Would Cheltenham Spa benefit from a bay platform for trains terminating from Gloucester?

[py_megapixel]

I think this has been discussed but there is no thread about it, so I'll start one.

Currently Cheltenham Spa is a two-platform station with trains arriving from the north from Birmingham or Worcester and heading out to the south west towards Bristol or Gloucester.

With the exception of CrossCountry's Cardiff trains, all services towards Gloucester (the Maesteg and Swindon services) terminate at Cheltenham in the northbound platform, but in order to clear the platform for through services they must then cross both tracks and stop in a siding.

If a bay platform was built on the south side of the existing station, would this increase reliability of services through the station at all (especially considering that they now all have to fit onto the increasingly busy GWML)?

Also, would it allow a half-hourly service to Swindon via Stroud, as been discussed in the past, or would additional work at Gloucester be needed?

 

[30907]

Probably beneficial, if it were long enough for the London trains (now 5car not HST). But Cheltenham isn't that busy by national standards.

 

[PartyOperator]

It was previously proposed and dismissed as unnecessary by Network Rail and First Great Western (some info at the archived link here: https://web.archive.org/web/2015040...form-scheme/story-20551316-detail/story.html#).

Probably beneficial, if it were long enough for the London trains (now 5car not HST). But Cheltenham isn't that busy by national standards.

The station is relatively busy by two-platform standards given the mix of terminating and through services and the terminating trains do occasionally cause delays to XC. Probably not a high priority when set against all the things that can affect these trains in Birmingham though, and there's usually scope for a Voyager to recover some time on the lines between Yate and Bromsgrove.

It would need to be long enough for a 2x5 car or 9 car IET since these do sometimes call - the current platforms were extended to allow the 10 car trains. The direct London/Swindon trains are only hourly and there probably isn't demand for more than this to London since there's now a fairly consistent half-hourly London service if you include the XC/Bristol Parkway option. If there's anything lacking, it's trains to Worcester via Ashchurch, which are currently only once every two hours. In an ideal world, perhaps the TFW services would go on to Worcester or Malvern or a new Swindon-Worcester train would be slotted in. More terminating trains would probably not be a good use of resources.

Edit2: there is an exception to the Swindon/Gloucester trains all terminating at Cheltenham, which is the early and late London via Stroud service which starts/finishes at Worcester Shrub Hill.

 

[coradiafan2000]

Probably beneficial, if it were long enough for the London trains (now 5car not HST). But Cheltenham isn't that busy by national standards.

Nine car 800s were running to Cheltenham last time I was there.

 

[py_megapixel]

Nine car 800s were running to Cheltenham last time I was there.

That route saw some fairly drastic changes on Dec 15th. Beforehand they were 9-car but I'm fairly sure they're at least booked as 5 now. This makes sense as the platforms were extended at Stonehouse and Kemble to accommodate 5 carriages.

 

[coradiafan2000]

That route saw some fairly drastic changes on Dec 15th. Beforehand they were 9-car but I'm fairly sure they're at least booked as 5 now. This makes sense as the platforms were extended at Stonehouse and Kemble to accommodate 5 carriages.

Increasing passenger numbers, and how do TOCs respond? Shorter trains! Hooray!

That being said, I've no clue how busy the Cheltenham to Paddington services are. Are the numbers low enough that five coach trains are more sensible?

On a somewhat related note, did 180s ever work those services? I know they were put on the services to Great Malvern, Worcester and Hereford.

 

[py_megapixel]

Increasing passenger numbers, and how do TOCs respond? Shorter trains! Hooray!

That being said, I've no clue how busy the Cheltenham to Paddington services are. Are the numbers low enough that five coach trains are more sensible?

On a somewhat related note, did 180s ever work those services? I know they were put on the services to Great Malvern, Worcester and Hereford.

The service pattern of that line was a Cheltenham to London 8-car HST (later 9-car IET) every 2 hours, with what was usually a 158 as far as Swindon filling in the gaps to provide Stonehouse, Stroud and Kemble with a roughly hourly service in each direction. This made sense from an operational point of view (I suspect the hourly path east of Swindon "alternated" between Cheltenham and another destination served from London once every 2 hours).

Many passengers on that line are those who use Kemble as a park-and-ride for commutes to London. The number of such passengers over two hours during peak times seems slightly over the seating capacity an HST, but the imbalance in capacity between the two hours led to one half-full HST and one absolutely packed 158 (with passengers connecting on to London at Swindon).

I'm yet to see how the line operates under the new timetable, and if reliability has been impacted by all trains now running through to London, but I suspect that at peak times the IETs have virtually all seats taken but only a few standing.

Most of the off-peak traffic comprises leisure travellers - I believe a number of Stonehouse residents make the one-stop journey to Stroud, which has a wider selection of shops and restaurants, for example - as well as those changing at Cheltenham and Gloucester for other destinations. Capacity was never an issue outside of peak hours, although punctuality wasn't great. There were virtually always at least a few free seats on the shorter trains in the off-peak, and boarding in the right place you could get a whole coach of an HST/IEP to yourself!

I have vague memories that 180s might have been used on additional services timetabled for the Cheltenham races, but I don't recall them ever appearing at other times. I don't know if they were able to stop at Stonehouse before platform extensions.

 

[edwin_m]

The same-platform interchange is helpful for people making connections northwards from the various trains that terminate from the south, and would be lost assuming the bay was on the east side where there is some space (but probably not enough for a 10-car). On the few occasions I've been there the concourse struck me as pretty cramped and it might be difficult making a tight connection at the same time as everyone else who alighted from a terminating train trying to do the same or get out of the station.

 

[TheWalrus]

The Cheltenham-London service has just been increased from 2-hourly to hourly I believe. Previously the alternate path was not used by another destination served every 2 hours.
Yes the 180s were certainly used to Cheltenham many years ago, maybe up until 2007? I think they must have called at Stonehouse; I don’t remember trains not calling there. I think 180s have SDO as they definitely called at short platforms such as Kintbury and Bedwyn.

 

[Mag_seven]

Yes the 180s were certainly used to Cheltenham many years ago, maybe up until 2007? I think they must have called at Stonehouse; I don’t remember trains not calling there. I think 180s have SDO as they definitely called at short platforms such as Kintbury and Bedwyn.

I don't recall Class 180s being used on Paddington to Cheltenham services.

 

[The47Wanderer]

I don't recall Class 180s being used on Paddington to Cheltenham services.

Remember having a ride on one to London in summer '03 from Cheltenham! They were semi-regular operators on the line

 

[TheWalrus]

Remember having a ride on one to London in summer '03 from Cheltenham! They were semi-regular operators on the line

Yes they were, would have been around that time.

 

[SwindonBert]

Can't see this being a starter, need to be long enough to hold the 2x5 trains, as could run on this route. The only space is the car park side, if they remove the building to the South, however, this would take out most of the parking at the station. Would GWR want the inconvenience of very little parking v having this bay?

 

[py_megapixel]

Remember having a ride on one to London in summer '03 from Cheltenham! They were semi-regular operators on the line

That was before I was really using that line at all, so that seems likely.

 

[4141]

Can't see this being a starter, need to be long enough to hold the 2x5 trains, as could run on this route. The only space is the car park side, if they remove the building to the South, however, this would take out most of the parking at the station. Would GWR want the inconvenience of very little parking v having this bay?

I would hazard a guess at definitely not, as they are still finishing off the car park extension over the site of the old Honeybourne line...I'm afraid we're pretty much stuck with it as is. BTW could some signalling expert answer this - I noticed some time ago a new signal at the "London" end - does that relate to Platform 2, and is that line now bi-directional through the station?

 

[Mag_seven]

BTW could some signalling expert answer this - I noticed some time ago a new signal at the "London" end - does that relate to Platform 2, and is that line now bi-directional through the station?

The signal (Signal G48) is a "fixed red" that allows services from the Birmingham direction to be signalled into (from Signal G42) and reverse in Platform 2 to head back north. The signal is needed to prevent drivers from thinking that if routed into platform 2 from the north they can continue on towards Gloucester wrong line.

 

[4141]

The signal (Signal G48) is a "fixed red" that allows services from the Birmingham direction to be signalled into (from Signal G42) and reverse in Platform 2 to head back north. The signal is needed to prevent drivers from thinking that if routed into platform 2 from the north they can continue on towards Gloucester wrong line.

Thanks for that explanation - now it makes sense to a layman like me...as there isn't a crossover Gloucester bound until what? Barnwood?

 

[edwin_m]

Can't see this being a starter, need to be long enough to hold the 2x5 trains, as could run on this route. The only space is the car park side, if they remove the building to the South, however, this would take out most of the parking at the station. Would GWR want the inconvenience of very little parking v having this bay?

The parking area is also used to marshal queues and organize the bus shuttles to the racecourse during the Festival. It seems pretty cramped (though I note someone mentioned an extension) so they probably wouldn't want to lose a big piece of it.