Swindon to Gloucester line: More services?

[D1009]

Largely because it did not plug the gaps in the morning peak timetable (the set was being used in the West Midlands at that time of the day), so still offered no travel to work opportunities between Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Worcester and in one direction, I think it was northbound, was timetabled not far behind the GWR service, rather than running in the middle of the two-hour gap.

I'm struggling to understand where the demand is for extra services between Worcester and Cheltenham.

 

[Noddy]

I'm struggling to understand where the demand is for extra services between Worcester and Cheltenham.

On the M5

 

[jimm]

I'm struggling to understand where the demand is for extra services between Worcester and Cheltenham.

Where Noddy says - just take a look at the timetable in what should be the morning peak period and you might understand what the problem is.

The MoD vehicles depot adjacent to Ashchurch for Tewkesbury station is also likely to be replaced by a lot of new housing over coming years and with employment options in the local area limited, the people living there will need to get to other places for work.

 

[SwindonBert]

Let's go full hog & have a stopper between Swindon & Birmingham

Swindon via Kemble to Gloucester, reverse, to Worcester FS, reverse again to Birmingham NS via University, calling at all stations

 

[Mintona]

Let's go full hog & have a stopper between Swindon & Birmingham

Swindon via Kemble to Gloucester, reverse, to Worcester FS, reverse again to Birmingham NS via University, calling at all stations

Can’t reverse at Worcester Foregate Street and go the other way, ie. trains from Shrub Hill can only return to Shrub Hill.

 

[cle]

By the sound of this thread, for a faster Cheltenham services it sounds as if only skipping Stonehouse saves much running time, plus of course not going via Gloucester. Kemble is lesser used that Stroud, but still well enough and 2tph might encourage even more.

If the demand is there at Cheltenham for fast London service, which I believe is suppressed by the current journey time and reversal, then I’d run fast from there to Swindon and perhaps add a shuttle from Gloucester to Swindon running just ahead (and thus a fast London second tph there) and it could work for Gloucester and the Golden Valley for their second tph. Assuming here the London-Gloucester-Cardiff solution for the main London service which I think is really interesting.

 

[jimm]

By the sound of this thread, for a faster Cheltenham services it sounds as if only skipping Stonehouse saves much running time, plus of course not going via Gloucester. Kemble is lesser used that Stroud, but still well enough and 2tph might encourage even more.

If the demand is there at Cheltenham for fast London service, which I believe is suppressed by the current journey time and reversal, then I’d run fast from there to Swindon and perhaps add a shuttle from Gloucester to Swindon running just ahead (and thus a fast London second tph there) and it could work for Gloucester and the Golden Valley for their second tph. Assuming here the London-Gloucester-Cardiff solution for the main London service which I think is really interesting.

We have yet to see the full impact of the car park extension at Kemble in station usage figures - the difficulty of finding a space there much of the time up until last year was generally accepted to have been affecting passenger numbers, which have shifted very little since 2012.

The 2017-18 figures should give an indication of what may happen moving forward but no TOC is going to miss out on opportunities to call there. Cirencester already has a population of 20,000 or so. A single development in the town that was approved at the start of this year will add 2,350 more houses, with suggestions the population will increase as a result by anything up to 8,000 people

I'm afraid that just as with the Cotswold Line and Worcester, there simply is not going to be the traffic to and from the end point to pay the bills if you do things like run non-stop between Swindon and Cheltenham.

 

[Class 170101]

There is no 'perhaps' about calling at Kemble (aka Cirencester Parkway) - anything that moves on that line is going to call there - GWR did not double car parking there last year to 668 spaces on a whim.

No idea why anyone would extend such a service to Hereford - and the fastest way to get between London and Hereford by rail is with a change at Newport.

Cotswold Line trains only terminate/start at Worcester Shrub Hill if single-line occupancy issues at Worcester or elsewhere mean getting to Foregate Street can't be achieved - serving the city's central station is far too important commercially not to do it, as there are strong passenger flows from and to Pershore and Evesham.

Not being a local of the area, the times I have used the line its been fairly quiet so I bow to your greater knowledge concerning Kemble.

As far as Herford goes if its quicker via North Cotswold compared to via Cheltenham then fine, I have no preference which way the service goes only that I would have thought via Cheltenham was faster than via North Cotswolds. As for Newport it may be the fastest but it requires a change of train with all the risks that poses of missed connections. Direct trains are always good.

In terms of Worcester Foregate Street as has been noted above by another poster it has a restrictive layout with the station set up as two single lines. If another crossover was installed at the Birmingham / London end of the station then terminating at Foregate Street may be viable on an hourly basis, or perhaps run to Great Malvern on an hourly basis and reverse services (in the siding) there.

 

[Class 170101]

I’m not sure I really see a need for a London - Cardiff Via Gloucester train. It would be much slower than via Bristol Parkway. I can’t imagine from the passenger flow from Kemble - Stonehouse to Cardiff is particularly large and anyone that does want to go there can just change at Gloucester for a 2tph service that’s already in place. I also can’t see XC or their successor wanting to stop at a Gloucester Parkway (or a Worcester Parkway) station as well as Cheltenham. If it does open, a Cheltenham - Gloucester - Gloucester Parkway shuttle could be an option.

If Severn Tunnel Junction requires London calls at peak times in the future, these may as well just be added on to the existing IC services, as what happens now in the morning peak when the regionals towards Bristol get formed of 2 coaches instead of 5.

Accepting that Cardiff to London via Gloucester is slower than via Bristol Parkway wouldn't gain many through journeys except maybe on cheap tickets but don't forget the intermediate journeys and by stopping at Lydney, Chepstow etc they would gain direct services to London as well as, today, Cardiff. Gloucester would also get / retain an hourly service to London if journeys to Cheltenham were sped up by omitting Gloucester.

 

[Charlie M.]

Accepting that Cardiff to London via Gloucester is slower than via Bristol Parkway wouldn't gain many through journeys except maybe on cheap tickets but don't forget the intermediate journeys and by stopping at Lydney, Chepstow etc they would gain direct services to London as well as, today, Cardiff. Gloucester would also get / retain an hourly service to London if journeys to Cheltenham were sped up by omitting Gloucester.

There are no plans to completely stop Gloucesters London train, it provides the same amount of people or even more comparing with Cheltenham. The only reason the Cheltenham trains would miss Gloucester is if the plan to run a separate service to both Cheltenham and Gloucester occurs.

 

[jimm]

There are no plans to completely stop Gloucesters London train, it provides the same amount of people or even more comparing with Cheltenham. The only reason the Cheltenham trains would miss Gloucester is if the plan to run a separate service to both Cheltenham and Gloucester occurs.

Perhaps you could use the word proposal instead of plan here - because whether it is something that people suggest here or anything that has ever appeared in an official document, there are no detailed, costed options for any additional services via the Stroud Valley line that might merit being described as a plan.

 

[cle]

Also, did we not establish that Cheltenham has about 50% more users than Gloucester? Without a breakdown and applying that to services across the board, with some leeway for the additional XC trains, it still indicates higher demand - and that includes any suppression due to the reversal/longer London journey time. As ever, population is only one factor for demand.

 

[Charlie M.]

Also, did we not establish that Cheltenham has about 50% more users than Gloucester? Without a breakdown and applying that to services across the board, with some leeway for the additional XC trains, it still indicates higher demand - and that includes any suppression due to the reversal/longer London journey time. As ever, population is only one factor for demand.

So your saying that the station usage (which includes Cheltenham Festival numbers) concludes that the Gloucester stop should be missed out? Bad idea. Gloucester provides as many passengers on and off the Cheltenham service as does Cheltenham. This is not possible without an individual service, as said is only a proposal, and couldn’t happen at all or for the next 30 years?

That’s like saying we might as well miss out Stonehouse as well, and Kemble because more people get on at Stroud.

 

[mds86]

So your saying that the station usage (which includes Cheltenham Festival numbers) concludes that the Gloucester stop should be missed out? Bad idea. Gloucester provides as many passengers on and off the Cheltenham service as does Cheltenham. This is not possible without an individual service, as said is only a proposal, and couldn’t happen at all or for the next 30 years?

That’s like saying we might as well miss out Stonehouse as well, and Kemble because more people get on at Stroud.

Cheltenham also receives about 55 XC services a day which Gloucester doesn't, linking it to other major UK cities in addition to London. I and others often find it easier to get dropped off or picked up at Cheltenham station if travelling on a XC service, instead of the hassle of waiting for a connecting train that may extend my journey time by half hour if the connection timing is poor for an 8 mile journey. If I had the choice, I would join a XC train at Gloucester station, a few minutes drive from my house but unfortunately I often don't so hence the station usage figures alone shouldn't dictate what services should or shouldn't call there.

Here are the station usage figures for 2016-17:

Cheltenham Spa 2.353 million (+191,000 interchanges)
Gloucester 1.48 million
Stonehouse 0.152 million
Stroud 0.529 million
Kemble 0.367 million

Remember Stonehouse, Stroud and Kemble usage figures are for generally an hourly service between Cheltenham and Swindon/London only whereas Gloucester and especially Cheltenham also have regular services going to Birmingham/Bristol/Cardiff and further afield.

 

[cle]

So your saying that the station usage (which includes Cheltenham Festival numbers) concludes that the Gloucester stop should be missed out? Bad idea. Gloucester provides as many passengers on and off the Cheltenham service as does Cheltenham. This is not possible without an individual service, as said is only a proposal, and couldn’t happen at all or for the next 30 years?

That’s like saying we might as well miss out Stonehouse as well, and Kemble because more people get on at Stroud.

No I wasn’t saying it should be missed, but that if services were expanded they could be split. And then making the point that due to the nature of the current Cheltenham London service (slow, reversal) if services were quicker then I think demand would soar.

 

[Charlie M.]

Attaching these three proposals from the Western Route Study.

 

[jimm]

No I wasn’t saying it should be missed, but that if services were expanded they could be split. And then making the point that due to the nature of the current Cheltenham London service (slow, reversal) if services were quicker then I think demand would soar.

Why? Whatever the journey time, it doesn't automatically mean that the population of Cheltenham would suddenly decide to travel up and down to London all the time.

A two-hour end-to-end time would still leave it well outside commuting range, so where else is this soaring demand going to come from?

Boosting the carrying capacity of existing XC services through Cheltenham and providing a decent all-day hourly service to and from Ashchurch and Worcester would probably do just as much, if not more, for footfall at Cheltenham Spa station.

 

[Class 170101]

There are no plans to completely stop Gloucesters London train, it provides the same amount of people or even more comparing with Cheltenham. The only reason the Cheltenham trains would miss Gloucester is if the plan to run a separate service to both Cheltenham and Gloucester occurs.

I wasn't suggesting that Gloucester would lose its through train to London. I was rebutting the idea that Cardiff to London via Gloucester would be a bad idea. It would gain few through journeys as a Cardiff to London service as there are faster services via the Severn Tunnel, hence the cheap tickets comment. But as a service serving Chepstow, Lydney and Gloucester these services would get through journeys to London. Cheltenham would keep its train but omit Gloucester (but maybe serve Gloucester Parkway station if built). Then to serve the Gloucester to Cheltenham leg I would extend the Nottingham to Birmingham New Street to Cardiff via Cheltenham and Gloucester to cover the loss of the GW London to Cheltenham service via Gloucester (now running direct as noted above).

So for the avoidance of doubt there would be two services via the Golden Valley Line. London to Cheltenham and Worcester but avoiding Gloucester and a London to Cardiff via Kemble and Gloucester.

 

[cactustwirly]

I wasn't suggesting that Gloucester would lose its through train to London. I was rebutting the idea that Cardiff to London via Gloucester would be a bad idea. It would gain few through journeys as a Cardiff to London service as there are faster services via the Severn Tunnel, hence the cheap tickets comment. But as a service serving Chepstow, Lydney and Gloucester these services would get through journeys to London. Cheltenham would keep its train but omit Gloucester (but maybe serve Gloucester Parkway station if built). Then to serve the Gloucester to Cheltenham leg I would extend the Nottingham to Birmingham New Street to Cardiff via Cheltenham and Gloucester to cover the loss of the GW London to Cheltenham service via Gloucester (now running direct as noted above).

So for the avoidance of doubt there would be two services via the Golden Valley Line. London to Cheltenham and Worcester but avoiding Gloucester and a London to Cardiff via Kemble and Gloucester.

But why?
Your Cardiff service adds nothing extra, except for bucket load of extra crew costs and requires extra stock.
It's much better to have 1tph to Cheltenham via Gloucester, and extend the Weymouth - Gloucester terminator to Worcester to give a consistent hourly service.

 

[43074]

But why?
Your Cardiff service adds nothing extra, except for bucket load of extra crew costs and requires extra stock.
It's much better to have 1tph to Cheltenham via Gloucester, and extend the Weymouth - Gloucester terminator to Worcester to give a consistent hourly service.

Indeed, the Chepstow and Lydney to London flow can be adequately served with the (roughly) hourly stopping service between Cardiff and Cheltenham and connections at Gloucester or Newport for London services. Your plan also has 2tph between Nottingham and Cardiff and at least 3tph between Gloucester and Cardiff which is overkill to say the least.

 

[Class 170101]

But why?
Your Cardiff service adds nothing extra, except for bucket load of extra crew costs and requires extra stock.
It's much better to have 1tph to Cheltenham via Gloucester, and extend the Weymouth - Gloucester terminator to Worcester to give a consistent hourly service.

But yours does not provide faster journey times to Cheltenham.

 

[Class 170101]

Indeed, the Chepstow and Lydney to London flow can be adequately served with the (roughly) hourly stopping service between Cardiff and Cheltenham and connections at Gloucester or Newport for London services. Your plan also has 2tph between Nottingham and Cardiff and at least 3tph between Gloucester and Cardiff which is overkill to say the least.

Withdraw the ATW service between Cheltenham and Cardiff if you must. People don't value connections as much as they value through trains.

 

[Charlie M.]

Withdraw the ATW service between Cheltenham and Cardiff if you must. People don't value connections as much as they value through trains.

TfW are going to increase it to 1tph, so no point.

To cater for both Gloucester, Cheltenham and Worcester, 1tph to Worcester, 1tph Gloucester. Different stopping patterns with them and made well for connections (from Cam, Chepstow, Lydney, Gloucester for Cheltenham, Cheltenham for Gloucester)

 

[mds86]

But yours does not provide faster journey times to Cheltenham.

But why is this required at present? Surely the first objective would be to work towards providing a proper hourly service on the Cheltenham - Gloucester - London, Bristol - Gloucester - Cheltenham - Ashchurch - Worcester and Cardiff - Chepstow - Lydney - Gloucester - Cheltenham routes that have workable connections without the 2 hourly gaps as there are now. The number of additional passengers a Cheltenham to London service would attract by bypassing Gloucester wouldn't be anywhere near enough in a million years to cover the additional costs of an extra 5 or so trains and crew to cover a London - Gloucester service, let alone if this was extended to Cardiff. If the demand from Chepstow and Lydney was there for London services then I would expect GWR to stop one or two of its London trains at Severn Tunnel Junction for a connection with the ATW Cheltenham - Cardiff service instead. Certainly Chepstow - London is much quicker this way for any passengers who would make this journey.

 

[cle]

But the NR study said the aim was for 1tph to each, not tomorrow but in 2040 or something, so there is no harm hypothesising about future travel. I’m not 100% Bristol TM needs 4tph but it’s happening and future growth is antipated. No idea why people are so defensive about it, when ‘build it and they will come’ is proven, especially with direct London rail services and suppressed demand, which I’d say Cheltenham suffers from.

This would also give Newport and Cardiff a third TPH to London (slower but probably cheaper), add capacity for the local journeys, new direct London services for places (Chepstow could be a great tourist centre, castle, races, all the Wye towns/castles) and add a higher quality service from Western England into South Wales. It seems to have so many benefits, whereas a train terminating at Gloucester and returning to London doesn’t quite have as much purpose.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Not being a local of the area, the times I have used the line its been fairly quiet so I bow to your greater knowledge concerning Kemble.

As far as Herford goes if its quicker via North Cotswold compared to via Cheltenham then fine, I have no preference which way the service goes only that I would have thought via Cheltenham was faster than via North Cotswolds. As for Newport it may be the fastest but it requires a change of train with all the risks that poses of missed connections. Direct trains are always good.

In terms of Worcester Foregate Street as has been noted above by another poster it has a restrictive layout with the station set up as two single lines. If another crossover was installed at the Birmingham / London end of the station then terminating at Foregate Street may be viable on an hourly basis, or perhaps run to Great Malvern on an hourly basis and reverse services (in the siding) there.

Alternatively you could send it to Kidderminster/Stourbridge and then those two would have another direct service to Worcester/less need for going via Birmingham to go south

 

[43074]

Withdraw the ATW service between Cheltenham and Cardiff if you must. People don't value connections as much as they value through trains.

To be honest Chepstow/Lydney to London are tiny markets, good connections are absolutely fine for towns of that size: you're never going to get through services from everywhere to everywhere. As has already been said the ATW local service is being increased to hourly, why abolish useful local services for the sakes of sending Cardiff to London services via Gloucester when there is no reason to do so other than when the Severn Tunnel is closed for engineering works.

 

[43074]

Deleted

 

[cactustwirly]

But the NR study said the aim was for 1tph to each, not tomorrow but in 2040 or something, so there is no harm hypothesising about future travel. I’m not 100% Bristol TM needs 4tph but it’s happening and future growth is antipated. No idea why people are so defensive about it, when ‘build it and they will come’ is proven, especially with direct London rail services and suppressed demand, which I’d say Cheltenham suffers from.

This would also give Newport and Cardiff a third TPH to London (slower but probably cheaper), add capacity for the local journeys, new direct London services for places (Chepstow could be a great tourist centre, castle, races, all the Wye towns/castles) and add a higher quality service from Western England into South Wales. It seems to have so many benefits, whereas a train terminating at Gloucester and returning to London doesn’t quite have as much purpose.

Waste of money which is better spent eleswelse IMO.
If it's cheap, it will be cheap for a reason (carting fresh air) and would leak cash like a sieve!

 

[7ftBroad]

I know class 395 can split and join up easy in 2 minutes, don't know about class 800. But could a 2 x 5 set split and rejoin at Stonehouse, giving Gloucester and Chelenham a hourly service.

 

[D1009]

I know class 395 can split and join up easy in 2 minutes, don't know about class 800. But could a 2 x 5 set split and rejoin at Stonehouse, giving Gloucester and Chelenham a hourly service.

Er, no. You need signalling to split and join, and there isn't any at Stonehouse.