The Government's priorities for the railway are set out in the White Paper - Delivering a Sustainable Railway. This is backed up by the High Level Output Specification - a statement of what the Government wishes to buy from the railway industry over the period 2009-2014.

Priorities for this period are to continue to improve safety, improve performance and increase capacity. In respect of the latter, the Government has stated that an additional 1300 new carriages would be added to the network. Some of these will be allocated to services in the Bristol area and the city will also benefit from the investment in the Inter City Express Project which will replace the diesel High Speed Trains. However, the White Paper also states that the 'Government does not envisage changes in the pattern or level of demand large enough in the HLOS period to justify developing or opening new regional lines'.

The Government, therefore, does not include the re-opening lines as a priority. However, local transport authorities can consider whether the re-opening of a line is the best way to meet regional and local transport objectives. In Greater Bristol, the four local authorities are working together as the West of England Partnership. They have undertaken the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study to identify priorities for investment to address issues such as congestion and air quality. This study did not propose the re-opening of the Portishead line as a priority, but it remains open to the Partnership to review this and any other elements of the strategy at any time.

Real commitment needs to be given to re-opening the railway otherwise Portishead will eventually grind to a halt

To get anything to happen peole NEED to take on Board what Andrew Haines said this week about a the formation of a strategic transport authority otherwise we are going nowhere

North Somerset councillor Elfan Ap Rees said the fight was not over.

"We will continue to put pressure on them and we are revisiting earlier feasibility studies to prove the point," he said.

"We need to improve the links from Portishead into Bristol and into the north fringe. We cannot carry on with the situation as it is.

"And we don't expect to have to put money into something which at the end of the day is the fault of the government because they have failed to provide an adequate highway and transport system in North Somerset."

"We are looking at buying this land to protect the future of the railway.

"From our point of view this would be a real step towards developing a high-speed link between Portishead and Bristol.

"The British Railways Board has agreed to sell the land and has given us first option on it."

"To go by water taxi would take hours to get to Bristol whereas reinstating the railway line would be a much quicker commuting solution.

"To get from Portishead to Bristol Temple Meads would be 28-30 minutes by train taking commuters into the largest office building area in Bristol.

"If you take workers by water taxi how do they get into the town centre or to their offices elsewhere in Bristol, such as by Temple Meads?

"Also, there is the issue with cars still using the main Portishead road, the A369 to get to the water taxi service, so the roads would still be congested.

"First Great Western has told the council it will cost ^20m to rebuild the line and the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport study says ^29m.

"This sounds absurd to me when in South Wales they have built six stations and 18 miles of track for ^30m.

...was likely to cost more than nearly ^30 million...

Have I "killed" this topic? 

No, I think the idea of damming the River Avon, just to run a water taxi from Avonmouth to central Bristol, has been 'sunk without trace'. 

Our conference last Saturday (see 'Social Enterprise and the Railways' posting) suggested the idea of using Parry People Movers on that line - having them supplied by a 'Social Enterprise RoSCo' and operated either by FGW (as the Stourbridge Town line is operated by the local TOC) or by a communuty organisation. With a bit of tweaking it would be eminently suitable. Alex Lawrie <alex@somerset.coop> was the speaker - John Parry was in the audience.

More on Alex Lawrie in the link below.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=677.msg2442#msg2442

Given the need to leave paths for the freight services (which after all were the reason and justification for the rebuild to Portbury), the most frequent the service could be would be half hourly (and I suspect even the infrastructure improvements required for that will be more than is currently envisaged.)

This upgrade would include the provision of two short double - track sections on the Portishead line , in the Ashton Gate & Pill areas , as proposed by Andrew Griffiths of First Great Western. This would allow 2 freight and 4 passenger trains (in total, not in each direction) to run on the line per hour.

Does anyone know how many freight services use the line each day? I'm always seeing car trains or coal trains at TM. Presumably they have fixed paths elsewhere on the network, so that would need to be taken into consideration too.

Not bad for a line that only reopened 5 years ago. Now if that 5 becomes 15 then surely there will be justification in reinstating the down relief as far as Parson St? I presume if a Portbury bound freight service is held awaiting an up passenger service to pass before it can enter the branch then by the time it gets going again it must block the main line for around 10 minutes in total? 

Certainly when we looked at a half-hourly Portishead service, we did so in the context of a future network that included resignalling and provision of more lines into Bristol Temple Meads.

My personal view is that Portishead should start off with a lesser frequency than that (I give an example proposal above) , prove the demand is there (which I think it quickly would) and then push for improvements as part of an overall Greater Bristol package.

I can see Lee's point off view that it would be better to go for the least costly option to get passenger services going. However with the boiling frog syndrome mentioned previously what might be ^30 million at today's prices will be ^60 million in 5 years time so go for the ultimate solution it will actually be cheaper in the long term. However, you will have to change the Treasury's mindset of requiring payback from day one so good luck

Here is the response to the Portishead petition :

Bristol City Council Press Release :

Bristol City Council is investing ^395k pa on providing more train services on the Severn Beach Line under a three year contract with First Great Western, starting on 18 May 2008.

The Severn Beach Line has enjoyed a surge in popularity over the last 10 years and now carries over half a million passengers a year. 

... and, with a similarly suitable level of 'investment', how many passengers could even now be enjoying train services from Portishead to Bristol?

Unfortunately, there has been an official view that a showcase bus route is the way forward for the Portishead corridor.

Your comments and concerns have been noted. The re-opening of the line was considered as part of the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS). The final report can be found on our website at

http://www.gosw.gov.uk/gosw/transport/regtransstrat/gbsts/?a=42496.

The study looked at the problems and issues in the area and considered many options for addressing them. The conclusion of the study indicated that a showcase bus route is the recommended scheme for this corridor in the short and medium term and possibly a rapid transit scheme in the longer term. The report was presented to the partners of the study, including the four Greater Bristol authorities, to look at the findings and investigate a way forward.

We await the outcome of their deliberations.

Of course, if you were to do the same thing on the Portishead line, you would have to work out what to do with the growing number of freight trains running (and projected to run in the future) out of Portbury.

It could all be done, if the money - and the will - was there.

"Only" 6 years? I'm sure it could be running in 3 years if the funding was available.

The cost of tickets was not included in the Halcrow report, but if First Great Western becomes the line operator, as expected, tickets from Portishead to Temple Meads would probably cost about the same as the fare from Bath ^8 for an adult return."

Note the official comment:-

Spokesman for the Highways Agency Robin Miller said: "The problems experienced yesterday morning appear to be the result of the volume of traffic.

Plans to re-connect Portishead in North Somerset to the passenger rail network are due to move a step closer.

Network Rail is to carry out a study into how feasible it would be to put the line back in service and to build a new railway station.

The section under the spotlight is three miles of line from Portbury Docks into Portishead town centre.

It has remained closed since 1964 despite a vociferous local campaign to get it reinstated.

The study, costing some ^164,000, will look at potential engineering problems, any conflicts with the freight-only service which operates along the first part of the route to Portbury Docks and the cost of reopening a full passenger service.

Deputy leader of North Somerset Council Elphin Ap Rees said the study is "an important step forward" towards trying to improve the transport infrastructure of Portishead.

Maybe a Direct Service from Portishead to London Paddington 2 or 3 times a day would get people off the buses and roads because they know they can get to the capital city without having to mess around with different tickets for each mode of tranport, changing buses or parking etc.

Could this be a window for an open access operator?

Boost for Portishead to Bristol passenger railway

The prospect of passenger trains from Portishead to Bristol received support from the rail industry this week.

The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) has published a report backing the reopening of some branch lines that were closed during the notorious Beeching cuts of the 1960s.

The report, entitled Connecting Communities - Expanding Access To The Rail Network, has specifically recommended 14 towns with populations of more than 15,000 where it feels there is a positive business case to reopen rail routes.

Portishead isn't included on that list, but it is specifically singled out as a case where an updated study reflecting its growing population would very likely tilt the balance in favour of reopening.

Alan Matthews, chairman of the Portishead Railway Group, said he welcomed the report. He said: "It is another step in the right direction. These train operating companies are obviously profit-driven, so the fact they are even looking at the line is a positive sign. In fact, I think Portishead is more viable than some of the others it mentions because most of the track is in place due to the freight line from Royal Portbury Docks."

Michael Roberts, chief executive of ATOC, said: "Many past studies have looked at reopening old railways, but this one looks first at the market, not the map. It starts with people, where they live and where they want to travel." He claimed the identified schemes could benefit an additional one million people not currently well served by rail.

Other towns on the list include Brixham, in Devon, Fleetwood, in Lancashire, and Ringwood, near Bournemouth.

In January North Somerset Council commissioned Network Rail to carry out a ^164,000 technical evaluation of the requirements to reopen the line. That report will be completed later this year, and is considered as stage three of Network Rail's eight-step process to open a rail line.

However, stage six is construction of the line, so the key stages are four and five, at which the government has to commit to the line reopening and funding needs to be allocated.

This latest report gives an outline capital cost of ^29 million, a figure Mr Matthews said is solid and fully takes inflation into account.

According to ATOC, the scheme currently has a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 0.6, meaning its costs outweigh its benefits. But it admits: "A number of factors mean this scheme requires further analysis with more recent data. In particular, the population has risen from 17,000 at the 2001 census to 21,000 today, with a further 2,000 planned before 2014. Traffic congestion at Junction 19 of the M5 has become chronic. These factors are likely to push the BCR over 1.0, which would justify further evaluation."

On the same day as the electrification announcement, DafT apparently gave details of its regional funding allocation allowances, which as well as the ^21m for Swindon-Kemble redoubling, includes ^25.3m towards the Portishead scheme and ^12.5m for the Bristol Metro project http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/metro/2009/08/04-one-billion-investment.html

so is that enough to reopen the portishead line!

I would be over the moon if they did

Rail report gives boost to Portishead line prospects

Rail chiefs have given new hope to campaigners in Portishead.  (The) publication of Network Rail's 10-year plan to expand rail services in the West has been welcomed by the Portishead Railway Group.

The 190-page report makes extensive mention of Portishead and shows rail bosses' thinking on how services from Portishead would fit into the network.

Portishead Railway Group chairman Alan Matthews said he is encouraged by the report. He said: "It is another piece in the jigsaw towards reopening the line. There is still a long way to go but the position has changed an awful lot in the last 18 months. I think back to then and the language used by the rail industry was very much 'if it will ever happen', whereas now they seem to be planning for 'when it happens'." He said North Somerset Council making the decision to promote the line had given the campaign credibility within the industry.

Network Rail, the owner and operator of the tracks, signals and other rail infrastructure, has produced the report, Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy, on behalf of the whole rail industry. The report presents various options for services to Portishead if the Government decides to meet the cost of reopening the line. The report doesn't just look at a service between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads, via Pill, Ashton Gate, Parson Street and Bedminster. It also considers cross-Bristol services such as options for Portishead to Gloucester or Yate, to Temple Meads, Filton Abbey Wood and Bristol Parkway, or Portishead to Westbury, Wiltshire, via Temple Meads, Bath and Trowbridge.

Other elements of the report look at major schemes at London Paddington, Reading and Swindon to cope with a 31 per cent increase in passengers on the Great Western in the next 10 years. It also suggests longer trains on services between Cardiff and Taunton, increasing space on overcrowded trains serving Yatton and Nailsea and Backwell.

Reopening the Portishead branch line is now being promoted by North Somerset Council, which earlier this year commissioned Network Rail to carry out a separate ^164,000 feasibility study into reopening the line. North Somerset executive responsible for transport, Elfan Ap Rees, said that report was 'about a month' from completion. He said: "Network Rail have certainly been carrying out very detailed work on this."

It is stage three of an eight-stage process to reopen closed railway lines, but stage six is actually physically laying tracks, so the key stages are three, four and five when decisions are made on funding and route options.

The scheme is part of a wider West of England Partnership bid to secure government funding under the government's Transport Innovation Fund. The South West Regional Development Agency has also submitted a bid for ^25 million as a contribution to the scheme as part of its medium term commitments for 2014 ^ 2019.

From the BBC:


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7855254.stm

Reopening the Portishead branch line is now being promoted by North Somerset Council, which earlier this year commissioned Network Rail to carry out a separate ^164,000 feasibility study into reopening the line. North Somerset executive responsible for transport, Elfan Ap Rees, said that report was 'about a month' from completion. He said: "Network Rail have certainly been carrying out very detailed work on this."