Cheltenham Racecourse connection?

[jayah]

HS2 is a strategic project of national significance linking several major cities.

What is being proposed here, as I understand it, is a railway to serve Bishops Cleeve and to allow some trains to serve a Cheltenham town centre station in addition to Lansdown.

Have I understood that correctly?

By the way, how would this co-ordinate with the heritage railway?

Again this fallacious argument that nothing must be disturbed, or only by a project as big as HS2. Buildings are changed and removed all the time for infrastructure.

Would you deny a through rail connection route between Cleeve, Racecourse, Cheltenham City Centre, Spa and the centre of Gloucester on the grounds a heritage railway runs 10 times a week over a couple of miles of the route, or try and argue this is some sort of insoluble obstacle?

 

[4141]

And you are "fixated" about your improbable railway, and do not seem able to accept that many of us here have a different view, often founded on practicality, economy, and probability.

Not to mention local geography and geology...

 

[Llanigraham]

Again this fallacious argument that nothing must be disturbed, or only by a project as big as HS2. Buildings are changed and removed all the time for infrastructure.

Indeed they are, but only when that infrastructure project has importance for the wider community, and not for tin-pot schemes that are a waste of time and money.

Would you deny a through rail connection route between Cleeve, Racecourse, Cheltenham City Centre, Spa and the centre of Gloucester on the grounds a heritage railway runs 10 times a week over a couple of miles of the route, or try and argue this is some sort of insoluble obstacle?

I have argued that your "rail connection" serves absolutely NO useful purpose.

 

[6Gman]

Again this fallacious argument that nothing must be disturbed, or only by a project as big as HS2. Buildings are changed and removed all the time for infrastructure.

Would you deny a through rail connection route between Cleeve, Racecourse, Cheltenham City Centre, Spa and the centre of Gloucester on the grounds a heritage railway runs 10 times a week over a couple of miles of the route, or try and argue this is some sort of insoluble obstacle?

No need to be bolshy about it.

I was pointing out that a strategic national project will justify works which would not be satisfied by a local scheme.

I do not have it within my powers to "deny" anyone or anywhere a rail connection. I was trying, by asking you questions, to understand what exactly you were proposing. Which seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. New platform/s alongside the existing station.
2. Reinstatement of track along the course of the former line from there to the Racecourse station of the heritage railway.
3. A new Cheltenham "City Centre" station. Where?
4. Transferring the Racecourse - Bishops Cleeve section to National Rail.
5. Extending some trains from the south which currently terminate at Cheltenham to Bishops Cleeve.

Is that about it?

 

[jayah]

Not to mention local geography and geology...

I have already said it is less than unlikely to actually happen.

But what I won't have is a carousel of specious excuses why it cannot possibly be done.

A footpath, a tin shed supermarket, a heritage railway all seem more important or insoluble obstacles to some people than getting a railway into Cheltenham and into the very large and expanding suburb of Bishops Cleeve.

 

[jayah]

No need to be bolshy about it.

I was pointing out that a strategic national project will justify works which would not be satisfied by a local scheme.

I do not have it within my powers to "deny" anyone or anywhere a rail connection. I was trying, by asking you questions, to understand what exactly you were proposing. Which seems to be (and please correct me if I'm wrong):

1. New platform/s alongside the existing station.
2. Reinstatement of track along the course of the former line from there to the Racecourse station of the heritage railway.
3. A new Cheltenham "City Centre" station. Where?
4. Transferring the Racecourse - Bishops Cleeve section to National Rail.
5. Extending some trains from the south which currently terminate at Cheltenham to Bishops Cleeve.

Is that about it?

That is pretty much it. One potential site as mentioned already is the previous station now occupied by a supermarket and large car park.

Please don't get trapped by this mindset that because it isn't on the same scale of HS2 you aren't allowed to change anything that already exists.

 

[6Gman]

That is pretty much it. One potential site as mentioned already is the previous station now occupied by a supermarket and large car park.

Please don't get trapped by this mindset that because it isn't on the same scale of HS2 you aren't allowed to change anything that already exists.

Right, now that we understand what you're proposing we can start to assess its impact.

Which, it seems to me, is very disruptive for relatively little gain.

 

[torten]

The Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway was built to double track, so a mainline service from Cheltenham Racecourse to Bishop's Cleeve could operate on a completely different section of track as a long siding, potentially on the existing light railway order.

 

[duffield]

The Gloucestershire and Warwickshire Railway was built to double track, so a mainline service from Cheltenham Racecourse to Bishop's Cleeve could operate on a completely different section of track as a long siding, potentially on the existing light railway order.

Yes, as I pointed out on another thread, this is one case where the heritage and NR services could potentially co-exist - one platform each at Cheltenham Racecourse, one track each for the 2 miles to Bishops Cleeve (only problem would be running heritage locos round at racecourse, you'd have to do something like expand the cutting to the west of the road bridge to accommodate a run-round loop, but that looks possible - no buildings etc.).
But it's all theoretical, it's not at all likely to happen.

 

[ABB125]

Yes, as I pointed out on another thread, this is one case where the heritage and NR services could potentially co-exist - one platform each at Cheltenham Racecourse, one track each for the 2 miles to Bishops Cleeve (only problem would be running heritage locos round at racecourse, you'd have to do something like expand the cutting to the west of the road bridge to accommodate a run-round loop, but that looks possible - no buildings etc.).
But it's all theoretical, it's not at all likely to happen.

At the Racecourse I wouldn't have thought it impossible for some arrangement to be made whereby both parties have access to both platforms as required.

 

[PartyOperator]

That is pretty much it. One potential site as mentioned already is the previous station now occupied by a supermarket and large car park.

Please don't get trapped by this mindset that because it isn't on the same scale of HS2 you aren't allowed to change anything that already exists.

You wouldn't build a through-station on the supermarket site in any case because it was a terminus and not on the line between Lansdown and Bishops Cleeve. I pointed out earlier that there is space in the nearby cutting for a station. The problem is the limited benefits and large disbenefits that would be associated with a heavy rail scheme through Cheltenham to provide only two trains per hour. The Bishops Cleeve link could be achieved much more cheaply by the scheme that started this thread off, and the new station in Cheltenham would only take 10 minutes off the walk for a subset who want to get to/from the town centre, out of the minority of passengers travelling on the London and Maesteg trains. It would do nothing for the large majority of rail passengers at Cheltenham who use XC trains to get to Bristol or Birmingham. And it would also prevent the use of this corridor for a much more beneficial, less costly light rail scheme that would enable high frequencies and preserve the cycle/footpath.

 

[jayah]

You wouldn't build a through-station on the supermarket site in any case because it was a terminus and not on the line between Lansdown and Bishops Cleeve. I pointed out earlier that there is space in the nearby cutting for a station. The problem is the limited benefits and large disbenefits that would be associated with a heavy rail scheme through Cheltenham to provide only two trains per hour. The Bishops Cleeve link could be achieved much more cheaply by the scheme that started this thread off, and the new station in Cheltenham would only take 10 minutes off the walk for a subset who want to get to/from the town centre, out of the minority of passengers travelling on the London and Maesteg trains. It would do nothing for the large majority of rail passengers at Cheltenham who use XC trains to get to Bristol or Birmingham. And it would also prevent the use of this corridor for a much more beneficial, less costly light rail scheme that would enable high frequencies and preserve the cycle/footpath.

Why would you not build a through station just because it wasn't before?

You seem to have determined there are low benefits but on what basis?

Similarly what evidence is there that a light rail scheme could be done far more cheaply or preserve the footpath which should not be a primary objective anyway.

Other than that all I see is a fixation on who it wouldn't help.

Where do you think all these XC passengers going to Bristol and Birmingham come from?

 

[30907]

Why would you not build a through station just because it wasn't before? ....
Where do you think all these XC passengers going to Bristol and Birmingham come from?

1. Because it is off the route you are proposing.
2. I doubt they all come from Bishop's Cleeve.

 

[jayah]

1. Because it is off the route you are proposing.
2. I doubt they all come from Bishop's Cleeve.

1. So nobody travels from Cleeve to Gloucester, Cheltenham, Cardiff London or Bristol? In it's own right it is one of the biggest settlements in SW England without rail access.

2. Still obsessed with the ones who won't benefit.