Charfield Station - a new station to be built.

[Snow1964]

Though services to Charfield will be, and those to Cam & Dursley remain, hourly until something a bit quicker of the mark arrives to work the trains.

Yes, the other services mentioned (Severn Beach and Westbury) are not exactly half hourly either, they run at uneven intervals, because the underpowered turbos cannot clear the sections quick enough to allow exact half hourly services within scope of infrastructure, signalling, or not affecting other trains.

It is more a second service added in where it fits at the moment, although hopefully now it is agreed as permanent (rather than nearer experimental for 2-3 years), the Bristol area timetable can be properly rewritten rather than the extra trains just slotted in (although these days that seems to be a 3 year minimum process)

 

[edwin_m]

One for the future (we hope) fleet of battery or hybrid units.

 

[The exile]

Yes, the other services mentioned (Severn Beach and Westbury) are not exactly half hourly either, they run at uneven intervals, because the underpowered turbos cannot clear the sections quick enough to allow exact half hourly services within scope of infrastructure, signalling, or not affecting other trains.

It is more a second service added in where it fits at the moment, although hopefully now it is agreed as permanent (rather than nearer experimental for 2-3 years), the Bristol area timetable can be properly rewritten rather than the extra trains just slotted in (although these days that seems to be a 3 year minimum process)

Think it’s a bit harsh to blame it all on Turbo performance when it’s just as much a matter of location of passing loops (Severn Beach line) or other timetabling restraints. As you say, the Bristol area needs a major recast but that’s best done in conjunction with (or preferably just after) the arrival of new stock.

 

[Annetts key]

Think it’s a bit harsh to blame it all on Turbo performance when it’s just as much a matter of location of passing loops (Severn Beach line) or other timetabling restraints. As you say, the Bristol area needs a major recast but that’s best done in conjunction with (or preferably just after) the arrival of new stock.

Off topic - If course, the rationalisation of the infrastructure in 1987/1988 of the line between Avonmouth and Hallen Junction doesn't help. Or the previous rationalisation in the late 1960s/early 1970s between Narroways junction and Avonmouth.

In terms of the Bristol to Gloucester route, the most congested part is between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction.

I'm not sure how best to deal with this limitation of capacity between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction. Adding a relief line for this whole length would be problematic due to the cutting, embankment, viaduct and bridges in this section. There is space for loops at the former Coalpit Heath and Winterbourne stations, but I don't think that would help.

One solution would have been to remove the junction at Westerleigh and provide a new higher speed junction at Coalpit Heath. But due to energy infrastructure in the fields in this area, dealing with this pushes up the costs. Hence Network Rail instead decided to reinforce the embankments leading up to and at Westerleigh junction.

Network Rail have already raised the line speeds where practical (not requiring major works) between Yate and the regional boundary to the north.

 

[The exile]

Off topic - If course, the rationalisation of the infrastructure in 1987/1988 of the line between Avonmouth and Hallen Junction doesn't help. Or the previous rationalisation in the late 1960s/early 1970s between Narroways junction and Avonmouth.

In terms of the Bristol to Gloucester route, the most congested part is between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction.

I'm not sure how best to deal with this limitation of capacity between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction. Adding a relief line for this whole length would be problematic due to the cutting, embankment, viaduct and bridges in this section. There is space for loops at the former Coalpit Heath and Winterbourne stations, but I don't think that would help.

One solution would have been to remove the junction at Westerleigh and provide a new higher speed junction at Coalpit Heath. But due to energy infrastructure in the fields in this area, dealing with this pushes up the costs. Hence Network Rail instead decided to reinforce the embankments leading up to and at Westerleigh junction.

Network Rail have already raised the line speeds where practical (not requiring major works) between Yate and the regional boundary to the north.

AIUI, the reason for the skip stops at Can & Dursley and Charfield is performance rather than capacity / infrastructure - unlike the others.

 

[hvshe]

Is there any reason that the station is placed south of the B4058 outside of the loop, instead of north of it on the Charfield loop? It would be more beneficial to timetable 2tph to let expresses pass while calling, which would allow for more frequent calls at Charfield and Cam & Dursley? I don't see many problems with the car park and drop-off area being a little walk from the platforms?

 

[The Planner]

Is there any reason that the station is placed south of the B4058 outside of the loop, instead of north of it on the Charfield loop? It would be more beneficial to timetable 2tph to let expresses pass while calling, which would allow for more frequent calls at Charfield and Cam & Dursley? I don't see many problems with the car park and drop-off area being a little walk from the platforms?

That assumes the timetable is set up to do that in the first place. You could well end up delaying the stopper for no real reason as well as stopping the loops being used for a freight. You would have to add time on the approach to the loop as the signal at the end of it is going to be at danger as you are going to be overtaken. Its a 4 minute headway down there, so the following train cannot pass until 4 minutes later and you couldn't leave the loop until 2-3 minutes after its passed.

 

[Annetts key]

Is there any reason that the station is placed south of the B4058 outside of the loop, instead of north of it on the Charfield loop? It would be more beneficial to timetable 2tph to let expresses pass while calling, which would allow for more frequent calls at Charfield and Cam & Dursley? I don't see many problems with the car park and drop-off area being a little walk from the platforms?

The new station is being built very near the same location as the previous station, so there are no problems with the land that is required.

The previous station was not located on the loops.

The loops were originally provided only for freight traffic and hence the signalling for them was only provided to the standard for freight.

When the line was relocked (when control passed from Bristol PSB to TVSC) the changes needed for passenger trains to use the loops were made. However, only interlocking changes were made.

Because no signals were moved and no points were moved, in order to provide an overlap beyond the exit signal (as required for passenger trains), the interlocking will keep the exit points locked until a timer has run. This effectively increases the headway needed between a stopping train and a non-stop train by a significant amount, rather reducing the usefulness of using such a loop.

Finally, in order to build a station alongside the loops, the railway may have to purchase additional land. I'm not sure how much unused land is available. There have been houses on one side for many years. And now there is a road and a new housing development on the other side as well.

Below are three views from Google Street View, showing a view of the loops from the road bridge.

From 2009 showing the loops and the boundary fence on the left hand side (up side / west side) with the fields beyond the fence. The railway is lower than the surrounding land here. Hence there is a slope between the fence and the track, with this being quite narrow in width where the up loop line is.


From 2009 showing the loops and the boundary fence on the right hand side (down side / east side) with the houses beyond the fence. Again, the railway is in a cutting at this point. It's more difficult to tell, but again there is not much width of land between the down loop and the fence.


From 2015 showing the loops, the trees and vegetation, and the new houses on the up side / west side.


Now, there may be enough land to build platforms. But because of the location, it would increase the cost of building work.

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .Some nice Brown/Cream signs and totems "a–la" Bradford–On–Avon and Sandplace as has been done on Liskeard–Looe would be nice me thinks!

. . .Or should I say Maroon/Cream or Maroon/White because Bristol–Gloucester was originally the Midland Railway?

. . .Did Charfield get totems prior to closure?

 

[The exile]

. . .Some nice Brown/Cream signs and totems "a–la" Bradford–On–Avon and Sandplace as has been done on Liskeard–Looe would be nice me thinks!

. . .Or should I say Maroon/Cream or Maroon/White because Bristol–Gloucester was originally the Midland Railway?

. . .Did Charfield get totems prior to closure?

Time for an example of LMS house style to put in a (re-)appearance?

 

[edwin_m]

The regional boundary was moved to Blackwell (top of Lickey Incline) at some point - it was certainly there by the 1970s. The GWR had running powers through Charfield as they had no Bristol-Gloucester route of their own. There was a serious accident there in 1928 involving a GWR train backing into the siding (where the loop is now) struck by a LMS train that failed to stop at signals.

At the moment of collision, an up empty (L.M. & S.R.) unfitted freight (3) was travelling in a northerly direction at a speed of about 20 to 25 m.p.h. The engine and about twelve wagons had passed clear of an overbridge north of Charfield Station. A down semi-fitted (G.W.R.) freight train (2) was being slowly propelled off the down main line in a northerly direction into a down lie-by siding. With the exception of all but two of the wagons and the engine and tender, this train had passed clear of the fouling point of the siding with the down main line, the engine at the moment of the collision being under the overbridge. The 10 pm. (Leeds to Bristol) down mail passenger train (1), travelling at high speed in a southerly direction, grazed the two wagons of the Great Western freight train, and struck the right-hand back end of the tender of the engine of that train, with the result that the engine of the mail train was derailed towards the six-foot, and came into contact with the empty wagons of the L.M. & S.R. up train.

Report on the Accident that occurred at Charfield on 13th October 1928 :: The Railways Archive

Archive of UK railways documents

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The regional boundary was moved to Blackwell (top of Lickey Incline) at some point - it was certainly there by the 1970s. The GWR had running powers through Charfield as they had no Bristol-Gloucester route of their own. There was a serious accident there in 1928 involving a GWR train backing into the siding (where the loop is now) struck by a LMS train that failed to stop at signals.

Report on the Accident that occurred at Charfield on 13th October 1928 :: The Railways Archive

Archive of UK railways documents

www.railwaysarchive.co.uk

It became the WR in 1958 when the regions became more geographic and the 'penetrating lines' were sorted out. No idea if it had new totems!

 

[Snow1964]

The plans show the platforms are slightly staggered and 126m long.

South Gloucester Council planning P22/05778

https://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/files/72099D2B787E661AD4E9AD575098863E/pdf/P22_05778_R3F-PROPOSED_GENERAL_ARRANGEMENT-7493891.pdf

At the moment 5car IETs work some local services (130m long) although 158, 165, 166 are the normal stock (5 car formations are 116m, and rare pairs of 3car units 139m)

Rumour has it that Project Churchward trains will be 3car 23-24m for stoppers and 5car 23-24m for regional. No guarantee they will actually be this length when ordered. But clearly if true, a pair of local units on peak hour service would be nearer 142m long.

If there are no 2car units going forward, it will be 3car, 2x3car or regional 5car so why specify platforms which are not consistent with suburban services.

Makes me wonder where the strange platform length of 126m has come from, and if that length will actually be suitable for new trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Makes me wonder where the strange platform length of 126m has come from, and if that length will actually be suitable for new trains.

Looks like it's for the 5-car regional at 24m per car, plus about 5m is allowed for inaccurate stopping.

From Google Maps, Yate platforms look like about 100m and Cam & Dursley is only 50m, so they have more problems than just Charfield if they want to run two local units in multiple.

. . .Some nice Brown/Cream signs and totems "a–la" Bradford–On–Avon and Sandplace as has been done on Liskeard–Looe would be nice me thinks!

. . .Or should I say Maroon/Cream or Maroon/White because Bristol–Gloucester was originally the Midland Railway?

. . .Did Charfield get totems prior to closure?

Time for an example of LMS house style to put in a (re-)appearance?

Not sure how this will go down on what will probably be a basic modern design*. The stations that have been "retro-totemed" tend to be surviving historic ones or modern but heritage-style structures.

*Can't confirm this - the planning link above doesn't work for me and nor does the planning search link on the council website.

 

[zwk500]

Not sure how this will go down on what will probably be a basic modern design*. The stations that have been "retro-totemed" tend to be surviving historic ones or modern but heritage-style structures.

*Can't confirm this - the planning link above doesn't work for me and nor does the planning search link on the council website.

Reference DOC25/00395 has the Signage Schedules, all in the new Rail Alphabet 2 Branding style.

Search option here: https://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple

 

[Melancholia]

From Google Maps, Yate platforms look like about 100m and Cam & Dursley is only 50m, so they have more problems than just Charfield if they want to run two local units in multiple.

Yate Plat 1 (Up) is 105m, Plat 2 (Down) is 103m.
Cam & Dursley both platforms are 104m.

Both stations can take max 4 car DMUs without Selective Door Opening.

 

[The exile]

From Google Maps, Yate platforms look like about 100m and Cam & Dursley is only 50m, so they have more problems than just Charfield if they want to run two local units in multiple.

Can’t see there being any need to run more than 3 cars for the foreseeable future. The 5 car IETs are overkill (except when XC’s up the spout) and are only deployed because there’s nothing else available.

 

[TheLastMinute]

With the advent of GPS/balise based selective door operation on modern stock, I'd imagine that platform length is no longer significant factor beyond station dwell performance.

 

[zwk500]

With the advent of GPS/balise based selective door operation on modern stock, I'd imagine that platform length is no longer significant factor beyond station dwell performance.

It's still quite important for a range of factors. It is good practice to build platforms long enough for your trains if you are able to. Not least because Balises are another thing to maintain, and GPS isn't necessarily accurate enough to tell exactly which track a train is on.

Not to mention that having all doors on the platform just makes everything easier for passengers, and that station dwell overtimes are a significant source of delays.

 

[Snow1964]

Can’t see there being any need to run more than 3 cars for the foreseeable future. The 5 car IETs are overkill (except when XC’s up the spout) and are only deployed because there’s nothing else available.

Having been on some peak hour trains to/from Bristol this week from Westbury line where 3car turbo had middle seats taken and many standing, there are parts of Bristol suburban where 3cars are no longer good enough due to growth.

Does rather create a dilemma for project Churchward new fleet, if going to need 4car local trains on some services, do they buy a mixed fleet if that line only needs 3car units.

 

[jazzy]

I can’t find the video anywhere other than Facebook but here is a video showing the installation of Charfield’s lift shafts, bridge and steps: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17js1fqeyM/?mibextid=wwXIfr
It looks to be a Network Rail video shared by “South Gloucestershire Council StreetCare”.

 

[Snow1964]

Seems to have been some sort of photoshoot with dignitaries at the new Charlfield station, as a number of local news sites carrying an update.

Charfield Station, located in South Gloucestershire, is part of a £41.7 million project funded by the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority.

Operated by GWR, trains will initially run hourly, reaching central Bristol in approximately 32 minutes and Gloucester in just 22 minutes.

For the estimated 14,500 people living within three miles of the station, the new connection will offer a more sustainable way to travel while helping reduce road congestion.

The station - due to open to passengers in spring 2027 - includes a pedestrian footbridge incorporating lifts, a bus stop, cycle parking, and car parking facilities.

Cllr Chris Willmore, South Gloucestershire Council cabinet member for planning, regeneration and infrastructure, said: "It’s exciting to see the new station taking shape.

Latest 'exciting' update on new train station

A LONG-AWAITED awaited railway station is finally coming into view.

www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk

 

[john prytherch]

I’m very pleased that Charfield station is reopening, and that construction is under way, although in my present state of health near the end of this life, I am unlikely to be able to use it.

I wish everyone well with all of the associated or other nearby timetabling and traffic management issues. As Annetts Key pointed out on 11 February, the most congested part of today’s Bristol to Gloucester route is between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction. I don’t think it’s possible to do much about that; the huge popularity and busy-ness of the footpath now on most of the Midland Mangotsfield route makes its reopening as a railway look very difficult. The 1970 (actually December 1969) closure of the Midland route south of Yate left all traffic having to take the GW route, which is two miles five chains longer, and involves the Filton incline and several curves. The only helpful suggestion I can make is to electrify everything, for both local and intercity services and for freight.

 

[The Planner]

I’m very pleased that Charfield station is reopening, and that construction is under way, although in my present state of health near the end of this life, I am unlikely to be able to use it.

I wish everyone well with all of the associated or other nearby timetabling and traffic management issues. As Annetts Key pointed out on 11 February, the most congested part of today’s Bristol to Gloucester route is between Bristol Parkway and Westerleigh junction. I don’t think it’s possible to do much about that; the huge popularity and busy-ness of the footpath now on most of the Midland Mangotsfield route makes its reopening as a railway look very difficult. The 1970 (actually December 1969) closure of the Midland route south of Yate left all traffic having to take the GW route, which is two miles five chains longer, and involves the Filton incline and several curves. The only helpful suggestion I can make is to electrify everything, for both local and intercity services and for freight.

If the stop in being added into the local, it shouldn't be an issue.