Gloucester Area: Frequency, New Stations and Calling Patterns

[Llanigraham]

Cheltenham is a very important city and should expect a London service that doesn't waste 10min backing out of Gloucester. There aren't many ways to save 10min that come as cheap as a station on the avoiding line.

Really, an "important city"?
Population 116,447. Not the County town. Not actually a city, just a standard Borough.
Gloucester has a population of 858,300, is the County Town and really is a City.

Methinks you big-it up a little too much.

 

[jimm]

I
As for Worcester most of the city is far more convenient for the existing stations, if there are parking problems they should be addressed without building a station in the middle of nowhere, serving nowhere.

Have you ever been to Worcester? If so, you would know that it's bit difficult to address parking problems at Foregate Street - as it sits on a viaduct, surrounded by buildings in the city centre. And while there is land at Shrub Hill that could be used for parking, road access to it is poor, due to the physical geography of the area and the impact that has on the roads around it.

Never mind that trying to drive anywhere in the centre of Worcester is not my idea of fun, even at supposedly 'quieter' times of the day, and there is just one road bridge across the Severn in the central area.

There may be plenty of flaws with the Worcestershire Parkway project, but decent road access from most parts of the city via the bypasses to the north, south and east, and plenty of car parking, are not among them.

 

[Mintona]

The supermarkets opened far too much floor space in the 1990s and are already trying to close down some of it.

Just FYI, this Morrisons opened within the last 5 years.

 

[si404]

With the very small proviso that technically Cheltenham is a town and not a city, totally agree with you. Effectively both the City of Gloucester and Cheltenham Town are very similar both population wise and economically.

Indeed - there's a lot of people in this thread treating Gloucester as some megapolis, and Cheltenham as a little town.

And a subset of those people are using Gloucester Cathedral (and thus its city status) as something that is immensely important for train service. As you say, city status or lack of is a very small issue.

Both places need to be served with London, Birmingham and Bristol trains. Local service between them is important too. I'm struggling to think of an urban area the size of Cheltenham (let alone slightly bigger Gloucester, or both settlements combined) that sort of distance from London with such a poor service between it and the capital*. As such, 2tph - 1 to each settlement isn't outrageous demand wise, and only creates the problem of needing to fill the 1tph gap between the two settlements.

*100k+ 80-120 miles with just 1tph. Burton, I guess - no direct service. Calais, but should we count that?

 

[Llanigraham]

Population Cheltenham: 116,447.
Population Gloucester 858,300.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Population Cheltenham: 116,447.

Population Gloucester 858,300.

Are you sure that's not Gloucestershire?

 

[4141]

Population Cheltenham: 116,447.
Population Gloucester 858,300.

Sorry, but you're wrong - last census showed the population of Gloucester as 125,600 - as surmised, the 858, 300 figure is for the entire county.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Don't give up so easily! I think your plan is really innovative - get it out there! Make the authorities take a look! OK, only one third may come to fruition, and it may take 50 years - who knows? But if you don't try, nowt's achieved.

Apologies - I got you mixed up with the OP.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
Gloucester City Station has a supposedly much vaunted location adjacent to the city centre that provides access to a restricted range of train services and in 2016/17 chalked up around 1.5 million entries and exits. In contrast Cheltenham Spa station, located in a relatively quiet leafy suburb and a good 15-minute walk from the town centre but providing access to all rail services running through the region, chalked up just under 2.4 million entries and exits. The lesson here is that quality of train service appears to be a much bigger factor in determining how busy a station will be than that stations precise location.

Agreed. The question then is, of course, if Gloucester also had 2 TPH XC inter-city expresses calling, what would its figures be? And I wonder how many of those 2.4m using Cheltenham are folks going to/from Bristol. As mentioned up thread, the service to the biggest regional centre, Bristol, is miserable from Gloucester. One wonders how much suppressed demand there is for that journey alone?

Concerning Gloucester, if it is necessary for passengers using the current city centre station to resort to car, taxi or bus to travel between the station and their origin / destination in Gloucester, then for many people (perhaps even the majority) a Parkway station with ample parking and avoiding the congested low capacity city centre roads would almost certainly be more convenient. If Gloucester City station does have any strategic advantage, then it is solely down to being within walking distance of key destinations in the city. The really key question is how many organisations are there whose prosperity really depends on being within easy walking distance of the current city station?

Overall, Gloucester has a vibrant economy but a great deal of activity takes place in business parks on its eastern flanks. There is a wide mix of both engineering and service companies and a Parkway station would serve this market very well. It would also better serve the needs of the many Gloucester residents who live in the surrounding residential areas and who commute daily to Bristol and Birmingham and others who visit London regularly. ...

Which is why I would suggest the idea of a South Gloucester Parkway should be very carefully considered as a better overall compromise option than Gloucester MarkyT. It would have more or less the same ability to serve your eastern business/industrial markets and be well placed to tap into the surrounding expanding southern suburbs. Perhaps the best solution would be both stations, but that is not going to happen in the current investment environment.

 

[Charlie M.]

MP of Gloucester said this in reply to my email regarding my commute to Bristol and Oxford.

 

[Charlie M.]

[2/2] The issue with a Parkway not close to the centre is the fact that GWR would most likely pull out InterCity services to call at Gloucester Central. People who live in the county know that there are a lot of works with making the location more tourist friendly, as well as works for the city highway. Quedgeley is a suburban town in itself and Hunts Grove has great links towards North Gloucester and is fairly close to Stonehouse, stopping people who believe they deserve a new station to ask for one as much. For me it would be just as ideal and would stop my traffic issues, it would just be an issue with City Centre transportation and the Rugby which transports a lot of people.

What would solve this?
A) A train shuttle between Parkway, Central (and Spa?)
B) A bus park and ride also serving the Quays.

Are these likely? No.

 

[MarkyT]

I produced a diagram illustrating my ideas for the new east terminal at Gloucester, the people mover shuttles for Gloucester and Cheltenham Spa, and revised train service patterns in the area.
http://www.townend.me/files/gloucester.pdf

 

[nick.c]

I produced a diagram illustrating my ideas for the new east terminal at Gloucester, the people mover shuttles for Gloucester and Cheltenham Spa, and revised train service patterns in the area.
http://www.townend.me/files/gloucester.pdf

Appears to cover all the bases. Impressed!

 

[Suraggu]

The debate of a new station at Gloucester has been debated since I can remember.
Until Operation Princess Gloucester was served from what I believe as near hourly HST services on the NE-SW route, along with the Birmingham to Swindon service (which is now the Cheltenham -Swindon Service). Since then heading north you have an easy change at Cheltenham, but heading south its a bit of a slog to Bristol Parkway.

Personally with development in the south of the city at Kingsway, Hardwicke & Quedgeley a parkway station in that area could make sense. With the M5 and A38 nearby that would help.

Then again joined up thinking of timetables would create even better connections.

 

[deltic08]

??

Temple Meads to Parkway is 6 miles. Gloucester to Cheltenham is 6.5 miles.

But Gloucester Central to Gloucester Eastgate was only 300yards and joined by a footbridge. Councillors have no foresight when it comes to planning. It was obvious to me living in Gloucestershire at the time what they had voted for. Railway chaos and it turned out to be true. They got what they deserved for their stupidity.

 

[jayah]

Have you ever been to Worcester? If so, you would know that it's bit difficult to address parking problems at Foregate Street - as it sits on a viaduct, surrounded by buildings in the city centre. And while there is land at Shrub Hill that could be used for parking, road access to it is poor, due to the physical geography of the area and the impact that has on the roads around it.

Never mind that trying to drive anywhere in the centre of Worcester is not my idea of fun, even at supposedly 'quieter' times of the day, and there is just one road bridge across the Severn in the central area.

There may be plenty of flaws with the Worcestershire Parkway project, but decent road access from most parts of the city via the bypasses to the north, south and east, and plenty of car parking, are not among them.

Shrub Hill could easily be improved by redeveloping the surrounding area. The existing stations will become even more run down and marginalised by building a third. Some decent public transport wouldn't be a bad idea too.

 

[jayah]

[2/2] The issue with a Parkway not close to the centre is the fact that GWR would most likely pull out InterCity services to call at Gloucester Central. People who live in the county know that there are a lot of works with making the location more tourist friendly, as well as works for the city highway. Quedgeley is a suburban town in itself and Hunts Grove has great links towards North Gloucester and is fairly close to Stonehouse, stopping people who believe they deserve a new station to ask for one as much. For me it would be just as ideal and would stop my traffic issues, it would just be an issue with City Centre transportation and the Rugby which transports a lot of people.

What would solve this?
A) A train shuttle between Parkway, Central (and Spa?)
B) A bus park and ride also serving the Quays.

Are these likely? No.

People would not use either of these options. Unless it is almost seamless transfer it will further marginalise the existing station. Some bus staggering through the city traffic missing every third train won't cut it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But Gloucester Central to Gloucester Eastgate was only 300yards and joined by a footbridge. Councillors have no foresight when it comes to planning. It was obvious to me living in Gloucestershire at the time what they had voted for. Railway chaos and it turned out to be true. They got what they deserved for their stupidity.

If that's correct (and looking at some old maps, 300 yards seems about right), that's still a fair distance for people changing trains. And remember, that's (presumably) just the length of the footbridge. You still have to walk along the platforms to get between the footbridge and your trains, which could easily add another similar distance. So from the point of view of interchange, there's a lot to be said for having all trains that call at Gloucester stop at the same station. And for people starting their journeys, there's quite an advantage in having all trains leave from the same place - so you're not worrying about which station is the best one to go to depending on what time you arrive (in the case of the Gloucester stations, that would only really have been an issue for people heading towards Cheltenham and north).

 

[70014IronDuke]

If that's correct (and looking at some old maps, 300 yards seems about right), that's still a fair distance for people changing trains. And remember, that's (presumably) just the length of the footbridge. You still have to walk along the platforms to get between the footbridge and your trains, which could easily add another similar distance. So from the point of view of interchange, there's a lot to be said for having all trains that call at Gloucester stop at the same station. And for people starting their journeys, there's quite an advantage in having all trains leave from the same place - so you're not worrying about which station is the best one to go to depending on what time you arrive (in the case of the Gloucester stations, that would only really have been an issue for people heading towards Cheltenham and north).

No. The footbridge was nothing like 300 yards. I'd say it was about 100 yards. Someone will come up with the correct length. As I wrote earlier, changing trains at Gloucester was no real problem for able-bodied folk with no special luggage. But of course, it took a bit of time, especially if you didn't know which platform to go to. It was not a simple cross platform job.

BUT, this is not really the problem. In fact, it's a red herring. Not that many people needed to change trains at Gloucester so long as Gloucester Eastgate existed - it too served the city and NE+NW - SW trains stopped there.

The problem is that such trains (going to Bristol etc) no longer stop there.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Network Rail's long term plan is to have 2 London trains each hour on the Golden Valley line: 1 to Gloucester, 1 to Cheltenham (not via Gloucester). That seems to solve the issues of reversing without hindering service to London, but it's long term for a reason.

Is that really the long term plan? That sounds insane to me. So basically, you'd provide a half-hourly service, while still suppressing demand to the Gloucester-Cheltenham area at the level of an hourly service. I'm all for a half-hourly service, because we know that does make rail more attractive, but that really needs to be done in a way that people can get a (roughly) half-hourly frequency to all significant destinations. (Having all trains call at a Gloucester Parkway would achieve that without reversing, provided that there are frequent connections to the existing Gloucester station).

Why? What is the problem that some seem to have with reversing? It adds a few minutes to the last leg of the journey to Cheltenham, which is lucky to be able to get services to London as an add on.

It's not just the time spent reversing (although that is significant, and going to be rather longer than the 'few minutes' you say), it's also that reversing inevitably creates a lot of potentially conflicting moves - and requires trains to travel the 'wrong' way along some track (I'm not familiar enough with the layout at Gloucester to be sure how far in the wrong direction trains have to travel?). That's going to be imposing a lot of constraints on the timetable, and thereby restricting the level of service that can be provided.

 

[Senex]

If that's correct (and looking at some old maps, 300 yards seems about right), that's still a fair distance for people changing trains. And remember, that's (presumably) just the length of the footbridge. You still have to walk along the platforms to get between the footbridge and your trains, which could easily add another similar distance. So from the point of view of interchange, there's a lot to be said for having all trains that call at Gloucester stop at the same station. And for people starting their journeys, there's quite an advantage in having all trains leave from the same place - so you're not worrying about which station is the best one to go to depending on what time you arrive (in the case of the Gloucester stations, that would only really have been an issue for people heading towards Cheltenham and north).

It was a long distance, but was it so much further than, for example, the change from the "wrong" end of a main-line train at St Pancras or King's Cross to the Tube via the signposted routes today, or some of the massive walks you get at airports (what about Tube to Terminal 2 at Heathrow, for example)?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It was a long distance, but was it so much further than, for example, the change from the "wrong" end of a main-line train at St Pancras or King's Cross to the Tube via the signposted routes today, or some of the massive walks you get at airports (what about Tube to Terminal 2 at Heathrow, for example)?

Probably not, but then I'd argue that those changes you mention are also very badly designed. Personally I will tend to avoid St Pancras if at all possible because of what - to me - are the absurdly long walks between platforms. Fortunately, for the journeys I tend to make, there are usually alternatives.

 

[Mintona]

Still think a station in the south of the city at Quedgeley would be better than one on the triangle. Timetable it so a train from London calls 5 minutes before the stopper from Bristol, and then the stopper can go into Gloucester Central and the ex-London continues straight to Cheltenham. And then a bit later in the hour the XC from Bristol arrives just in front of the stopper from Swindon, and the process is repeated.

There’s plenty of space available for a decent sized station down there, and it would immediately improve traffic in the city centre with the number of people who drive 3 or 4 miles up from Quedgeley to Gloucester Central to catch the train back past their house to Bristol, Filton, Stroud or Swindon having a new station on their doorstep.

 

[jimm]

Shrub Hill could easily be improved by redeveloping the surrounding area. The existing stations will become even more run down and marginalised by building a third. Some decent public transport wouldn't be a bad idea too.

I said there is land at Shrub Hill that could be used for parking - but that still does nothing about the fact that road access to that area, and roads in central Worcester generally, are not up to much and trying to change that situation would be difficult/expensive/unpopular/etc, etc....

I have no idea why you think Foregate Street might be run down/marginalised when it sits right in the middle of the city centre, so is rather less likely to be affected by changes in travel habits once the Parkway is open than Shrub Hill. Not that any of this has anything to do with Gloucester.

 

[nick.c]

Is that really the long term plan? That sounds insane to me. So basically, you'd provide a half-hourly service, while still suppressing demand to the Gloucester-Cheltenham area at the level of an hourly service. I'm all for a half-hourly service, because we know that does make rail more attractive, but that really needs to be done in a way that people can get a (roughly) half-hourly frequency to all significant destinations. (Having all trains call at a Gloucester Parkway would achieve that without reversing, provided that there are frequent connections to the existing Gloucester station).

I don't think it is an actual plan, rather a suggestion from Network Rail for dealing with traffic growth in the 2040's. The 2 TPH bit is to be welcomed but their proposal can easily be improved by running both trains to Cheltenham via a Gloucester Parkway.

 

[Western Lord]

This thread started as a discussion about the poor level of service to Gloucester by cross country trains. It seems to have turned into a rather hilarious debate about shaving an apparently vital few minutes off of trains from "London to Cheltenham", as if Cheltenham were the be all and end all of the service (it's just the end). It would be interesting to see what the passenger numbers from Cheltenham to London were compared to Gloucester to London and why some people think that shaving a few minutes off of the last leg to Cheltenham at the expense of Gloucester would improve the overall viability of the service.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This thread started as a discussion about the poor level of service to Gloucester by cross country trains.

Actually the starting post was this:

Gloucester is a well populated city and has an ok railway service. However, it is not served by CrossCountry trains to the north and south and adds on nearly 12 minutes to HST journeys.

Previously, plans for a Gloucestershire Parkway was put into place but then scrapped.

Yes, a new station is most ideal. But this wouldn’t be situated on the triangle near to the centre because the built a useless Morrison’s there instead. What are your thoughts on this? What is the likelyhood of a new station and would a resignaling help or what other solutions are there?

Note the bit I've bolded. I can't see how that can be anything other than a reference to London-Cheltenham trains reversing at Gloucester. So it looks to me like the point about speeding those trains up has been implicitly in this thread from the start.

It seems to have turned into a rather hilarious debate about shaving an apparently vital few minutes off of trains from "London to Cheltenham", as if Cheltenham were the be all and end all of the service (it's just the end). It would be interesting to see what the passenger numbers from Cheltenham to London were compared to Gloucester to London and why some people think that shaving a few minutes off of the last leg to Cheltenham at the expense of Gloucester would improve the overall viability of the service.

I'm not sure why you would think that speeding trains up is hilarious? That seems quite a useful thing to do to me. Bear in mind too that (I'm fairly sure) all the suggestions for speeding those trains up have involved having them call at a new Gloucester Parkway station instead of Gloucester (central) - not simply skipping the city entirely. That's also what seems to me to be implied (although not explicitly stated) by the starting post in this thread.

 

[4141]

@Western Lord is correct - those of us who live in this fair county will know that it is the removal of most Cross Country stops from Gloucester which sticks in the craw of city residents and is the main thrust of this thread...

 

[cle]

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.

 

[Western Lord]

Actually the starting post was this:



Note the bit I've bolded. I can't see how that can be anything other than a reference to London-Cheltenham trains reversing at Gloucester. So it looks to me like the point about speeding those trains up has been implicitly in this thread from the start.



I'm not sure why you would think that speeding trains up is hilarious? That seems quite a useful thing to do to me. Bear in mind too that (I'm fairly sure) all the suggestions for speeding those trains up have involved having them call at a new Gloucester Parkway station instead of Gloucester (central) - not simply skipping the city entirely. That's also what seems to me to be implied (although not explicitly stated) by the starting post in this thread.

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.