Gloucester Area: Frequency, New Stations and Calling Patterns

[ChiefPlanner]

I trust you - when the Operation Princess service change plan was made , all flows from affected stations were carefully considered - Gloucester was given the service accordingly - hourly Bristol / Cardiff / Swindon and some extra Paddington services. A package of 158's drafted into Wessex - Brum services rerouted from Worcester to run Cardiff to Nottingham via New Street. Mostly clockface....

 

[Western Lord]

Crazy how people equate population with demand and rail service. Not all places are equal, not all people are equal - in terms of travel patterns, wealthy, employment patterns/sectors and so on. A highly populated slum does not need the same outbound rail service, and nor does it have as many visitors. I am not saying Gloucuester is a slum here - but making the point that high/dense population doesn't mean demand, eg Sunderland, Bradford, Portsmouth...

Cheltenham has much higher demand, healthier economy and a more popular place to visit for business and leisure, and that should be nurtured and developed further. Nobody is saying to close Gloucester down, but it is clearly the junior partner here. Additional services could be fast from Swindon to Cheltenham and continue to become the main Worcester service.

Also, the antiquated differentials of city vs town status are totally irrelevant.

The thread is getting even more hilarious.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

All of the suggestions on here are implying that it is terribly important to shave a few minutes off of the last leg of the journey for the benefit of however many passengers from London are left on the train for it's last leg. These trains are not "London to Cheltenham" trains, they are "London to Gloucester and Cheltenham" trains and serving Gloucester is as important, if not more so, than serving Cheltenham.

Firstly, you seem to be continually ignoring the point that all the suggestions to speed them up involve stopping them at a new Gloucester Parkway station. So people are not ignoring Gloucester, and there's no need to keep posting as if people are.

Secondly, I think it's misleading to say 'a few minutes'. Precisely how much time could be saved by avoiding the Gloucester reversal is a bit hard to tell exactly, but so far as I can see, it looks like typically between 10 and 15 minutes. That's a lot more than 'a few minutes' and is very significant.

Let's look at these high-speed intercity trains... They typically take
1 hour to travel the 80-ish miles London-Swindon
35 minutes to travel the 30 miles Swindon-Stonehouse
40 minutes-ish to travel the roughly 17 miles Stonehouse-Cheltenham (approx 30 minutes the other way)

Now I'm well aware that you need provision for people travelling to Gloucester. But at the same time, if you can't see that there's a big problem with those journey times for the last bit of the journey, then I really don't know what to say. If those trains stopped instead at a Gloucester Parkway AND there were good frequent connections to Gloucester (central) - which is what I've been arguing for, then not only would that problem be solved, but Gloucester would end up with a BETTER overall train service for the vast majority of people who want to travel within the area (as opposed to the minority going all the way to London etc. - and even of those people, the ones who live in the South of the city, may find the service to London becomes more convenient)

 

[70014IronDuke]

Crazy how people equate population with demand and rail service. Not all places are equal, not all people are equal - in terms of travel patterns, wealthy, employment patterns/sectors and so on. A highly populated slum does not need the same outbound rail service, and nor does it have as many visitors. I am not saying Gloucuester is a slum here - but making the point that high/dense population doesn't mean demand, eg Sunderland, Bradford, Portsmouth...

One might answer that it is "crazy" how some people compare the station usage of settlement A, popn 110,000 - 120,000 which has a variety of trains to London, Cardiff, Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham, to the station usage of settlement B, which has more or less the same population as A, more or less the same train service as A, except that, in addition, it has TWO high-quality XC services PER HOUR to many of the most important population centres of the UK, notably Sheffield, Manchester, Leeds, Tyneside, Edinburgh & Exeter/Plymouth.

Cheltenham has much higher demand, healthier economy and a more popular place to visit for business and leisure, and that should be nurtured and developed further.

Of course, Cheltenham (aka as settlement B) has "much higher demand" under the circumstances as they are today. And nobody is saying that services should not be "nurtured and developed further".

What the OP was suggesting, AIUI, is that more importantly, a little more "nurturing and developing" should be given to Gloucester first, because it's been treated shabbily in the past.

And this relatively poor treatment has little or nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of the two populations, and is more or less down to an accident of geography-history (ie the location and subsequent layout of Gloucester Central station, caused by the GWR needing to build a line from Swindon to S Wales prior to the Severn Tunnel) and BR's determination to cut costs in the 1970s which led to the closure of Gloucester Eastgate and subsequent loss of Gloucester as a stop on what became XC services.

If, by chance, the station layout at Cheltenham vs that of Gloucester had not suited BR's 1970 goals, then today it could be Cheltenham citizens who would be complaining of a second class service vis-a-vis Gloucester.

The OP's thesis is that there is significant potential for further sustainable passenger growth to/from Gloucester, because this has been depressed by the lack of stops on the XC route. That begs the question, how to tap into that? As has been suggested, you could:

1) start reversing more of the current XC services at Central. (I suggest most believe that won't happen)

2) build a new "parkway" station where XC trains could stop without reversal
2a) north of Gloucester, around Elmbridge
2b) on the triangle just east of Central - Gloucester MarkyT station
2c) to the south of the city, somewhere in the Quedgely-Lower Tuffley area, well connected to the A38-M5 roads.

I think each of the above has its merits. But, as soon as some form of suggestion 2 was mooted, others pointed out that the next move would be dropping Gloucester Central from Cheltenham-Paddington trains (in a kind of repeat of the Eastgate closure disaster). Which would, I suggest, definitely happen.

 

[The Planner]

Secondly, I think it's misleading to say 'a few minutes'. Precisely how much time could be saved by avoiding the Gloucester reversal is a bit hard to tell exactly, but so far as I can see, it looks like typically between 10 and 15 minutes. That's a lot more than 'a few minutes' and is very significant.

Easy enough to look, find any HST that does Gloucester in Realtime trains. 1L28 has a penalty of 12 minutes for going into Gloucester, minus the minute it takes for Barnwood Jn to Gloucester Yard Jn if avoiding, so 11 minutes.

 

[Western Lord]

Firstly, you seem to be continually ignoring the point that all the suggestions to speed them up involve stopping them at a new Gloucester Parkway station. So people are not ignoring Gloucester, and there's no need to keep posting as if people are.

Secondly, I think it's misleading to say 'a few minutes'. Precisely how much time could be saved by avoiding the Gloucester reversal is a bit hard to tell exactly, but so far as I can see, it looks like typically between 10 and 15 minutes. That's a lot more than 'a few minutes' and is very significant.

Let's look at these high-speed intercity trains... They typically take
1 hour to travel the 80-ish miles London-Swindon
35 minutes to travel the 30 miles Swindon-Stonehouse
40 minutes-ish to travel the roughly 17 miles Stonehouse-Cheltenham (approx 30 minutes the other way)

Now I'm well aware that you need provision for people travelling to Gloucester. But at the same time, if you can't see that there's a big problem with those journey times for the last bit of the journey, then I really don't know what to say. If those trains stopped instead at a Gloucester Parkway AND there were good frequent connections to Gloucester (central) - which is what I've been arguing for, then not only would that problem be solved, but Gloucester would end up with a BETTER overall train service for the vast majority of people who want to travel within the area (as opposed to the minority going all the way to London etc. - and even of those people, the ones who live in the South of the city, may find the service to London becomes more convenient)

Do you seriously believe that if trains from Cheltenham to London were ten minutes quicker that there would be a massive increase in passengers? I'm sorry I don't believe it, but I do believe that dumping Gloucester passengers at an out of the way "Parkway" station would be a disincentive to travel to Gloucester. Without the Gloucester passengers there would be no economic case for trains from London to Cheltenham (if indeed there is one now). People should realise that London to Cheltenham is not an express route, beyond Swindon it serves as a local service and so a few minutes here or there are irrelevant.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I can't remember off hand but didn't the proposed Dec 17 / May 18 CrossCountry timetable have the Manchester to Bristol (what would be Exeter) services serving Gloucester as a rule of thumb? Probably the most sensible immediate solution to the problem and certainly a surer bet than any new stations or light rail / stagecoach / unicycle connections to such proposed places.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I will say it again ..any options need a hard look at the actual (and foreseen flows / markets)

This was done for the 2002 shufflings ,and probably needs to be done again. Gap analysis , then some good timetablng and resource matching.

 

[mds86]

I trust you - when the Operation Princess service change plan was made , all flows from affected stations were carefully considered - Gloucester was given the service accordingly - hourly Bristol / Cardiff / Swindon and some extra Paddington services. A package of 158's drafted into Wessex - Brum services rerouted from Worcester to run Cardiff to Nottingham via New Street. Mostly clockface....

I thought Operation Princess was only part of the reorganisation of Cross Country trains and therefore didn't include Paddington services to Gloucester? I seem to remember Gloucester (and Cheltenham) each generally had 1 northbound and 1 southbound train every 2 hours with services calling at one but not the other in the early to mid 2000s. There was talk more recently from XC of stopping some of their Manchester - Bristol/Exeter services at Gloucester. Whether this will come to fruition or not will probably depend on a number of their other proposals in their consultation being met such as the removal of Paignton and Aberdeen services.

As someone who lives in Gloucester, I know removing the Paddington trains from calling at the central station would inconvenience a good number of people from the west and north west of the city who drive in to park at the station. Forcing them to travel further through the city centre is only going to make travelling by train more unattractive. The central station is well placed for access to the city centre, with the quays around a 20 - 25 min walk. A large number of apartments and student accommodation is also in the process of being built in the city centre whose residents generally rely on public transport more than detached home owners in the suburbs. The bus station is also across the road from the central station, with good regional links to a lot of places around the county and the neighbouring ones. Removing this connectivity would rank with the worst examples of public transport planning. And I'm pretty sure Gloucester is now more popular with tourists than Cheltenham. Gloucester cathedral certainly records the most visitor numbers in the county every year.

If, by chance, the station layout at Cheltenham vs that of Gloucester had not suited BR's 1970 goals, then today it could be Cheltenham citizens who would be complaining of a second class service vis-a-vis Gloucester.

I too had a feeling BR had as much a part in closing Gloucester Eastgate as the city council. BR wanted to reduce operating costs and could do so with a redeveloped central station that could accommodate 2 HSTs at the same time, while the Eastgate station and loop could be removed - including 3 or 4 level crossings which brought the city centre to a standstill as car ownership boomed. The city council thought it could help reduce congestion whilst at the same time BR told them they would still receive all or most of their current services at the time.

Network Rail have already ruled out providing a station on the triangle as being hugely expensive due to the complex trackwork and signalling in the area that would need modifying. I thought this was originally the city council's first choice location before the costs came to light. Hence they were happy to allow the land to be redeveloped. Then the Gloucestershire Parkway station and P&R at Elmbridge Court were suggested but that didn't gain anywhere near enough support with Government funding. So the council then went back to trying to improve the current station with a new ticket office, new car park behind platform 4, the lobbying of additional services from XC and the old car park/forecourt is planned to be redeveloped in the near future.

To my mind, this only leaves the option of a new station in the Kingsway/Hunts Groove area off Naas Lane (which I believe space was safe-guarded in the county council's local development plans). A station here would be much simpler (plain twin track) and would serve a different catchment to the central one which is why I think both are sustainable. The M5 is minutes away, and the Stroud valleys would have a quicker connection to the XC network than travelling to Cheltenham (currently on services via Gloucester) for the north or Bristol Parkway for the south. The problem for Gloucester city council is that this land is part of Stroud district council and they have their own ambitions for a reopened station at Stonehouse Bristol Road further south on the Birmingham - Bristol line.

In general, people will take direct services over ones that involve changes unless there is a large benefit from making the change such as a time saving. To appease those wanting Cheltenham to have a quicker service at the expense of the centre of Gloucester, the Paddington services could call at a Gloucester South Parkway, then Gloucester Central and Cheltenham Spa to keep direct services to all locations. A XC service could then call at Gloucester South Parkway minutes after the Paddington service, loop it whilst its in Central and call at Cheltenham 5 mins ahead of it.

 

[Charlie M.]

As this topic is about all of the GCR area, would you think that MetroWest would extent towards Gloucester/Westbury? If so would a new platform be required?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I trust you - when the Operation Princess service change plan was made , all flows from affected stations were carefully considered - Gloucester was given the service accordingly - hourly Bristol / Cardiff / Swindon and some extra Paddington services. A package of 158's drafted into Wessex - Brum services rerouted from Worcester to run Cardiff to Nottingham via New Street. Mostly clockface....
I thought Operation Princess was only part of the reorganisation of Cross Country trains and therefore didn't include Paddington services to Gloucester? I seem to remember Gloucester (and Cheltenham) each generally had 1 northbound and 1 southbound train every 2 hours with services calling at one but not the other in the early to mid 2000s. There was talk more recently from XC of stopping some of their Manchester - Bristol/Exeter services at Gloucester. Whether this will come to fruition or not will probably depend on a number of their other proposals in their consultation being met such as the removal of Paignton and Aberdeen services.

There were careful and complicated options worked out - packaged as "The Gloucester Hub" , some of the issues involved complicated rolling stock swops - 2 x 158 off Wales and Borders replaced by 3 x 143's , the cascade of the moth ridden and grubby ex XC 158 sets to Wessex ,and a pile of kitchen table homework by great train planners to nail down the changes. As GW were in need of some penance - the adding in of some extra Paddington services were reasonably straightforward. With some great trepidation , when it was running , I went to Gloucester PSB to get some feedback from the signallers about if it was OK and could we further improve it, to be warmly welcomed and comments like "best thing we have had for ages" .

Gloucester also got some extra traincrew jobs - a decent number and an extra Train Crew Supervisor. So they were not "shafted" as the local politicans seemed to think. The input of then Central Trains on the Cardiff - Glos - Bham - Nottingham was excellent , and that involved some caring discussions with Worcester area traincrew supervisors. Sounds harsh , but the taking out of some of the complex XC services and knock-on elsewhere both improved overall performance and increased revenue. Both in the style of "plan , do , moniter , review" were done. Along with all the other changes nationwide.

 

[jayah]

Do you seriously believe that if trains from Cheltenham to London were ten minutes quicker that there would be a massive increase in passengers? I'm sorry I don't believe it, but I do believe that dumping Gloucester passengers at an out of the way "Parkway" station would be a disincentive to travel to Gloucester. Without the Gloucester passengers there would be no economic case for trains from London to Cheltenham (if indeed there is one now). People should realise that London to Cheltenham is not an express route, beyond Swindon it serves as a local service and so a few minutes here or there are irrelevant.

They would neither be dumped nor out of town. A high frequency people mover would be needed to make the transfer seamless.
As for the effect of a pretty significant chunk of time, have you read the HS2 business case or those for major rail upgrades? Value of time saved is a key benefit in the BCR calculation, as are increased fare revenues from the improved service. 11min on 2hr must be up there with the improvements gained from WCRM.

 

[w1bbl3]

Network Rail have already ruled out providing a station on the triangle as being hugely expensive due to the complex trackwork and signalling in the area that would need modifying. I thought this was originally the city council's first choice location before the costs came to light. Hence they were happy to allow the land to be redeveloped. Then the Gloucestershire Parkway station and P&R at Elmbridge Court were suggested but that didn't gain anywhere near enough support with Government funding.

The council in their wisdom never actually safeguarded the proposed Elmbridge Court site and the local plan has it as a mixture of amenity and commercial not impossible to revive but difficult as the estate developer could seek to build on the location.

To my mind, this only leaves the option of a new station in the Kingsway/Hunts Groove area off Naas Lane (which I believe space was safe-guarded in the county council's local development plans). A station here would be much simpler (plain twin track) and would serve a different catchment to the central one which is why I think both are sustainable.

The Gloucester county local plan safe guarded site is actually behind the Waterwells housing development and still safeguarded however the estate road network isn't suitable to serve a "parkway" type station Hixton walk would be the access road which has been constructed as planned as a minor estate road not a thoroughfare.
Stroud DC have a different safeguarded site off Naas lane which would have road access by extending Waterwells drive, the road extension route to the station site is also safeguarded. The discrepancy in the county and district regional plans does highlight a potential problem for the councils should a developer wish to use the safe guarded site for something else. These type of discrepancies are generally how particularly good planning consultants can gain permission for all sorts of out of character oddities.

The problem for Gloucester city council is that this land is part of Stroud district council and they have their own ambitions for a reopened station at Stonehouse Bristol Road further south on the Birmingham - Bristol line.

Whilst Stroud DC do have ambitions for reopening Stonehouse Bristol Rd I'm not sure that the safeguarded location is actually suitable for new station with the current track alignment as oldens side of line is fully developed upto the network rail boundary fence so fitting in a platform and overbridge would be a challenge. It may have been better to safeguard a location further up Oldens Rd within the Robert Hitchens lead stonehouse "north" / newtown development as I do suspect that contribution towards the cost could have extracted from the developer as part of the planning permission. However that ship has long since sailed.

I would expect over time a new Gloucester "parkway" at either Naas lane or Elmbridge to result in express services no longer serving Gloucester Central with the local stoppers being left to serve central.

 

[MarkyT]

Network Rail have already ruled out providing a station on the triangle as being hugely expensive due to the complex trackwork and signalling in the area that would need modifying.

I struggle with that statement. Adding a pair of side platforms on the fast tracks near the Metz Way bridge looks fairly straightforward to me. You would have to remove a couple of sidings from the yard for the northbound platform, but that's just recoveries as far as track and signalling is concerned, not major new conceptual design. Otherwise the signals look in the right places for such platforms. A more complex multiplatform station to completely replace Central would be much more of a challenge on the site clearly, but my suggestion of just a couple of additional 'satellite' platforms supplementing the central terminal and linked via a fast frequent and reliable transit link looks highly feasible from a technical perspective. There may be other reasons NR might not be keen on such a site. Property issues, local authority preferences etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I struggle with that statement. Adding a pair of side platforms on the fast tracks near the Metz Way bridge looks fairly straightforward to me. You would have to remove a couple of sidings from the yard for the northbound platform, but that's just recoveries as far as track and signalling is concerned, not major new conceptual design. Otherwise the signals look in the right places for such platforms. A more complex multiplatform station to completely replace Central would be much more of a challenge on the site clearly, but my suggestion of just a couple of additional 'satellite' platforms supplementing the central terminal and linked via a fast frequent and reliable transit link looks highly feasible from a technical perspective. There may be other reasons NR might not be keen on such a site. Property issues, local authority preferences etc.

Reasons I can think of for being reluctant to build it are...

• Putting platforms 1km apart and providing a fast transport link between them is simply something isn't really done in the UK. As such it would be - by UK standards - rather experimental. And a fast-transport link that is basically virtually unique in the UK (Luton Airport is the only comparable one I can think of) is not going to come cheap.
• If you did put platforms there, what would stop there? It seems very unlikely that NR or XC would want to stop the long-distance XC trains when it's so close to an existing stop - and these are, after all, long-distance trains, not commuter trains. And there's nothing else that runs along that bit of track. The only possibilities that leaves are the London-Cheltenham trains and the Worcester-Bristol-wherever ones: Having them stop on the main line instead of reversing. That will undoubtedly save a fair bit of journey time and some conflicting moves (but at the possible cost of losing an opportunity for XC trains to overtake them), but that alone doesn't seem proportionate to the cost of such a scheme. You'd also have to contend with a political cost: Even with your proposed fast transport link, there would undoubtedly be big howls of protest about those trains no longer directly serving Gloucester central.

 

[Western Lord]

They would neither be dumped nor out of town. A high frequency people mover would be needed to make the transfer seamless.
As for the effect of a pretty significant chunk of time, have you read the HS2 business case or those for major rail upgrades? Value of time saved is a key benefit in the BCR calculation, as are increased fare revenues from the improved service. 11min on 2hr must be up there with the improvements gained from WCRM.

To equate London to Cheltenham with HS2 is just absurd. In any case the justification for HS2 has very much moved from speed to capacity enhancement. I repeat the service between Swindon and Cheltenham is a local one, not an inter city express. If Aunt Nellie in Stroud wants to go shopping in Gloucester this is the service she uses, she does not want to be having to make a change to a mythical "people mover" at an off centre station. Cheltenham has through trains to London because there is sufficient traffic from London to Reading and Swindon to justify the paths on the main line, after which the trains take over the role previously played by the connecting DMUs. Outright speed to Cheltenham is simply not a factor and why some people seem to be obsessed with it, as if Cheltenham is the hub of the universe, is beyond me. This speed up would benefit only those relatively few passenger on the last leg of the run from London, at the expense of inconveniencing all passengers to and from Gloucester from London and intermediate points. The Cheltenham obsessees on here are perfectly free to set up "Cheltenham Flyer Enterprises Ltd." and apply for open access rights to run non stop fast trains to London. Good luck making the sums work.
My solution is to rename Gloucester Central to "Gloucester Central and Cheltenham Parkway", turn around the London trains there (which would improve utilisation of expensive IEP trains) and take the Cheltenham passengers on by "people mover", a Class 153 should suffice for most of the day.

 

[MarkyT]

Putting platforms 1km apart and providing a fast transport link between them is simply something isn't really done in the UK. As such it would be - by UK standards - rather experimental. And a fast-transport link that is basically virtually unique in the UK (Luton Airport is the only comparable one I can think of) is not going to come cheap.

"We simply don't do that in the UK" is not a good argument. Conceptually I'm talking about something that from a user perspective is no more complex than using a lift, so I don't see any push back from the customer for something like that as long as its fast, frequent and reliable. Other airports in UK have various types of APM: Birmingham, its cable hauled system; Gatwick, Stransted and Heathrow, their electric powered variants. Heathrow also has its autonomous Utra parking shuttle, now powered by hybrid battery/supercapacitor packs that can recharge sufficiently for a trip in around 30 seconds during a normal traffic stop. There are other initiatives such as the Warwick Univerity autonomous very light rail concept. This is a range of fast developing technologies that should get progressively cheaper in the future, leveraging motor industry autonomy and safety techniques. Even conventional tram vehicles are getting LIDAR obstacle detection and avoidance systems based on kit developed for autonomous cars. Perhaps this is a way for the railway to exploit technologies that some see only as an existential threat to conventional public transport. Linking stations and platform groups over moderate distances like this to create better interchange and town centre link possibilities is a new paradigm that could be a more affordable solution than major track alignment changes to achieve similar aims. Viable links could thus be made that would be beyond normal acceptable walking distances. Airports and metro interchanges also commonly create links using moving walkways, and these have benefits for shorter links, having no wait time, but a 1km travelator link would have to be in multiple sections and would be comparatively slow, so would likely not be suitable for Gloucester. Although APMs have a wait time clearly, the journey time saving over a travelator link makes them more attractive over longer distances.

If you did put platforms there, what would stop there? It seems very unlikely that NR or XC would want to stop the long-distance XC trains when it's so close to an existing stop - and these are, after all, long-distance trains, not commuter trains. And there's nothing else that runs along that bit of track. The only possibilities that leaves are the London-Cheltenham trains and the Worcester-Bristol-wherever ones: Having them stop on the main line instead of reversing. That will undoubtedly save a fair bit of journey time and some conflicting moves (but at the possible cost of losing an opportunity for XC trains to overtake them), but that alone doesn't seem proportionate to the cost of such a scheme. You'd also have to contend with a political cost: Even with your proposed fast transport link, there would undoubtedly be big howls of protest about those trains no longer directly serving Gloucester central.

If you look at my diagram: http://www.townend.me/files/gloucester.pdf I suggest GWR London - Cheltenham and XC Birmingham - Bristol trains call at the new platforms, with GWR Bristol - Worcester going via Central platforms and reversing, so creating an overtaking opportunity. XC Birmingham - Cardiff services and any additional terminating stopping services from Wales would also use platforms at Central. I don't think stopping XC expresses twice within such a short distance is such a big deal. They do that after all in Bristol. The big disadvantage of calling at Gloucester today is the slow approach and departure via the junctions and curves, combined with reversing, which seems to add up to 11 minutes to the journey compared to a non-stop. A stop on the direct line could probably bring down the penalty to 5 minutes or less. Saving time on the London - Cheltenham service may not bring vast numbers of new Cheltenham passengers, but shorter journey segments can also bring benefits for stock and crew utilisation. That can improve the case for expanded services as the new margin can be used for longer turn-back layovers for reliability or in some cases might allow more round trips to be made with a given fleet size, or statutory staff breaks to be more easily accommodated. The people mover makes calling at these new East Terminal platforms practically as convenient as serving Central itself for those who want access to the city centre as well as those connecting with local public transport. The new terminal also provides significant parkway potential with access directly onto the A38. The immediate surrounding area also has tremendous commercial development potential with an intercity station and a direct link into the city centre via the peoplemover.

 

[4141]

"We simply don't do that in the UK" is not a good argument. Conceptually I'm talking about something that from a user perspective is no more complex than using a lift, so I don't see any push back from the customer for something like that as long as its fast, frequent and reliable. Other airports in UK have various types of APM: Birmingham, its cable hauled system; Gatwick, Stransted and Heathrow, their electric powered variants. Heathrow also has its autonomous Utra parking shuttle, now powered by hybrid battery/supercapacitor packs that can recharge sufficiently for a trip in around 30 seconds during a normal traffic stop. There are other initiatives such as the Warwick Univerity autonomous very light rail concept. This is a range of fast developing technologies that should get progressively cheaper in the future, leveraging motor industry autonomy and safety techniques. Even conventional tram vehicles are getting LIDAR obstacle detection and avoidance systems based on kit developed for autonomous cars. Perhaps this is a way for the railway to exploit technologies that some see only as an existential threat to conventional public transport. Linking stations and platform groups over moderate distances like this to create better interchange and town centre link possibilities is a new paradigm that could be a more affordable solution than major track alignment changes to achieve similar aims. Viable links could thus be made that would be beyond normal acceptable walking distances. Airports and metro interchanges also commonly create links using moving walkways, and these have benefits for shorter links, having no wait time, but a 1km travelator link would have to be in multiple sections and would be comparatively slow, so would likely not be suitable for Gloucester. Although APMs have a wait time clearly, the journey time saving over a travelator link makes them more attractive over longer distances.



If you look at my diagram: http://www.townend.me/files/gloucester.pdf I suggest GWR London - Cheltenham and XC Birmingham - Bristol trains call at the new platforms, with GWR Bristol - Worcester going via Central platforms and reversing, so creating an overtaking opportunity. XC Birmingham - Cardiff services and any additional terminating stopping services from Wales would also use platforms at Central. I don't think stopping XC expresses twice within such a short distance is such a big deal. They do that after all in Bristol. The big disadvantage of calling at Gloucester today is the slow approach and departure via the junctions and curves, combined with reversing, which seems to add up to 11 minutes to the journey compared to a non-stop. A stop on the direct line could probably bring down the penalty to 5 minutes or less. Saving time on the London - Cheltenham service may not bring vast numbers of new Cheltenham passengers, but shorter journey segments can also bring benefits for stock and crew utilisation. That can improve the case for expanded services as the new margin can be used for longer turn-back layovers for reliability or in some cases might allow more round trips to be made with a given fleet size, or statutory staff breaks to be more easily accommodated. The people mover makes calling at these new East Terminal platforms practically as convenient as serving Central itself for those who want access to the city centre as well as those connecting with local public transport. The new terminal also provides significant parkway potential with access directly onto the A38. The immediate surrounding area also has tremendous commercial development potential with an intercity station and a direct link into the city centre via the peoplemover.

1) Do you perchance own a people mover company?
2) It.ain't.going. to.happen!

 

[MarkyT]

1) Do you perchance own a people mover company?
2) It.ain't.going. to.happen!

1) No I do not, nor do I work for one, but I am open to new ideas and technologies and what possibilities they may offer.
2) Maybe not, but what's wrong with making a suggestion?

 

[si404]

If needing a people mover/long walk is unacceptable for Gloucester's London service/Stroud's Gloucester service (I agree) as the Gloucester people are saying and Cheltenham times are too long due to reversing in Gloucester as the Cheltenham people are saying (I agree too), then the Network Rail proposal in the Western Route Study of 1tph along the Golden Valley to Gloucester - giving those people the same Gloucester city centre service as now, and another 1tph along the Golden Valley to Cheltenham (not via Gloucester) speeding up Cheltenham times is a sensible solution to the problems.

Of course, none of that precludes some sort of Gloucester Parkway station putting Gloucester on the XCML as most people want. Even one with a people mover!

With 2tph XC Intercity between Birmingham and Bristol, could 1tph stop at Worcester Parkway and Cheltenham, and the other stop at Cheltenham and Gloucester Parkway? Seems something reasonable.

 

[Pete_uk]

This would be my plan for 'local' services from Swindon to Worcester.

Electrify the route if necessary. Bold are stations London services that currently run from Cheltenham to London will call at. Some, you could argue, should be dropped (Stonehouse) but I would keep them for the purposes of this.


Swindon
Purton
Minety
Kemble
Chalford
Stroud
Stonehouse
Quedgeley
Gloucester (Central)
Cheltenham
Ashchurch
Eckington
Worcester

Also, re route/build a new line that goes to the West of Gloucester and comes into the station from the south Wales line to avoid reversing.*

*Interesting, no?

 

[Senex]

With 2tph XC Intercity between Birmingham and Bristol, could 1tph stop at Worcester Parkway and Cheltenham, and the other stop at Cheltenham and Gloucester Parkway? Seems something reasonable.

Either arrangement would be a deceleration of inter-city trains that are not particularly fast in th first place.

 

[jayah]

To equate London to Cheltenham with HS2 is just absurd. In any case the justification for HS2 has very much moved from speed to capacity enhancement. I repeat the service between Swindon and Cheltenham is a local one, not an inter city express. If Aunt Nellie in Stroud wants to go shopping in Gloucester this is the service she uses, she does not want to be having to make a change to a mythical "people mover" at an off centre station. Cheltenham has through trains to London because there is sufficient traffic from London to Reading and Swindon to justify the paths on the main line, after which the trains take over the role previously played by the connecting DMUs. Outright speed to Cheltenham is simply not a factor and why some people seem to be obsessed with it, as if Cheltenham is the hub of the universe, is beyond me. This speed up would benefit only those relatively few passenger on the last leg of the run from London, at the expense of inconveniencing all passengers to and from Gloucester from London and intermediate points. The Cheltenham obsessees on here are perfectly free to set up "Cheltenham Flyer Enterprises Ltd." and apply for open access rights to run non stop fast trains to London. Good luck making the sums work.
My solution is to rename Gloucester Central to "Gloucester Central and Cheltenham Parkway", turn around the London trains there (which would improve utilisation of expensive IEP trains) and take the Cheltenham passengers on by "people mover", a Class 153 should suffice for most of the day.

The justification for HS2 may have changed but the financial case is still 10s of £bn underwater and requires 10s of £bn in the value of time saved to stand up as a business case.

The service from London to Cheltenham is not a local one although it will also carry people making local journeys.

There aren't may routes from London where 11min can be saved so easily.

 

[jayah]

I struggle with that statement. Adding a pair of side platforms on the fast tracks near the Metz Way bridge looks fairly straightforward to me. You would have to remove a couple of sidings from the yard for the northbound platform, but that's just recoveries as far as track and signalling is concerned, not major new conceptual design. Otherwise the signals look in the right places for such platforms. A more complex multiplatform station to completely replace Central would be much more of a challenge on the site clearly, but my suggestion of just a couple of additional 'satellite' platforms supplementing the central terminal and linked via a fast frequent and reliable transit link looks highly feasible from a technical perspective. There may be other reasons NR might not be keen on such a site. Property issues, local authority preferences etc.

This supposed reply from Network Rail sounds like typical railway speak for we don't want to do this and will moan like a badly behaved child until you drop the idea or force us to do it.

Electrification on the other hand, very complex, completely new untried hihh output technology? HS2 interfacing at Euston and elsewhere with classic routes? Carry on.

 

[Llanigraham]

There aren't may routes from London where 11min can be saved so easily.

And have you confirmed that the 11 minute time saving will fit into the timetables once the train reaches the GW main line at Swindon?
You cannot look at a saving in one place without looking at the whole timetable, including ALL other lines.

This supposed reply from Network Rail sounds like typical railway speak for we don't want to do this and will moan like a badly behaved child until you drop the idea or force us to do it.

Electrification on the other hand, very complex, completely new untried hihh output technology? HS2 interfacing at Euston and elsewhere with classic routes? Carry on.

But that isn't a reply from Network Rail, since as far as we know they do not have an official voice on here (totally understandably!).
The reply actually reads like that from a well informed, well researched and sensible "amateur", who has provided a factual answer to your suggestion, which you don't seem to appreciate.

 

[jayah]

And have you confirmed that the 11 minute time saving will fit into the timetables once the train reaches the GW main line at Swindon?
You cannot look at a saving in one place without looking at the whole timetable, including ALL other lines.



But that isn't a reply from Network Rail, since as far as we know they do not have an official voice on here (totally understandably!).
The reply actually reads like that from a well informed, well researched and sensible "amateur", who has provided a factual answer to your suggestion, which you don't seem to appreciate.

Why would you fit the time at the London end and not the northern end?

It would also clear up a lot of congestion with slow moving movements around the triangle and conflicts created by southbound trains crossing the formation twice.

 

[Charlie M.]

Right, let’s play Problem Solving.

7 passengers.

1 from PAD to CHM
1 from PAD to GCR
1 from RDG to STR
1 from SWI to GCR
1 from SWI to CHM
1 from STR to CHM
1 from STR to GCR

Cater for all of these passengers? Possible. Give or take, Gloucester sees similar or more passengers than Cheltenham.

Hmm.. let’s effect 3/7 of the passengers by giving Cheltenham a faster service! Add two actually!

New station? Unlikely.
If new station happens? London services avoid Gloucester.

Imagine how we could dare terminate Cheltenham services at Gloucester then? No? Let’s skip out a stop at a major city which would benefit the same/more passengers than Cheltenham would??

Next GWR franchise: possible electrification of the line between Kemble and Gloucester/Cheltenham. Not too long of a route and would provide future service increase.

Next CrossCountry franchise: Possible calls on certain services.

 

[jayah]

But that isn't a reply from Network Rail, since as far as we know they do not have an official voice on here (totally understandably!).
The reply actually reads like that from a well informed, well researched and sensible "amateur", who has provided a factual answer to your suggestion, which you don't seem to appreciate.

The post #129 says Network Rail have officially ruled it out. I have not made any judgement on the person who conveyed this message, only Network Rail if that is what they actually said and why.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Why would you fit the time at the London end and not the northern end?

It would also clear up a lot of congestion with slow moving movements around the triangle and conflicts created by southbound trains crossing the formation twice.

For the incredibly simple reason that the volume of traffic into Paddington is dependant on the utilisation of train slots into a terminus , with increasing interfaces into Crossrail , and the minor issue of a major airport accessed via Hayes called Heathrow. Plus the second busiest freight axis into and across London.

When you consider the smooth operation of Swansea / Cardiff / Bristol services is dependant on hitting Wootten Basset Junction "right time" , the minor issues of Gloucester fade into total insignificance.....

 

[Llanigraham]

Why would you fit the time at the London end and not the northern end?

It would also clear up a lot of congestion with slow moving movements around the triangle and conflicts created by southbound trains crossing the formation twice.

Because timetabling and route availability simply doesn't work like that!
Sorry, but you seem to have a very simplistic view of how railway route planning, availability and timetabling works.
A train arriving on the Western mainline 10 minutes early than now is going to affect all the other trains using that line, and they could be from anywhere some distance away from that point.
The rail world does not revolve around Cheltenham and Gloucester as you seem to think.