The latest blow to Portishead’s reopening hopes

After the new government’s axing of Restoring Your Railway funding, will trains ever run along the line to Portishead? Andrew Mourant reports.

In this article:

• Campaigners face setbacks on the Portishead rail link due to rising costs and government funding cuts.
• The project, approved in 2012, would reconnect 50,000 residents but suffers from delays and bureaucratic hurdles.
• Despite progress, a funding gap of at least £35.5m and uncertain political will jeopardize the line's restoration.

Campaigners pushing to restore the passenger rail link between Bristol and Portishead could be forgiven for thinking their mission is cursed, with any sense of certainty about it ever being finished constantly turning into a mirage.

RAIL has long covered its tortuous (tortured, some might say) progress.

When in opposition, Labour made encouraging noises about infrastructure investment being a driver for the economic growth Britain needs.

But soon after taking office, it stumbled upon the infamous ‘£22 billion black hole’.

Thrashing around in all directions for expenditure to cut, it took aim at the Restoring Your Railway fund. And bang… it had gone.

It has proved a late and heavy blow for the Portishead line, which has long been plagued by planning delays and rising costs. Bureaucratic hurdles impeding the progress of railway revivals are notorious, but rarely can a project have endured as many false dawns as this one.

What maddens supporters is that so much is already in place. The working freight line that runs to Royal Portbury Dock, reopened in 2001, covers most of the 8.5-mile route.

“We’re talking about three miles of extra track,” says Alan Matthews, who chairs Portishead Rail Group (PRG).

“An enormous amount of work has already been completed. It’s taken ten years to get this far.”

What many assumed would be the final big hurdle - obtaining a Development Consent Order (which, according to PRG, generated 27,000 pages of supporting documents) - was overcome in November 2022.

The DCO had been submitted in November 2019. The Department for Transport took three years to chew over planning and environmental matters, and compulsory acquisition of land, before finally waving it through.

At last, detailed design work could begin, allowing for construction of a new railway on the trackbed of a former branch line - the disused section between Portishead and Pill.

The DCO also covered associated works from Pill to Ashton Junction along the operational freight line, joining the Bristol to Exeter main line at Parson Street Junction.

Moreover, then-Transport Secretary Mark Harper agreed to plug a funding gap caused largely by red tape.

The endgame would be to devise a final business case that would satisfy the DfT. It was sheer bad luck for Portishead that this was being worked on against a background of sharply rising costs.

Even at the time, North Somerset Council (NSC) Programme Manager James Willcock sounded a warning.

“The main challenge… with the full business case is the unprecedented level of inflation in the construction sector and across supply chains,” he said.

“We [project co-sponsors NSC and West of England Combined Authority] will be mitigating this during design… to identify opportunities for innovation and efficiency to keep the project affordable.”

The anticipated final cost was estimated in March 2022 at £163.26 million.

Early in 2024, NSC and Network Rail were expecting to submit the final business case, relying on Restoring Your Railway funds to plug the funding gap. But while most of the money has been in place for years, it turned out that this final tranche, plus add-ons, had no source beyond the scrapped fund.

In January 2024, DfT had committed a further £15.5m and NSC pledged an extra £10m. Optimism in some quarters remained high, with council leader Mike Bell proudly claiming that Portishead was the first passenger scheme in the country to secure a DCO for reopening a branch line.

“This will make a significant difference to the lives of local people, both now and in the future,” he said.

Few question the need for an alternative to the overcrowded roads.

While improvements such as widening its junction with the M5 have been made to the bottleneck that is the A369 from Portishead (described as the nation’s longest cul-de-sac), buses and cars still get stuck in queues.

The Portishead rail link is part of the wider MetroWest programme focused on Bristol and the surrounding conurbation. With a new station at Pill, it would reconnect 50,000 residents to the rail network. Hourly services connecting Portishead with Bristol Temple Meads would also call at Parson Street and Bedminster.

Plans to reopen this line were approved as long ago as 2012. In 2017, the prospective date opening date was 2020, yet by then the projected cost had already shot up from £70m in 2014 to £116m.

More than a decade of grinding delay has eroded the benefit:cost ratio (BCR).

In 2014, the preliminary business case had appeared rosy, offering high value for money with an estimated BCR of anything between 2.2 and 6.0.

Portishead Rail Group says there are no “fundamental impediments”, and that the project is “commercially sound” and affordable.

But even by 2018 (before the laborious DCO began), costs had soared following a complex environmental assessment, and the need for works along the Avon Gorge.

And RAIL reported in 2022 that when last assessed, the scheme was forecast to have a BCR “greater than 1.5:1”, representing “medium value for money”.

Politics, as much as economics, has now become the scheme’s enemy, and delays in submitting a final business case have brought unforeseen consequences.

Rishi Sunak’s decision in May to call a snap General Election put everything on hold, with ‘purdah’ paralysing the process of decision-making. Even so, it was hard to imagine that there would be much to fear from a Labour victory, given the party’s promises to boost infrastructure spending.

Newly elected North Somerset Labour MP Sadik Al-Hassan is lobbying for the Portishead line to survive: “I think it’s a vital infrastructure project - one we have to deliver.”

In September, he presented a petition to Parliament signed by more than 5,600 people, stating that reopening is needed to reduce traffic congestion, to reduce CO2 emissions, and to encourage economic growth in Portishead and greater Bristol.

Petitioners urged government to recognise the level of work already completed and the amount of public money invested, and to ensure that the financial shortfall is covered by central funding.

Al-Hassan has been talking to ministers including Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones, whose constituency is in Bristol.

He met Haigh shortly before the summer recess “to discuss the importance of this line - the important thing is to have the right conversations with the right people at the right time,” he tells RailReview.

Labour Metro Mayor Dan Norris, now also MP for North-East Somerset having ousted Jacob Rees-Mogg, is also pressing the case.

Some campaigners took heart from a recent Parliamentary exchange which suggested that the proposed reopening of Wellington station (also dealt a blow by the scrapping of the Restoring Your Railway fund) appears to be safe.

During a Commons debate in July, Taunton and Wellington Lib Dem MP Gideon Amos asked Chancellor Rachel Reeves whether Wellington, which has GRIP (governance for railway investment projects) Stage 4 approval, would proceed.

Reeves responded: “I assure him that projects that have already started… will go ahead.”

Meanwhile, Haigh has said she’ll work quickly to make recommendations about current and future schemes.

As PRG’s Alan Matthews points out, the Portishead line has travelled further than Wellington along the bumpy track: “It was about to go to GRIP 6 - it got to GRIP 4 in 2019.”

That timeline underlines the tangle of delay. The project is so advanced that ditching it would seem deeply perverse, and a shocking waste of £32m already spent. And yet, even now, it remains shrouded by complexity and unanswered questions.

Take, for example, the final cost and funding gap. It’s likely that these may not yet be fully known, but it’s also impossible to get a clear picture of what they might run to.

The last figure mentioned publicly for the shortfall was £35.5m. But one source close to the project suggests the gap may have hit £65m, adding that “committed funding isn’t the same as spent funding”.

North Somerset Council wouldn’t be drawn. “We haven't yet published a final revised cost. All I can say is that the funding gap is a lot less than £60m,” Willcock tells RailReview.

Submitting the final business case has become a saga in itself. Network Rail, which as designer is a partner in the scheme, says “an overview” of the case has been presented to the DfT including benefit:cost ratios, deliverability, and potential dates for key milestones, “with the caveat that these will be affected by the date by which funding is available for the scheme”.

Note: this is not the full final business case, but another hoop through which the scheme must pass “to inform the spending review submission which the Secretary of State has initiated for all transport schemes”.

However, drafts of the full case are “being shared with DfT to minimise time, should Network Rail be given the green light to proceed”.

Al-Hassan has seen some of the case. He didn’t reveal details, but he suggests that its benefit:cost ratio estimates are “conservative”, adding: “I understand why, but I think this rail link provides excellent value for money.”

Of course, there are the precedents of other restored lines such as Okehampton, Ebbw Vale and Borders, where demand has far outstripped expectations.

It’s reasonable to assume that the Portishead line would not only take commuters off the road, but also attract visitors to the leisure area around the marina, as well as those wishing to walk the Severn Estuary coastal path.

Meanwhile, NR says the detailed design stage is nearing completion - “a major progress milestone” which will feed into its final submission.

Key issues include strengthening overbridges and underbridges, as well as upgrading track and signalling on the freight line.

Overgrown vegetation and trees on the three-mile disused stretch must be managed “in line with environmental guidelines”, and ecology work done to protect bats, dormice and other wildlife.

“Complex” utility diversion work, involving Wessex Water and BT, will also be needed.

PRG says extra expense has been incurred because improvements are needed to the freight line, which “was put down cheaply - the drainage wasn’t very good”.

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the spec for new stations at Pill and Portishead was scaled back to save money. Platforms will accommodate three cars rather than the five originally intended to serve the line, although the design can accommodate them being extended if needed.

The stations will have a canopy, seating, glazed windscreen, ticket machines, lighting, PA system, information boards and displays… but no toilets.

One group at least is happy with recent developments at the site. Avon Valley Heritage Railway (AVHR), a three-mile line east of Bristol linking Oldland Common with Avon riverside, recently inherited old track removed from the stretch between Portishead and the Pill junction.

This will need replacing for the new line to meet current railway standards, but it can still be used on heritage railways. AVHR will use the track mainly in its yard at Bitton, but also for renewals.

With no hint of a final decision date, the best bet seems to be for all parties concerned to stick to those with the clout to make things happen.

“The delivery partners [North Somerset Council, West of England Combined Authority, Network Rail and Great Western Railway] are working very closely with the DfT,” says NSC’s Willcock.

“The project is still fighting for its future and there’s everything to play for. But some people are still challenging it, claiming it’s a waste of money - which clearly it isn’t.” (Some councillors and officers have long campaigned, despite the practical difficulties, for a cheaper dedicated bus route instead).

Al-Hassan believes he has made “a good case across government. But my worry is that if I push for a quick decision, it won’t be one I like. Let’s see what happens.”

For Portishead Rail Group, which in the past regularly met the MetroWest team and has been campaigning with several local MPs, the angst is palpable.

The group believes the line has always had a “very strong” business case, although it hasn’t been party to the latest calculations.

“It’s so frustrating that after ten years, and with £32m spent, we’re one step forward and two back,” says Matthews.

“We’re just a spade’s width from getting shovels in the ground.”