residents would like to see the station rebuilt and reopened.

Back to COULD again, then ... Yes Mr Willingham, money COULD be spent on all manner of things, but this doesn't mean to say that it necessarily will be.

article wrote:Mr Willingham, a member of Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways, said: "Residents living next to the railway would suffer days and nights of disruption because of the electrification works and will get nothing back û just trains which run straight past them.

What an interesting concept - according to Mr Willingham's logic presumably everybody who lives next to the M4 and M5 should have their own personalised junctions to compensate them for the inconvenience? Lets not even think about the people who live under the flight path into Bristol Airport - how shall we give something back to them? Free flights??

article wrote:"At the moment, the closest station residents have got is Montpelier. As a council we have very little power with regard to delivery but this is a wonderful aspiration."

Note the use of the phrases "wonderful aspiration" and "As a council we have very little power with regard to delivery" Says it all really, doesn't it .....

article wrote:Mr Willingham said the benefits of reopening the station would need to be demonstrated against the cost, estimated at up to ú3 million.

The idea of funding a feasibility study using part of a ú30,000 Wellbeing grant was discussed at a Bishopston Neighbourhood Forum last month.

Mr Willingham said a recent survey of residents living near the cricket ground in Nevil Road revealed that 80 per cent of them were generally supportive of the idea of reopening the station.

Now, as the railway has found to its cost over the years (take Melksham as an example) being "generally supportive" of an idea and using the finished product, so to speak, are two different things. How many people, I wonder, who are generally supportive think that way because they also think that other people will then use the train thereby freeing up road space for their car journey?

article wrote:He said: "It's about getting our MP, the Department for Transport and local people to support it but first we need to prove it's feasible.

Sub text - "Don't hold your breath, then ....!

And finally

article wrote:"The cricket club would quite like it and the City of Bristol College would benefit because, at the moment, students can only get to it on the number 70 bus.

Really? Can't they walk, or cycle, or go by car? Like no doubt most of them are doing now? Are there no other buses that serve Muller Road or Gloucester Road? Unfortunately, statements of nonsense like this tend to detract from the argument rather than support it. All IMHO of course

As I'm sitting here waiting for a gas cooker to be delivered this morning and haven't got much else to do

I hope your gas cooker has landed

Looks like a bit of sloppy journalism.

What else have we come to expect from the Evening Pest!?

The idea of funding a feasibility study using part of a ú30,000 Wellbeing grant was discussed at a Bishopston Neighbourhood Forum last month.

I think herein lies the rub. ú30,000 has come up from somewhere and Mr Willingham is merely looking for ways to spend it ...

as the railway has found to its cost over the years (take Melksham as an example) being "generally supportive" of an idea and using the finished product, so to speak, are two different things. How many people, I wonder, who are generally supportive think that way because they also think that other people will then use the train thereby freeing up road space for their car journey?

Well, I completely agree this might have been the case a few years ago - and was for many years - but now one only has to look at the recent growth in passenger numbers to detect what seems to be a genuine keenness amongst the general public to ride the train ... Recent re-openings (such as in Wales and Scotland) have shown that if you provide the service at desirable locations, such as Ashley Hill, the passengers will arrive in far greater numbers than any prior feasibility study will predict. If you give them three years to get used to the idea, that is ...

He said: "It's about getting our MP, the Department for Transport and local people to support it but first we need to prove it's feasible.

Sub text - "Don't hold your breath, then ....!

First we need to prove it's feasible.

Oh dear, dear, dear ... How? By asking local residents "If Ashley Hill Station were re-opened, would you catch the train there?" How reliable and just what would those answers be/prove?

Whatever happened to the days of having some conviction and purpose in commercial decisions? Like re-opening a facility because you *believe in it*, or that it is a no-brainer that people will make use of it. Instead politicians engage in never-ending and pointless mealy-mouthed feasibility studies and nothing ever happens ... except for an ever recurring string of artists' impressions appearing in the Evening Post!

Bendy Bus anyone? Supertram perhaps? Advanced Transport for Avon maybe? An Orbital Ring Road or two?

Around here? Not bloody likely! (Rant over )

I thought they couldn't put new (or rebuild old) stations if they are on an incline?

I don't know of that one Hattie, but it wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps one of the civil engineers amongst us could enlighten us, because if so, Ashely Hill re-opening would seem to be hugely expensive if you had to "do it on the level!"

See page 7 of this document reference platforms and gradients.
Railway Group Standard GI/RT7016. Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains

BristleGWR wrote:See page 7 of this document reference platforms and gradients.
Railway Group Standard GI/RT7016. Interface between Station Platforms, Track and Trains

It looks like the above document was superseded by issue 4, with relevant part concerning "Vertical track alignment through station platforms" being moved to this document.

GI/GN761 Guidance on Station Platform Geometry

Thanks for that. Aren't Group Standards wonderful things?

GN12 For many years it had been considered good practice in GB to locate platforms on gradients not steeper than 1 in 260, except where geographic constraints made this unavoidable. This requirement was later changed to refer to a gradient of 1 in 500, possibly because of a shift from plain bearings to roller bearings across all rolling stock.

GN13 In the circumstances where the Infrastructure TSIs impose limiting gradients through passenger platforms (see GN21 and GN22), the limit is 2.5 mm/m - that is, 1 in 400. (For new lines only where vehicles are to be regularly attached / detached - Jules)

GN14 However, there are many platforms on the GB network that are located on gradients steeper than 1 in 400 and of those, a significant number are on gradients steeper than 1 in 100. These platforms continue to accommodate a range of train services without having operational constraints on their use imposed because of track gradient.

I believe the ruling gradient through Ashley Hill is 1/75. So, relevant to Ashley Hill:

GN18 When considering locating platform extensions or new platforms on a gradient (steeper than 1 in 500) the following points should be considered when assessing the risk arising from the proposed change:
a) Actual gradients and length of gradients.
b) Position of the train relative to the gradient.
c) Whether trains terminate or reverse at the platform.
d) Operation of trains in platform, for example being coupled / uncoupled, driver changing ends.
e) Braking capability of trains using the platform.
f) Engine noise from trains when pulling away from the platform.
g) Power limitations of trains when pulling away from the platform.
h) Mitigating circumstances in the event of a runaway (for example catch points, TPWS fitment and adjacent geography and gradients).

Looks like Ashley Hill would be alright then

jules wrote:

As I'm sitting here waiting for a gas cooker to be delivered this morning and haven't got much else to do

I hope your gas cooker has landed

Yes thank you

jules wrote:

as the railway has found to its cost over the years (take Melksham as an example) being "generally supportive" of an idea and using the finished product, so to speak, are two different things. How many people, I wonder, who are generally supportive think that way because they also think that other people will then use the train thereby freeing up road space for their car journey?

Well, I completely agree this might have been the case a few years ago - and was for many years - but now one only has to look at the recent growth in passenger numbers to detect what seems to be a genuine keenness amongst the general public to ride the train ... Recent re-openings (such as in Wales and Scotland) have shown that if you provide the service at desirable locations, such as Ashley Hill, the passengers will arrive in far greater numbers than any prior feasibility study will predict. If you give them three years to get used to the idea, that is ...

The problem that Bristol has always suffered from is that the centre of the city (ie the main shopping and commercial areas) are farther away from Temple Meads than most people want to walk. Whilst this isn't necessarily as much of an issue if people are coming into the city from other towns and cities in the area, it would have a serious effect on local traffic.

Ask the average Joe Public what they want to do - get a train from Ashley Hill to Lawrence Hill/ Temple Meads, then get a bus to Broadmead, or catch a bus in Muller Road or Filton Avenue that dumps you off right at your final destination. I think you know the answer as well as I do

The problem that Bristol has always suffered from is that the centre of the city (ie the main shopping and commercial areas) are farther away from Temple Meads than most people want to walk. Whilst this isn't necessarily as much of an issue if people are coming into the city from other towns and cities in the area, it would have a serious effect on local traffic.

Ask the average Joe Public what they want to do - get a train from Ashley Hill to Lawrence Hill/ Temple Meads, then get a bus to Broadmead, or catch a bus in Muller Road or Filton Avenue that dumps you off right at your final destination. I think you know the answer as well as I do [/quote]

Sounds like a job for a bendy-bus!

Robin Summerhill wrote: The problem that Bristol has always suffered from is that the centre of the city (ie the main shopping and commercial areas) are farther away from Temple Meads than most people want to walk. Whilst this isn't necessarily as much of an issue if people are coming into the city from other towns and cities in the area, it would have a serious effect on local traffic.

Ask the average Joe Public what they want to do - get a train from Ashley Hill to Lawrence Hill/ Temple Meads, then get a bus to Broadmead, or catch a bus in Muller Road or Filton Avenue that dumps you off right at your final destination. I think you know the answer as well as I do

You are right that rail will never be the best means for most people to travel to the city centre, but the city centre is not the only destination; many people will want to travel onwards from Temple Meads, and Temple Meads has become more of a destination in it own right because of office development.

TM's off-centre location means that it is not directly served by buses from some parts of Bristol, so that rail, where a link exists, is usually the best means of getting there. I know as a daily commuter from Redland that trains to and from Temple Meads are very well used indeed, and I'm sure that services from Ashley Hill would be equally well patronised.

However, whether such a reopening would be the best use of ú3 million is another matter. Oh for the days when the railways could just knock together a halt out of old sleepers