Bristol to Portishead rail link would cost £37 million to reopen
REOPENING a rail link between Portishead and Bristol would cost £36.9 million, a new report has revealed.
The new estimate comes after a year-long study by track operator Network Rail to see if it was feasible to reopen the railway.
The company has been working with North Somerset Council to work out if plans to reopen the line are workable and affordable.
The study says that if the line was to open, trains could travel between Portishead and Bristol Temple Meads in 17 minutes – slashing the current journey time by car. And, if funding can be secured, work on the line could start in 2015 and passenger trains start running early in 2018.
Passenger train services from Portishead to Bristol were cut in the 1960s, although the line to Portbury Dock was reopened in 2002 for freight trains only.
But the goods line is mainly single track and in order to accommodate both freight and passenger trains in both directions there would need to be major works to upgrade existing track and complete the line into Portishead town centre.
Work needed to get the line back up and running includes improving the existing Portbury freight line so that trains can travel at 55mph, reinstating Pill railway station and replacing the disused three-mile track between Portbury Dock junction and Portishead.
A new road bridge would be built over the railway at Quays Avenue in Portishead and a station would have to be built on land already earmarked at Harbour Road.
As well as building costs, money would need to be found to pay for legal work and to underwrite the first few years of any passenger train service.
The plan is to operate passenger trains every half-an-hour at peak times and hourly off-peak from Portishead, calling at Pill and terminating at Bristol Temple Meads.
The report also indicates that there is capacity to call at other stations along the branch line, should this be viable, although extra stops would mean longer journey times and could substantially increase costs.
There is also potential to operate services beyond Temple Meads.
North Somerset Council deputy leader and executive member for strategic planning, Councillor Elfan Ap Rees, said he was encouraged by the findings.
Mr Ap Rees said: "Network Rail has examined all the options and associated engineering implications very thoroughly and while the estimated costs are higher than previously thought, the train journey times are much quicker.
"The reopening of the line would put an end to years of commuting misery, with a journey time into Bristol from Portishead of around 17 minutes.
"This would represent a considerable time saving for residents of Portishead and surrounding villages who currently have limited travel choices into Bristol, with traffic congestion on the A369 meaning that commuter journeys often take an hour or more."
No funding for the project has yet been agreed.
Mr Ap Rees said he was now keen to talk with the Department of Transport to speed up the project.
Mr Ap Rees said: "Taking account of the major project milestones in terms of funding approval, further Network Rail processes and other approval hurdles, at present the earliest construction could probably start is late 2015, with passenger train services reintroduced in 2018.
"While that may seem some time away and progressing the project in the current climate of Government budget restrictions is a challenge, five years is a typical lead time up to beginning construction for projects of this scale."
The Portishead Rail project forms part of the prioritised programme of major transport schemes for the Bristol area, agreed by Bristol City Council, North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset.
The final version of the plan comes into effect on April 1 next year and covers a 15-year period.
50 Comments
View all
by Paul, St Elsewhere
Wednesday, October 20 2010, 5:33PM
“Because Pedro unless you do those things and are 100% self-sustaining your actions are directly impacting on the environment. That impact might be smaller than others but nevertheless it is there and if you do impact on the environment, even in the smallest way, then you are part of the problem rather than the solution.
Now you may very well be in the lucky position where you live within a comfortable walk/easy bus ride from your work. You may even work from home I dont know but I doubt that if your boss said to "The office is moving to Portishead next week" you'd be first in the office with your hand up saying "In that case I dont want my job because I fear the impact my daily commute will have on the environment." You've presumably got rent/mortgage to pay, food and clothes to buy? In the real world people cant live next door to their office/factory/shop and often cant choose who they work for on the basis of location. Commuting - whether for work or pleasure - is a fact of life and surely any scheme that helps to mitigate its environmental impact is to be applauded isnt it?
I agree that North Somerset Council should have put more pressure on the developers as part of its planning process, that they have been able to develop schemes (including social housing) without seemingly any thought about how/where the populace will work is unfortunate to say the least but that is a council failing nothing more.”
by Annette Hennessy, Portishead
Wednesday, October 20 2010, 5:04PM
“Paul, the answer to your question about why NSC purchased the three miles of defunct track is undoubtedly because if the railway does not go ahead, the council will have in its grasp land for development. Now cynics believe that because NSC has always said it will not subsidise a rail link (although it is supposedly in support of the railway), the land was only purchased because NSC does not believe government funding will ever be forthcoming. Others do not believe NSC's claims it was to safeguard the rail corridor. If the railway doesn't go ahead, the council will still have land that came quite cheap, and it will be able to say, "Well it can't be used for a railway so lets do something else with it". Perhaps a link road. Many residents will feel happier when NSC commits its support by agreeing to subsidise a rail link alongside any government funding. They still have echoing in their ears, Cllr Ap Rees' words, "We are behind the scheme but equally don't want to raise expectations unnecessarily".”
by Pedro Mendes, Bristol
Wednesday, October 20 2010, 3:24PM
“Paul,
What makes you think I generate my own power, mould my own soap and knit my own socks?
I'm talking about the heavily impacting to the environment commuter towns like Portishead, and holes like Yate.
Nothing to do with my lifestyle.....thank god.”
by Paul, St Elsewhere
Wednesday, October 20 2010, 9:16AM
“Toby - yes I know the rail link would go nowhere near the village which is why I suggested any fears on its negative impact on property would be unjust. I also know that the re-opening of the Portishead railway has been spoken about and pushed around the planning tables for years. But just because nothing has happened so far doesnt mean it might not in the future. If it really was totally dead in the water then why did North Somerset Council go around buying up chunks of the former rail corridor a few years ago? I can accept that it probably will not be re-opened over the timescale suggested in the article but there is a need for a sustainable mass transport system in and around Bristol and re-instating this link could be part of it.”
by Toby, Portbury
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 11:43PM
“Paul, not only is there not a station at Portbury, the railtrack is actually a motorway width and a main road away from the village so why that should affect house prices baffles me. The old station has been a private house for many years and will not be a station again as like it or not the finance is not available for this rail link just as it hasn't been for the past thirty yeras, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future.”
by Paul, St Elsewhere
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 10:40PM
“Well thanks for that insight Pedro, I'm suprised you have time to deliver it seeing as your are doubtless busy generating your own power, growing your own crops, knitting your own clothes so that nothing in your life has any impact on the environment, never been worked on by anyone who lives less than the end of their bed from work and has never seen so much as a square inch of tarmac unless it has been delivered by horse and cart.
Meanwhile back in the real world most people do have to commute to work and/or use the transport infrastructure at some point in their daily lives be that directly or indirectly. Given that as 'Self-employed of Portbury' said Portishead has had chronic traffic problems for years (and why the Planning Authority didnt insist on tougher 'Section 106' agreements that are supposed to mitigate some of the effects of its development over the last decade I dont know) it seems to me that a sensible, sustainable and importantly viable transport link is woefully overdue.”
by John Buckeridge, Bristol
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 10:31PM
“Can't understand why they don't just widen the existing road over the line. Who needs this white elephant train set?”
by Paul, St Elsewhere
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 10:16PM
“Bill.
Ashton Gate was one of the stations on the Portishead line and as far as I know although unused still exists. Other stations/halts on the line which exist or might be sensible to reinstate include Pill, Portbury, Ham Green and Leigh Woods. The line would then join the existing infrastructure at Parson Street.”
by Pedro Mendes, Bristol
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 10:05PM
“Just like to add:
You are not in a traffic jam,
You ARE the traffic jam..
Anyone who complains about being in a traffic jam should themselves realise that they are part of causing the problem themselves...
Selfish landowners who build places like Portishead should be held accountable for the traffic jams, and they themselves should contribute to alleviating the congestion once it inevitably happens..
People are sheep”
by Steve, Bristol
Tuesday, October 19 2010, 9:40PM
“I don't live in portishead, but I've seen the jams. Passenger rail would benefit Portishead, Pill -the lost village-, ashton gate and give people the option of changing at templemeads for Abbeywood, Bath, London. If you could get to the North fringe quicky, less need for M-way traffic as that's where a chunk of those people go.
The fact is, no matter how much you enjoy driving, the A369 is not something to enjoy. It should be law that car adverts should be realistic and you see that pulp fuction actress whining about how its taken 15 minutes to get 0.5 miles closer to the m-way, and that its like that every day.
The rest of Bristol would win too, as there'd be less people trying to get over cumberland bridge, down coronation road, looking for somewhere to park.
The problem is while Bristol council would support it, Cllr Ap Rees, "the councillor for thunderbirds" only cares about Weston, and even there he expects people to commute in by flying machines. He doesn't care about portishead, and won't sign any cheques. Plus we can be reasonably confident the Minister for Roads isn't going to sign any cheques from Whitehall. Pity, this could be good.
For anyone unhappy with the inevitable outcome, there's always the option of changing the council in North Somerset. That's what's needed.
You want a railway line, get ride of Thunderbird four man in Weston.”