Evening Post campaigns for new Metro network

[AndyK]

This was on the front cover of Thursdays Evening Post

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol- ... story.html

On the face of it, it's a plausible and sensible proposal involving mostly reinstatement of closed stations and very little new track.

However, this being Bristol, and this being the era we live in, I can't help agreeing with the commentator LordClifton who has written: unlike the number 8 and 9 bus these "artist's impression of how Bristol's transport system could look in 40 years time" stories come along with unfailing sentimental regularity.

[Robin Summerhill]

Although being the one who usually comes along to debunk these things, this proposal at least has the merit that all the railway lines shown are actually there, so there would be no need for relaying old lines, or getting into a row with Sustrans about using railway formations for their original purpose. As we all know, nothing gets up Sustran's nose quite as much as suggesting that some railway lines might get laid again between Bristol and Mangotsfield

A little unfortunate that whoever drew the plan doesn't realise that the Severn Beach line goes off at Narroways Hill and would not serve any reopened station at Ashley Hill, but we can probably live with that

Nevertheless, the money for this scheme would have to come from somewhere and, as sure as eggs is eggs, I can't see Network Rail or the TOCs digging into their pockets for it. And the City Council has probably got less spare cash kicking around at the moment than has your average pet mongrel.

So, a nice idea, but I wouldn't recommend that anybody holds their breath

[thomascpre]

Actually, if a tram 'station' were opened on Ashley Hill itself, at the bottom, that could be used by quite a catchment. Arguably, reinstatement of the LMR bridge over the South Wales mainline and the line shoved through the Rovers ground shopping centre then up onto the M32 and down to Broadmead, would be more useful to many.

The reopened Ashley Hill mentioned in the article should be renamed Muller Road.

Only fast trams can overcome the problems of Bristol's hilly area, I feel.

[Robin Summerhill]

Actually, if a tram 'station' were opened on Ashley Hill itself, at the bottom, that could be used by quite a catchment. Arguably, reinstatement of the LMR bridge over the South Wales mainline and the line shoved through the Rovers ground shopping centre then up onto the M32 and down to Broadmead, would be more useful to many.

The reopened Ashley Hill mentioned in the article should be renamed Muller Road.

Only fast trams can overcome the problems of Bristol's hilly area, I feel.

As Andyk said in the original post, the Evening Post (and Points West for that matter) have been running stories about the "imminent" revamp of Bristol's public transport system for as long as I can remember.

"As long as I can remember" in this context was proposal to run a tram/ light rail line from BTM through the centre and up Whiteladies Road to Clifton Down station. I think that was in 1967 ...

Trams were a good idea in the 19th and early 20th century. Whilst the last Labour administration seemed to be falling over itself to encourage local authorities to re-adopt them (Sheffield and Manchester spring immediately to mind), they still suffer (as of course do railways) from the basic disadvantage of not being as flexible as a bus. A bus uses the existing infrastructure (ie the roads) whilst any form of rail-borne transport needs tracks to run on. If a new traffic flow suddenly develops (as happened in the 1950s with the expansion of the outer suburbs), a bus can be put on the job immediately. Rail borne systems need their tracks laid first.

But over and above all that, now is not the time for any of this to happen. There is a recession on and nobody, especially government both local and national, has got any money for projects like this.

[madhattie]

These things are never as simple as they say they are anyway. For example the quote 'where the original platforms are in place, simple shelters would be enough.' is way off the mark. Platforms have to have a 'rumble strip' along their edge so that partially sighted people know where the edge is. The platforms themselves may no longer be at the correct height either. Then there's the public information systems. Even just lighting a station will involve major work.

You can't just whack a garden shed on a bit of tarmac alongside a railway line and, by magic, it becomes a station!

[Robin Summerhill]

These things are never as simple as they say they are anyway. For example the quote 'where the original platforms are in place, simple shelters would be enough.' is way off the mark. Platforms have to have a 'rumble strip' along their edge so that partially sighted people know where the edge is. The platforms themselves may no longer be at the correct height either. Then there's the public information systems. Even just lighting a station will involve major work.

You can't just whack a garden shed on a bit of tarmac alongside a railway line and, by magic, it becomes a station!

Trams of course are a little different, in that they don't need to comply with height and certain H&S requirements that railway stations do.

Here is a Google Maps link to the Croydon Tramlink tram stop outside East Croydon station. You will see that the "platforms" are at street level

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=croydon ... 32,,0,5.67

[madhattie]

I think I'm, um, off track!

The article isn't referring to a tram system, it's talking about utilising, and building upon, the existing rail network. And it's in that context that I meant my comments.

It would be impossible to build any kind of Croydon type tram system in Bristol, and utilise the existing network. The trams would have to use existing stations and the doors would be at platform height. Any new stations would have to be 'off the floor'.

[jules]

You can't just whack a garden shed on a bit of tarmac alongside a railway line and, by magic, it becomes a station!

Too true. There are a host of regulations in the Rail Group Standards about location of new stations. The original Ashley Hill would be out nowadays owing to the gradient and curvature for a start - though there are various derogations and grandfather rights for existing stations, which Ashley Hill is obviously no longer, sadly.

I am sure we have visited this very subject in a thread here some years ago.

For reference, people can see the current Rail Group Standards at http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/ - a veritable host of up-to-date information, rules and practices for all to see, share and enjoy

[Robin Summerhill]

It would be impossible to build any kind of Croydon type tram system in Bristol, and utilise the existing network.

I think it was me that confused the issue by bringing up Croydon in the first place!

I was really responding to thomascpre and his statement: " Only fast trams can overcome the problems of Bristol's hilly area, I feel."

That said, of course, part of the Croydon Tramlink system does utilise former railway formations - The Wimbledon to West Croydon line and part of the Elmers End to Sanderstead "Croydon avoiding line."

The difference is that the latter was closed in the 1970s and the former was converted for tram working, and in neither case were the lines used for anything other than local passenger traffic.

In addition, of course, the Manchester to Rochdale via Oldham line is being converted to a tramway as I write this, but once again only local passenger trains use the line.

The potential to convert existing railway lines to tramways in Bristol is limited because the two main contenders (Portishead and Severn Beach lines) are also used by freight traffic.

[jules]

The potential to convert existing railway lines to tramways in Bristol is limited because the two main contenders (Portishead and Severn Beach lines) are also used by freight traffic.

I've not seen a freight train on the Severn Beach line for 20 odd years - at least not the Narroways to Avonmouth section. Except for the odd infrastructure train, which doesn't count. Even when Filton Bank is closed and the Beach line is in use for diversions - I've never seen a freight train diverted. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong?

[jules]

The potential to convert existing railway lines to tramways in Bristol is limited because the two main contenders (Portishead and Severn Beach lines) are also used by freight traffic.

Must admit, the experience of traveling from Newcastle to Sunderland with two Class 47s and a 12 coach rake of MkIIs and seeing a tiny two car tram thing coming along the opposite track was somewhat disquieting. If there was ever an accident, the little tram train would stand no chance ...

http://www.nexus.org.uk/home

Incidentally:

Wallsend Metro station is possibly the only public facility in Britain in which the signage is in Latin

Now there's a thing Perhaps Sea Mills should be re-named and given its proper name back of "Portus Abonae"?

[Robin Summerhill]

The potential to convert existing railway lines to tramways in Bristol is limited because the two main contenders (Portishead and Severn Beach lines) are also used by freight traffic.

I've not seen a freight train on the Severn Beach line for 20 odd years - at least not the Narroways to Avonmouth section. Except for the odd infrastructure train, which doesn't count. Even when Filton Bank is closed and the Beach line is in use for diversions - I've never seen a freight train diverted. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong?

Sorry - I was being too brief - not usually something I'm guilty of

I was thinking more in terms of the whole proposal, which included the Avonmouth to North Filton section, and as I understand it this still sees a fair amount of freight traffic.

In addition, whilst at the moment it would be possible to lay tracks for a tram service from Narroways down to Lawrence Hill on the currently-disused western side of the formation (and then possibly on to the roads to gain direct access to Broadmead via West Street and Old Market), doing so would bugger up the idea of re-quadrupling up the bank to Filton.

[jules]

In addition, whilst at the moment it would be possible to lay tracks for a tram service from Narroways down to Lawrence Hill on the currently-disused western side of the formation (and then possibly on to the roads to gain direct access to Broadmead via West Street and Old Market), doing so would bugger up the idea of re-quadrupling up the bank to Filton.

That's why I never understood why Bristol CC ever seriously pursued the idea of the Super Tram to Cribbs Causeway or whatever they called it. As far as I know, the re-quadrupling has been on Network Rail's cards for years, even Railtrack before them and it would have been done, but for the lack of money and other pressing expenditures. Why then, would they want to ever hand the formation over to BCC's pie-in-the-sky tram system (unless it was going to be "mixed" traffic as in Tyne & Wear)?

Apart from which, who wants to go to Almondsbury? And what was the point of just shipping more business out of Bristol to our upstart neighbours in South Gloucestershire? Whole scheme was the usual BCC madness if you ask me ...

Rarely do I have to correct you Robin, but it is actually the Eastern side of the formation that is disused between Narroways and Lawrence Hill So the crossover from the Beach line to the unused Eastern side would be interesting, to say the least.

Or you find the money to slew the original up and down relief over to the Eastern side. Which raises the question of that pesky bridge over Stapleton Road that everyone says is unfit to carry the weight and the reason for removing the up and down main lines in the first place. Personally, I think it was purely to save on maintenance costs and the bridge had very little to do with it at the time. Probably a different matter 25+ years on though ..

[Robin Summerhill]

Rarely do I have to correct you Robin, but it is actually the Eastern side of the formation that is disused between Narroways and Lawrence Hill

Shows how much I use the line these days since I moved out of central Bristol in 1975 ......

[stopblock]

I would not worry too much on the freight traffic between Avonmouth and Filton. Depending on various factors Didcot may have finished with coal by the time any ideas were to come in to being.
With the proposed electrification of the GW lines n our area and the services to London via Bristol Parkway as well they would be very little room for any freight to emerge from that area.. You can imagine what the nimbys that would move in to houses on filton airfield would be like with heavy freight running close to their new shoe boxes would be like.
I dont think we will ever see a tram system or metro system in Bristol very little capcity on current lines and noone would ever agree on its route.