Gloucester Area: Frequency, New Stations and Calling Patterns

[edwin_m]

I hadn't realised that. So the finger of guilt swings back towards BR. Gloucester Council should have had it written into a legal document - but I suppose nobody thought of it, and if they had, nobody at BR would agree to it.

I remember being on a train between the SW and the North (possibly the Plymouth-Manchester) that reversed at Gloucester circa 1977, so it did happen, but I do also remember being on trains that went by non-stop about the same year. If I ever went through Eastgate I was too young to remember it.

 

[4141]

I remember being on a train between the SW and the North (possibly the Plymouth-Manchester) that reversed at Gloucester circa 1977, so it did happen, but I do also remember being on trains that went by non-stop about the same year. If I ever went through Eastgate I was too young to remember it.

After Eastgate closed in 1975, reversal was the norm rather than the exception IIRC, and it was mainly summer Saturday trains which used the avoiding line.

 

[HowardGWR]

Shewing how ancient I am, I've actually crossed from Central to Eastgate on that long footbridge. It could have definitely done with a travelator, never mind a people mover!

The out of town ideas do not give the interchange that Mark's solution offers. Perhaps the southern station is needed as well, served by a resurrection of the Golden Valley service.

 

[Pete_uk]

The large Kingsway area to the south could do with a station. The Swindon to Worcester route could add a few stations with a 'metro' style service in-between the London services

 

[Mintona]

The large Kingsway area to the south could do with a station. The Swindon to Worcester route could add a few stations with a 'metro' style service in-between the London services

Definitely. I’d like to see stations reopened at Quedgeley, Churchdown, Brimscombe and Pirton, as well as reinstating the old line to Hereford via Ross-on-Wye, to try and encourage more rail use in the area. But I won’t hold my breath for any of that to actually happen!

In addition, at some point I’d like to see Standish Junction modified with a flyover so trains from Swindon don’t have to cross on the flat with trains to Bristol. Again, never going to happen.

 

[Western Lord]

In addition, at some point I’d like to see Standish Junction modified with a flyover so trains from Swindon don’t have to cross on the flat with trains to Bristol. Again, never going to happen.

Of course, originally there wasn't a Standish junction, there were parallel double tracks belonging to the GWR and the Midland all the way from Standish to Gloucester.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

OK, so why not alternate stops? But inter-city trains stop at both Wellingborough and Kettering. Of they do for now.

To be fair, the trains that stop at Wellingborough and Kettering don't in general have routes nearly as long Plymouth-Newcastle etc. But to some extent it's going to be a judgement call for each individual situation. To me it would still seem much better for long-distance trains to stop only at Cheltenham, and to ensure there is a sufficiently frequent local service that it becomes reasonably convenient for people in Gloucester to change at either Cheltenham or Bristol Parkway (depending which direction they are heading in). I'm not a fan of alternate stops because that has the effect of reducing frequency at both stops, and often leaving people with a difficult decision of, which station they'd be best going to for the next train.

Is there the capacity, even if the stock were availability?

Probably not. My preference for more local services would require much more infrastructure investment than simply building a parkway station. Seems to me a much better thing to be campaigning for though. The whole corridor from Cheltenham to Bristol seems very badly served by rail at the moment - a classic case of an area that has lots of long-distance trains, but very little provision for local or commuting journeys - despite the railway passing through huge swathes of built up areas, often with no stations anywhere near. And there must surely have a huge amount of suppressed demand for rail travel in the area because of that. Further, the lack of local services also has the impact of pushing short-distance commuters onto long-distance trains that are not designed for commuting, which is clearly not ideal. And it seems to me that that's where the focus for investment should be, not on putting an extra stop in already overcrowded long distance services (though lengthening those Voyagers is badly needed too).

 

[ac6000cw]

Of course, originally there wasn't a Standish junction, there were parallel double tracks belonging to the GWR and the Midland all the way from Standish to Gloucester.

But that just meant that GWR trains crossed over the Midland tracks on the flat in Gloucester instead (to reach the GWR station), albeit in a low-speed area.

 

[Western Lord]

But that just meant that GWR trains crossed over the Midland tracks on the flat in Gloucester instead (to reach the GWR station), albeit in a low-speed area.

No, originally the Midland tracks went into Eastgate and the GW continued north and around the curve to Central. The two lines merged as the Midland came out of Eastgate, where northbound Midland trains going east met northbound GWR trains going west, and continued north around the curve towards Cheltenham. There was no connection between the Midland and the avoiding line (which was GW) so all Midland trains had to go via Eastgate. This was still the case in the early 20th century, as shown on contemporary OS large scale maps, but a junction was put in at Standish to allow northbound Midland trains to access the GW and therefore bypass Gloucester Eastgate, probably during WW1. I would imagine that it was in BR days that the four tracks from Standish were reduced to just the ex Midland tracks and a junction effected between the GWR and Midland northbound, thus allowing trains from Swindon to access Gloucester Eastgate, prior to this all Paddington to Cheltenham trains reversed at Gloucester Central.

 

[edwin_m]

No, originally the Midland tracks went into Eastgate and the GW continued north and around the curve to Central. The two lines merged as the Midland came out of Eastgate, where northbound Midland trains going east met northbound GWR trains going west, and continued north around the curve towards Cheltenham. There was no connection between the Midland and the avoiding line (which was GW) so all Midland trains had to go via Eastgate. This was still the case in the early 20th century, as shown on contemporary OS large scale maps, but a junction was put in at Standish to allow northbound Midland trains to access the GW and therefore bypass Gloucester Eastgate, probably during WW1. I would imagine that it was in BR days that the four tracks from Standish were reduced to just the ex Midland tracks and a junction effected between the GWR and Midland northbound, thus allowing trains from Swindon to access Gloucester Eastgate, prior to this all Paddington to Cheltenham trains reversed at Gloucester Central.

There must however have been crossovers the other way, as the GW didn't have a Gloucester-Bristol route of its own and had to use running powers on the Midland between Standish and Yate.

Interesting trivia - on this four-track section Up was southbound on the GW side and northbound on the Midland side. And at some stage the GW mileage on the avoiding line was replaced by Midland mileage - there is 50 chains "missing" at Tuffley where the Eastgate line used to re-join, to account for the shorter distance via the GW avoiding line. GW mileage re-appears on the south curve at Gloucester Yard Junction and continues through the station and into Wales.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The advantage of that being that it could well bring new customers from the previously mentioned developing areas on that side of the city, who probably wouldn't travel into the city centre to piddle around with people movers. Am I correct in thinking there would be more space for the possibility of platform loops as well?

Yes. This is what I meant to convey - but probably didn't make my point well enough

 

[4141]

Yes. This is what I meant to convey - but probably didn't make my point well enough

No worries, I think we're both in agreement

 

[70014IronDuke]

Shewing how ancient I am, I've actually crossed from Central to Eastgate on that long footbridge. It could have definitely done with a travelator, never mind a people mover!

I don't get all the fuss about the bridge. In my memory, it wasn't much more of a trek than Waterloo to Waterloo East. Of course, if you were an invalid, or loaded with luggage, it would have been a pain, but for able bodied folk, it wasn't any big deal. At least that's how I remember it.

The out of town ideas do not give the interchange that Mark's solution offers. Perhaps the southern station is needed as well, served by a resurrection of the Golden Valley service.

IMO, Mark's ideas are almost always sensible and well thought out. However, in this case, I don't see the big deal with regard to linking any new station on the Bristol line to the old Central station.

The closure of Eastgate was the perfect excuse for BR to later remove the Gloucester stop on long-distance Inter-City SW England-Bristol - Brum - NW/NE trains. Unless you build a new Gloucester chord station and then remove the Cheltenham stop on these trains (highly unlikely, I suggest) how many people will consider changing at the new station to a train at the GWR station?

The purpose of a new station there would be primarily to serve Gloucester, and Gloucester alone. But, given that the city currently has an ok Cardiff - Nottingham service, I would opt for the Gloucester South PArkway station as the better compromise in terms more potential bums (on seats) for your bucks. (I confess, however, this is from an armchair some distance from the area.)

 

[4141]

I don't get all the fuss about the bridge. In my memory, it wasn't much more of a trek than Waterloo to Waterloo East. Of course, if you were an invalid, or loaded with luggage, it would have been a pain, but for able bodied folk, it wasn't any big deal. At least that's how I remember it.

The only real pain was not being quite tall enough to see through the few open windows (I call them windows, but from memory they weren't glazed but just shuttered) - you'd get half way across, hear a distant rumble, and miss something interesting!

Anyway, I digress...

 

[nick.c]

What is the likelihood of a new (Gloucester Parkway)station?

Perhaps I’m too optimistic but personally I think that in the medium term at least there is a very good chance of a new station at Gloucester on the main Bristol to Birmingham line – as that is the only realistic way of significantly improving Gloucester’s rail service.

As a seasoned rail commuter I think that a realistic Gloucester rail service would comprise fast and direct 30-minute interval services to Bristol, Birmingham, London and Cardiff supplemented by hourly semi-fasts to Bristol, Birmingham and Worcester. This would require 11 arrivals / departures per hour and represents only a slight advance on the current 9.5 arrivals / departures currently going through Cheltenham. However, although Cheltenham would easily cope with this slight increase, Gloucester City (currently handling only 5.5 arrivals /departures per hour - if my memory serves me correctly) would be completely swamped. Due to the need to handle reversing trains with longer dwell times and that exit onto different tracks to the ones that they arrived on, it would be necessary to provide additional platforms and also most probably grade separation immediately east of the station. The result would be a horrendously expensive and inefficient mess.

Far better to build a straight-forward station on the main north-south route just one mile east of the existing station.

 

[Charlie M.]

In the next decade, I suspect a new station plan will pop up by the council. Whether it will go through no one knows, but the station will need to be reviewed soon.

You have to also consider the Wales services here. I’d say just near the Morrison’s (behind) would be a perfect place for the station to be. This would link up the Wales line to the BRI-BHM line. One bi-directional platform for Wales and then two(?)* platforms for services in the mainline. Again, this has no realism involved and is just an idea.

* MetroWest might extend to Gloucester which may welcome plans for a bat platforms for the hourly service plus the current two hourly services. Would also provide option to open new stations between Yate and Gloucester.

 

[MarkyT]

IMO, Mark's ideas are almost always sensible

Thanks!

However, in this case, I don't see the big deal with regard to linking any new station on the Bristol line to the old Central station.

The link to Central would be more about linking the new platforms with the city centre and its bus station nearby, effectively to tie the new facility in to be a part of the excellently sited Central. I think few passengers would change trains between the new and existing platforms, but for someone on foot having business in the city centre or using other public transport to get there, the new platforms, despite being over a kilometer away, would be effectively as accessible as those at Central itself.

The closure of Eastgate was the perfect excuse for BR to later remove the Gloucester stop on long-distance Inter-City SW England-Bristol - Brum - NW/NE trains. Unless you build a new Gloucester chord station and then remove the Cheltenham stop on these trains (highly unlikely, I suggest) how many people will consider changing at the new station to a train at the GWR station?

That's the major question and needs to be looked at in conjunction with Worcestershire Parkway a little further north. Just how many stops can an express schedule stand while still being competitive. Skip stops are awkward and can make some journeys difficult or less attractive. As I said above, changing between trains at the different terminals would not be attractive as in most cases other alternatives would exist for that at Cheltenham or Bristol Parkway.

The purpose of a new station there would be primarily to serve Gloucester, and Gloucester alone. But, given that the city currently has an ok Cardiff - Nottingham service, I would opt for the Gloucester South PArkway station as the better compromise in terms more potential bums (on seats) for your bucks. (I confess, however, this is from an armchair some distance from the area.)

Perhaps in addition to my secondary Intercity terminal serving the city center, a South Gloucester station might be useful AS WELL served by stopping trains, and perhaps GW Stroud trains, rather than XC expresses

 

[edwin_m]

If there was a station on the main line at Gloucester, GWR or their successor would look for an excuse to stop their London trains there instead of going into Central and reversing. This might not be good for the city centre.

 

[B&I]

My preference for more local services would require much more infrastructure investment than simply building a parkway station. Seems to me a much better thing to be campaigning for though. The whole corridor from Cheltenham to Bristol seems very badly served by rail at the moment - a classic case of an area that has lots of long-distance trains, but very little provision for local or commuting journeys - despite the railway passing through huge swathes of built up areas, often with no stations anywhere near. And there must surely have a huge amount of suppressed demand for rail travel in the area because of that. Further, the lack of local services also has the impact of pushing short-distance commuters onto long-distance trains that are not designed for commuting, which is clearly not ideal. And it seems to me that that's where the focus for investment should be, not on putting an extra stop in already overcrowded long distance services (though lengthening those Voyagers is badly needed too).

I may have bypass lines on the brain at the moment, but, unless there is capacity for a radical improvement in local services on the existing line, is the ultimate answer a new Bristol - Birmingham high speed line, with a parkway station on the Gloucester-Cheltenham line in the vicinity of the M5 (and stopping as well at Worcestershire Parkway) ? This would enable long-distance serves to be speeded up while still providing some connection to the relevant areas. Local stopping trains could fan out of Bristol, perhaps as far up as Cheltenham, and a semi-fast Bristol-Birmingham service could also continue to call at the central stations.

 

[4141]

I may have bypass lines on the brain at the moment, but, unless there is capacity for a radical improvement in local services on the existing line, is the ultimate answer a new Bristol - Birmingham high speed line, with a parkway station on the Gloucester-Cheltenham line in the vicinity of the M5 (and stopping as well at Worcestershire Parkway) ? This would enable long-distance serves to be speeded up while still providing some connection to the relevant areas. Local stopping trains could fan out of Bristol, perhaps as far up as Cheltenham, and a semi-fast Bristol-Birmingham service could also continue to call at the central stations.

...thereby removing calls from expresses at Cheltenham as well as Gloucester, not to mention exacerbating traffic problems on an already busy M5 and surrounding roads? Yep, a sure fire winner there!

 

[70014IronDuke]

... I'm not a fan of alternate stops because that has the effect of reducing frequency at both stops, and often leaving people with a difficult decision of, which station they'd be best going to for the next train.

As opposed to the current situation - where you have 2 TPH XC to Cheltenham (I think it is?) and nothing to Gloucester most of the day? And this when Gloucester is a bigger city?
With 2 TPH, I really can't see why the travelling public can't cope with alternate stopping patterns.

... My preference for more local services would require much more infrastructure investment than simply building a parkway station. Seems to me a much better thing to be campaigning for though. The whole corridor from Cheltenham to Bristol seems very badly served by rail at the moment - a classic case of an area that has lots of long-distance trains, but very little provision for local or commuting journeys - despite the railway passing through huge swathes of built up areas, often with no stations anywhere near. And there must surely have a huge amount of suppressed demand for rail travel in the area because of that.

I suspect you could be right.
So, if you could work on a -say - a 15-year plan to enhance the route, what do you think would be needed? LEt's assume you have two stoppers Bristol - Cheltenham via Gloucester Central (unless you want to terminate them there?), two XC fasties, and we keep the 1 TPH Worcester/Malvern - Gloucester C - Bristol - (and onwards) as a sort of semi-fast, ie not stopping at all the new stations, and maybe even making them fast from Gloucester or south of a new Gloucester South Parkway.

Where would you put new stations and how many would need to be sited with loops to allow the XC trains to pass the stoppers? Two such stations, perhaps?
It would all be expensive, but radically alter the rail connectivity of the area.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...thereby removing calls from expresses at Cheltenham as well as Gloucester, not to mention exacerbating traffic problems on an already busy M5 and surrounding roads? Yep, a sure fire winner there!

Well, there are always going to be pinch points on any scheme. At least this one would remove some long distance road traffic on the M5, surely?
But it would be hugely expensive, and be met with so many objections it would take a century to overcome them. That is if a serious case could be made for a new HS route in the first place. My feeling is a good 'ol British (and ulitmately expensive) piecemeal approach is, if anything, more likely to evolve - perhaps along the lines of Dynamic Spirit's model, above.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The link to Central would be more about linking the new platforms with the city centre and its bus station nearby, effectively to tie the new facility in to be a part of the excellently sited Central. I think few passengers would change trains between the new and existing platforms, but for someone on foot having business in the city centre or using other public transport to get there, the new platforms, despite being over a kilometer away, would be effectively as accessible as those at Central itself.

OK, I accept there could be a case for this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So, if you could work on a -say - a 15-year plan to enhance the route, what do you think would be needed? LEt's assume you have two stoppers Bristol - Cheltenham via Gloucester Central (unless you want to terminate them there?), two XC fasties, and we keep the 1 TPH Worcester/Malvern - Gloucester C - Bristol - (and onwards) as a sort of semi-fast, ie not stopping at all the new stations, and maybe even making them fast from Gloucester or south of a new Gloucester South Parkway.

Where would you put new stations and how many would need to be sited with loops to allow the XC trains to pass the stoppers? Two such stations, perhaps?
It would all be expensive, but radically alter the rail connectivity of the area.

OK, I'll stick my neck out. I would be envisaging something like this as the ideal network for the area - and the kind of thing we should be aiming for in 15 or so year's time.



In terms of investment, you're looking at 7 new stations, re-opening the southernmost bit of the old Cheltenham-Stratford line, and it would need some capacity enhancements (possibly grade separation and some 4-tracking) of the Bristol-Cheltenham line. Not the sort of thing that's going to happen without a step-change in Government support for the railways

But the point is, in this hypothetical network, I'm not slowing down long distance trains by giving them extra stops. If anything, I'm removing stops from them. But would that really be a problem when this kind of network makes it so easy to get to Cheltenham to change onto the long distance services?

 

[B&I]

...thereby removing calls from expresses at Cheltenham as well as Gloucester, not to mention exacerbating traffic problems on an already busy M5 and surrounding roads? Yep, a sure fire winner there!

And in exchange for your reduced calls on existing expresses, you retain a semi-fast calling at all stations currently served (or more eg Shrub Hill, Gloucester), plus additional local services, which help connections to a high speed line taking you from one end of the country to the other. Everyone else gets to travel from the midlands to the south west in less than 3 weeks

 

[The Planner]

OK, I'll stick my neck out. I would be envisaging something like this as the ideal network for the area - and the kind of thing we should be aiming for in 15 or so year's time.

View attachment 48959

In terms of investment, you're looking at 7 new stations, re-opening the southernmost bit of the old Cheltenham-Stratford line, and it would need some capacity enhancements (possibly grade separation and some 4-tracking) of the Bristol-Cheltenham line. Not the sort of thing that's going to happen without a step-change in Government support for the railways

But the point is, in this hypothetical network, I'm not slowing down long distance trains by giving them extra stops. If anything, I'm removing stops from them. But would that really be a problem when this kind of network makes it so easy to get to Cheltenham to change onto the long distance services?

Needs wholesale resignalling, grade seperation and a rebuild of Cheltenham as you are never getting 10tph through there.

 

[70014IronDuke]

OK, I'll stick my neck out. I would be envisaging something like this as the ideal network for the area - and the kind of thing we should be aiming for in 15 or so year's time.

View attachment 48959

In terms of investment, you're looking at 7 new stations, re-opening the southernmost bit of the old Cheltenham-Stratford line, and it would need some capacity enhancements (possibly grade separation and some 4-tracking) of the Bristol-Cheltenham line. Not the sort of thing that's going to happen without a step-change in Government support for the railways

But the point is, in this hypothetical network, I'm not slowing down long distance trains by giving them extra stops. If anything, I'm removing stops from them. But would that really be a problem when this kind of network makes it so easy to get to Cheltenham to change onto the long distance services?

AH! And interesting plan. I'd misunderstood you: I thought you were advocating all the new stations to be between Gloucester Central and Bristol Parkway.
And it seems novel to me - but maybe others have toyed with something similar? (I just don't know).

Is there still room for four-tracking - with space left over from when it was separate GWR and Midland metals?

Interesting too, you have the GWR expresses to Paddington no longer stopping at Gloucester C ?

 

[HowardGWR]

Bristol to Brum needs to have a genuine inter-city service. The intermediate points (however 'stationed' and I support the MarkyT approach) should have fast services catching up with the very fast one at both ends. Perhaps include Parkway a an inter-city stop, due to its connections role. Indeed an HSL is indicated.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

AH! And interesting plan. I'd misunderstood you: I thought you were advocating all the new stations to be between Gloucester Central and Bristol Parkway.
And it seems novel to me - but maybe others have toyed with something similar? (I just don't know).

Yeah, it's a bit hard to explain without a diagram I've never seen anyone else suggest anything similar. My feeling is that a network like this would easily attract enough passengers to justify its existence. The problem is getting the investment needed to build it in the first place. But who knows... if a local campaigning group got together with that kind of vision, started campaigning, and putting the idea in politicians' minds and on the public agenda....

Is there still room for four-tracking - with space left over from when it was separate GWR and Midland metals?

I don't know. It would need some careful thought about how to run the timetable. One thing I'd consider is grade-separating the Gloucester-by-pass line and using that as a place where long-distance services overtake the via-Gloucester locals. There's also a lot of countryside just north and south of the Gloucester-Cheltenham urban area where I'd imagine 4-tracking would be relatively easy.

Interesting too, you have the GWR expresses to Paddington no longer stopping at Gloucester C ?

Yep. You can quibble about the precise details of my idea, but the principle I'm working to is that you have one interchange station that basically everything stops at, and make sure it's very easy to get to that station from everywhere else in the area. That enables anywhere-to-anywhere-else journeys with a small number of changes. I've removed Gloucester from the Cheltenham-London services because that would speed those services up quite a bit, and with the connections I've put in, removing that stop isn't really going to affect that many people too badly.

To my mind, the calls for having X-Country Voyagers call at a new Gloucester Parkway station comes from a different mindset - where you try to get direct journeys from everywhere to everywhere else - but I don't think trying to do that works as well (because it's ultimately an impossible aim, and trying to do it makes the network too fragile to disruption).

 

[MarkyT]

I can't see heavy rail getting into Cheltenham town centre again. I'd go for a fast people mover shuttle from the current station following the old rail route to somewhere in the St James area.