Should more XC services call at Gloucester?

[lrailadventure]

Gloucester is a nowhere place and a nothing economy next to Cheltenham’s. The current situation is correct and if anything, the London should go direct.

If you stop the London train from calling at Gloucester, it will impact a lot more people than I think you realise. That train is used because of its convenient connection times at Cheltenham onto the longer distance XC services. A lot of people also use the service to travel to Swindon and beyond.

For connections at Cheltenham towards Glos, passengers would have to wait for the very unreliable XC Nots to Cardiff service, or the infrequent TfW Welsh service. The current situation, although not ideal, works.

For travel towards Swindon and onward to London, what would you propose? Because passengers wouldn't want to get a train into Cheltenham (same issues as above, unreliable and infrequent) and then change onto that service. There isn't a station south of Glos that works as an interchange either, and travelling all the way to Bristol to change onto a Swindon service is just plain daft.

XC could cut out Cheltenham and call at Waterwells and Worcestershire Parkway instead.

Worcestershire Parkway would be an instant no go. Too far away from everything, only used to serve a motorway for commuter travel into Worcester and Birmingham.

Waterwells is too far from Cheltenham too for it to be considered reasonable to cut out the stop and expect people to drive there. You'd have the opposite effect with your plans and instead of encouraging more people to ditch their cars and use public transport, use their cars for the full journey..

Cheltenham is a well used station, and it is right that XC have their services calling there, it's just a nuisance for everyone who doesn't live in Cheltenham that the service only calls there. Having one XC train that calls at Cheltenham and Waterwells (e.g. the Man Pic to Bristol) and some of the GWR stoppers (perhaps the Bristol to Worcester and Cheltenham to Swindon/London services) also adding Waterwells to their calling pattern would be the best solution in my opinion since they're just about far enough apart and the demand could be argued since it would cater for commuter and leisure travellers, but expecting XC to cut out Cheltenham and exclusively serve Waterwells is quite an odd proposition.

 

[tigerroar]

Gloucester is a nowhere place and a nothing economy next to Cheltenham’s. The current situation is correct and if anything, the London should go direct.

Do you have a GL50 postcode by any chance?

Have you seen how many people get on and off at Gloucester on the Paddington trains? They go virtually empty to Cheltenham afterwards. They might as well terminate at Gloucester and clear the rest of the passengers out with the rubbish.

Waterwells is too far from Cheltenham too for it to be considered reasonable to cut out the stop and expect people to drive there.

They can catch a train to Waterwells or WP, like we have to do from Gloucester now.

Cheltenham is only well used because trains stop there. Gloucester would be just as well used if trains stopped there too.

 

[The Planner]

Do you have a GL50 postcode by any chance?

Have you seen how many people get on and off at Gloucester on the Paddington trains? They go virtually empty to Cheltenham afterwards. They might as well terminate at Gloucester and clear the rest of the passengers out with the rubbish.



They can catch a train to Waterwells or WP, like we have to do from Gloucester now.

Cheltenham is only well used because trains stop there. Gloucester would be just as well used if trains stopped there too.

Pre COVID Cheltenham was getting 2.6 million passengers with 240k interchanges. You could assume a lot of those 240k were Gloucester passengers. Gloucester was getting 1.5 million. Thats 1.1 million difference, removing Cheltenham calls and replacing with Gloucester or even adding Gloucester is very unlikely to close that gap.

 

[lrailadventure]

They can catch a train to Waterwells or WP, like we have to do from Gloucester now.

What trains? You've just said the trains should only call at Waterwells and Worcestershire Parkway? Your plan would reduce the number of services calling at Cheltenham and therefore remove the opportunity for people to catch a train between the 2 stations?

Currently Cheltenham has 1tph to Worcestershire Parkway and then onward to Birmingham and Nottingham (assuming crosscountry have enough staff to run the service as it's not uncommon to see that service cancelled). It has 2 additional trains that run direct to Birmingham without any intermediate stops. You're plan is to stop those 2 trains from calling at Cheltenham and leave passengers what? Praying the Cardiff to Notts train is running? Reducing the number of (currently very popular) northbound services by 66% doesn't seem like a brilliant plan.. Passengers will very quickly give up and find other ways of travelling.

Cheltenham is only well used because trains stop there. Gloucester would be just as well used if trains stopped there too.

More trains call at Cheltenham because it is on the mainline and doesn't require any reversals. It is well used because it is the interchange point from the Cotswolds line to the XC line. It is also a popular town with tourists, has many commuters, 'good' bus connections to the villages and surrounding areas just outside of Cheltenham, and of course large events at Cheltenham Racecourse.

Stopping services from calling at Cheltenham is still an odd proposition. It would inconvenience a significant amount of people, in particular leisure travellers, who I'm sure you know, want as few changes as possible during their journey. Adding Waterwells to some of the services calling patterns would benefit people without inconveniencing too many.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Worcestershire Parkway doesn't have as many local connections though. It doesn't have any significant housing areas surrounding it. It is primarily used by commuters coming off the motorway who are heading into Birmingham and Worcester, as well as in interchange between the 2 lines (although a very poor interchange with long connection times).

North Cotswolds<->Birmingham is not a bad connection at all. It's typically around 25 minutes each way, which is a little longer than ideal but far from terrible.

From where I live (Charlbury) it's now roughly the same time to travel to New Street via Oxford or Worcestershire Parkway. From anywhere further up the Cotswold Line it would be quicker via Parkway. Plus the trains are more comfortable and less rammed than the Voyagers from Oxford.

 

[tigerroar]

Pre COVID Cheltenham was getting 2.6 million passengers with 240k interchanges. You could assume a lot of those 240k were Gloucester passengers. Gloucester was getting 1.5 million. Thats 1.1 million difference, removing Cheltenham calls and replacing with Gloucester or even adding Gloucester is very unlikely to close that gap.

Seriously? Gloucester got that many passengers with pretty much all XC services not stopping? Stop the XC services here and it would double. More.

What trains? You've just said the trains should only call at Waterwells and Worcestershire Parkway? Your plan would reduce the number of services calling at Cheltenham and therefore remove the opportunity for people to catch a train between the 2 stations?

The same dogboxes from BTM to Malvern that we have to catch.

More trains call at Cheltenham because it is on the mainline

The mainline goes through Gloucester. Through Waterwells. I've got a great idea...

 

[The Planner]

Seriously? Gloucester got that many passengers with pretty much all XC services not stopping? Stop the XC services here and it would double. More.


The same dogboxes from BTM to Malvern that we have to catch.

Pretty much all? Half of them don't stop.

 

[tigerroar]

It is also a popular town with tourists, has many commuters, 'good' bus connections to the villages and surrounding areas just outside of Cheltenham, and of course large events at Cheltenham Racecourse.

Tourists? Seriously? What exactly is there in Cheltenham to lure a tourist?

Pretty much all? Half of them don't stop.

How many XC services stop at Gloucester, not including the Cardiff-Nottingham ones. The ones that matter are the ones from Penzance, Plymouth, BTM to the north.

 

[The Planner]

How many XC services stop at Gloucester, not including the Cardiff-Nottingham ones. The ones that matter are the ones from Penzance, Plymouth, BTM to the north.

You said pretty much all XC dont stop, which is clearly untrue.

 

[lrailadventure]

Tourists? Seriously? What exactly is there in Cheltenham to lure a tourist?

The festivals, the races, the town centre itself, the parks, the fact the Cotswolds is on the doorstep, the theatres, the Gloucestershire and Warwickshire steam railway, all of the dining choices available, Imperial and Montpellier gardens, Pittville park, shopping, the town hall building, Neptune fountain and so on. Plenty to do and see in Cheltenham that attracts people to the area.

Don't believe me still? May I recommend getting outside and exploring the local areas from an outside perspective..

The same dogboxes from BTM to Malvern that we have to catch.

Those trains don't serve Worcestershire Parkway though? So I ask again, how do you get from Cheltenham to Worcestershire Parkway for northbound connections with your plan to stop XC from serving Cheltenham?

The mainline goes through Gloucester. Through Waterwells. I've got a great idea...

Yeh.. we've heard your "great" idea.. it's not great.

Having a station nearby to Waterwells isn't a bad idea, I suggested that further back in the thread. The idea to stop having XC long-distance trains serving Cheltenham is a bad choice and will cause issues.

End of the story is Cheltenham is a busier station than Gloucester and therefore makes sense for it to have more services. The ongoing housing explosion south of Gloucester needs considerations for its own station. Based on the 2021 census:

• Quedgeley and Hunts Grove have a population of 22,143
• Kingsway has a population of 7,043
• Tuffley has a population of 6,173

To try and argue that the housing explosion with a combined population of 35,359 people with no real tourism areas or literally anything of interest except a connection to the motorway should be served by all XC services and Cheltenham, a town with a population of 118,836 with tourism and leisure attractions and a station that is within walking distance (just about) of the town centre to be served by no XC services is going to be a very hard point to argue..

 

[tigerroar]

Cheltenham is only busier than Gloucester because XC don't stop at Gloucester though. How is this so hard for you to understand?

It's nonsense that XC use the time penalty as an example when they reverse at Reading when there's no need to and detour via Leeds instead of Doncaster like they did in the BR days. And it's highly unlikely that anyone is on a XC train from start to finish so a few minutes doesn't matter.

 

[JonathanH]

Cheltenham is only busier than Gloucester because XC don't stop at Gloucester though.

That isn't strictly true.

Firstly, passengers travelling from Birmingham (and indeed Derby) have a direct hourly train to Gloucester, so the northbound part of the market is reasonably satisfied.

Secondly, travel patterns are well established, and it is 20 years since Gloucester was a call on a substantial number of SW to the North XC services. Therefore people who have a choice between living in Cheltenham and Gloucester and who regularly need to use XC will have made their choice on the basis of the prevailing service.

XC isn't the only driver of passenger numbers at Cheltenham and Gloucester. Gloucester is nearer than Cheltenham to Bristol, London and South Wales and yet doesn't have higher passenger numbers.

 

[lrailadventure]

Cheltenham is only busier than Gloucester because XC don't stop at Gloucester though. How is this so hard for you to understand?

What's hard to understand is why you are not willing to accept that Cheltenham is busier than Gloucester.

Gloucester's station is unwelcoming, it has an annoying layout, there is not sufficient car parking, parking elsewhere in the city centre is expensive, buses around the station are unreliable, walking and cycling to the station takes you through some fairly unfriendly areas, the station is currently surrounded by never ending construction, the underpass between the hospital and station is currently closed. Need I go on? Gloucester is in general very dependent on the car. Having long distance services call at Gloucester won't make the blindest bit of difference, especially not since they're already overcrowded despite how overpriced they are.

There is also the consideration needed for the Horton Road Level Crossing. It's situated on a busy road, a main route to the hospital, there's no alternative route, such as a footbridge, for pedestrians etc. Adding more reversing services at Gloucester means more instances of the barriers having to go down, it's significantly more hassle than it's worse and will annoy everyone who has to use the crossing. The roads around the crossing can very easily get backed up, why make them even more backed up so you don't have to change at Cheltenham?

It's nonsense that XC use the time penalty as an example when they reverse at Reading when there's no need to and detour via Leeds instead of Doncaster like they did in the BR days. And it's highly unlikely that anyone is on a XC train from start to finish so a few minutes doesn't matter.

A few minutes can make all the difference though, because in a few minutes you can go from having a clear path in front of you to having a stopper stuck in front of you. As someone made the point when I originally suggested a new station and omitting Gloucester from the calling pattern, the reversals at gloucester allow the faster services to pass over the junction and 'overtake' the slower stopping services.

 

[edwin_m]

It's nonsense that XC use the time penalty as an example when they reverse at Reading when there's no need to and detour via Leeds instead of Doncaster like they did in the BR days. And it's highly unlikely that anyone is on a XC train from start to finish so a few minutes doesn't matter.

Leeds has nearly 800,000 people and Reading about 160,000, and both offer significant onward connections to a wider hinterland for XC. Many XC trains served Leeds in BR days, despite using a different route at the time which had a greater time penalty than today's. If either wasn't served directly, XC would have to make an extra stop somewhere else to provide connections.

A few minutes extra wouldn't make much difference to a journey like Edinburgh-Plymouth, but Birmingham-Bristol is reasonably competitive with the car on journey time and frequent enough for time-sensitive business travellers (it would be more so with better on-board ambience, but that's another story). An extra 10min or so on these journeys almost certainly discourages more longer journeys than the few extra people it might pick up at Gloucester who wouldn't otherwise have used a different train anyway.

 

[tigerroar]

Leeds, as a major population centre I get, but Reading? Why can't XC just stop at Reading West or the new Green Park station? Who exactly would use XC from where to make a connection at Reading?

What's hard to understand is why you are not willing to accept that Cheltenham is busier than Gloucester.

It's busier because trains stop there. If they didn't stop there but stopped in Gloucester instead then Gloucester would be busier. That's the only reason why it's busier.

Birmingham-Bristol is reasonably competitive with the car on journey time and frequent enough for time-sensitive business travellers (it would be more so with better on-board ambience, but that's another story). An extra 10min or so on these journeys almost certainly discourages more longer journeys than the few extra people it might pick up at Gloucester who wouldn't otherwise have used a different train anyway.

I read something recently about the problems that hop on versus hop off travels cause the XC's use of Voyagers spoiling it for long distance travellers. Why try to appease those people yet bypass 150,000 by not stopping at Gloucester?

Gloucester's station is unwelcoming, it has an annoying layout, there is not sufficient car parking

Gloucester station has a huge new car park behind platform 4

 

[lrailadventure]

It's busier because trains stop there. If they didn't stop there but stopped in Gloucester instead then Gloucester would be busier. That's the only reason why it's busier.

There's clearly no getting through to you about this matter..

Gloucester see's around 10 services an hour already (varies depending on where GWR stoppers terminate and if TfW Welsh services are running). Due to its location and awkward platform layout it will struggle to accommodate more services. The reason it works during engineering works (before you try and suggest it) is because it loses a lot of services so it clears the platforms for the diverted trains.

Cheltenham see's around 13 trains an hour (again depending on GWR and TfW)... Not much of a difference in the number of services but a significant difference between the number of passengers, so no, Cheltenham is not busier because it sees ~3 trains an extra per hour, but because it just is a busier station.

You need to accept that.

Gloucester station has a huge new car park behind platform 4

A car park that solved very few issues. Multiple times I've travelled to Gloucester and found that the new entrance on platform 4 is closed or the ticket barriers are unstaffed but still in operation (how are you getting through if you have issues with your ticket?) .. quite a pointless car park if you can't actually access it, especially while the underpass is closed. It also still costs an extortionate amount to park in it.

 

[deltic08]

As a native of Gloucestershire but having lived in North Yorkshire for the last 55 years, please leave the service as it is as long as there is a connection to Lydney, dogbox or otherwise. Intermediate stations between Gloucester/Cheltenham and Newport have had the best service precovid for a long time with better connections into/out of early and late London trains at Gloucester.
Missing out Cheltenham stops on XC is more crazy than closing the Eastgate loop and that was a decision taken by non rail users who were selfish and misguided in the extreme resulting in the problem Gloucester has now. It was obvious what would happen to rail services.

 

[cle]

I don’t have a GL postcode.

The counterpoint to the Gloucester has less trains / worse service, therefore less users - can be applied to Cheltenham-London. If it went direct and had a faster journey time, you’d see more users. It is stifled due to the Gloucester boondoggle.

I know at least one friend who drives to Swindon, many more must.

 

[Pete_uk]

Could anything be sorted by building a spur from the main line just south of the M5 going west over the Severn to connect with the line from south Wales thus avoiding a reversal?

 

[JonathanH]

Could anything be sorted by building a spur from the main line just south of the M5 going west over the Severn to connect with the line from south Wales thus avoiding a reversal?

The cost benefit analysis on that ideaa would be challenging. Is the demand and revenue on offer at Gloucester sufficient to justify all trains calling there and to offset the longer journey times to the south west.

What are the flows that aren't adequately served at the moment? Gloucester has two trains most hours to Bristol, two trains most hours to Newport and Cardiff, an hourly train to London, and an hourly train to Birmingham, plus connections at Cheltenham.

 

[edwin_m]

I read something recently about the problems that hop on versus hop off travels cause the XC's use of Voyagers spoiling it for long distance travellers. Why try to appease those people yet bypass 150,000 by not stopping at Gloucester?

If that's a problem then why encourage more hop on hop off travel by adding another stop?

 

[lrailadventure]

The counterpoint to the Gloucester has less trains / worse service, therefore less users - can be applied to Cheltenham-London. If it went direct and had a faster journey time, you’d see more users. It is stifled due to the Gloucester boondoggle.

On a typical Cheltenham to London service, more people will board at Gloucester rather than Cheltenham though, so by removing the stop you're not going to increase the number of people travelling out of Cheltenham, you're encouraging more people to use their cars, because for that journey length people aren't going to be willing to get a train into Cheltenham, mess around changing trains and then travel the exact same 5.5 miles back to Barnwood Junction/Gloucester. That will increase their journey times and also remove a key service from Gloucester to Cheltenham that currently connects very well onto the XC long distance services..

I know at least one friend who drives to Swindon, many more must.

From Station to Station:

- Cheltenham to Swindon (driving): 50 minutes​

- Cheltenham to Swindon (train): 59 minutes​

- Gloucester to Swindon (driving): 53 minutes​

- Gloucester to Swindon (train): 45 minutes​

​

The time is currently comparable for the journeys covered. Excluding Gloucester from the calling pattern won't improve anything. The journey times will still be comparable whether someone choses to drive or take the train. Also, to drive to Swindon, you would have to drive along the A417, over the Air Balloon Roundabout and Nettleton Bottom. That is a horrible stretch of road that is notorious for traffic jams, crashes and closures (yes, I'm aware of the improvement works but how long will they take to complete?). I spent 3 years driving along that road on a commute to Cirencester, if there had been an alternative (such as a better located rail station or a more frequent bus service), I promise you I would have taken it, the road is that bad.

 

[tigerroar]

A car park that solved very few issues. Multiple times I've travelled to Gloucester and found that the new entrance on platform 4 is closed or the ticket barriers are unstaffed but still in operation (how are you getting through if you have issues with your ticket?) .. quite a pointless car park if you can't actually access it, especially while the underpass is closed. It also still costs an extortionate amount to park in it.

I've never had a problem.

Cheltenham see's around 13 trains an hour (again depending on GWR and TfW)... Not much of a difference in the number of services but a significant difference between the number of passengers, so no, Cheltenham is not busier because it sees ~3 trains an extra per hour, but because it just is a busier station.

It's only busier because it gets more trains. Take those trains away and the numbers would drop significantly. Why can't you understand this? It's simple.

closing the Eastgate loop and that was a decision taken by non rail users who were selfish and misguided in the extreme resulting in the problem Gloucester has now. It was obvious what would happen to rail services.

They would still find a reason to bypass Gloucester!

I don’t have a GL postcode.

The counterpoint to the Gloucester has less trains / worse service, therefore less users - can be applied to Cheltenham-London. If it went direct and had a faster journey time, you’d see more users. It is stifled due to the Gloucester boondoggle.

I know at least one friend who drives to Swindon, many more must.

It actually makes me happy that snobs from Cheltenham have to sit and wait in Gloucester for almost ten minutes. And the fact that they'd rather drive to Swindon than do as such proves my point!

Could anything be sorted by building a spur from the main line just south of the M5 going west over the Severn to connect with the line from south Wales thus avoiding a reversal?

It was absolutely pie in the sky but I remember quite a few years back a suggestion about taking the railway out of Gloucester and connecting the Lydney line via a junction south of Stonehouse and across the river by Arlingham /Newnham. There were also plans to upgrade the A48 to motorway mind

Not sure if it was published on April 1st though

If that's a problem then why encourage more hop on hop off travel by adding another stop?

It wouldn't be, it would be replacing a stop by whizzing through Cheltenham.

 

[edwin_m]

I've never had a problem.



It's only busier because it gets more trains. Take those trains away and the numbers would drop significantly. Why can't you understand this? It's simple.


They would still find a reason to bypass Gloucester!


It actually makes me happy that snobs from Cheltenham have to sit and wait in Gloucester for almost ten minutes. And the fact that they'd rather drive to Swindon than do as such proves my point!



It was absolutely pie in the sky but I remember quite a few years back a suggestion about taking the railway out of Gloucester and connecting the Lydney line via a junction south of Stonehouse and across the river by Arlingham /Newnham. There were also plans to upgrade the A48 to motorway mind

Not sure if it was published on April 1st though


It wouldn't be, it would be replacing a stop by whizzing through Cheltenham.

Clearly you aren't going to be convinced by anything anyone says on here. Where's the "ignore thread" button?

 

[lrailadventure]

It's only busier because it gets more trains. Take those trains away and the numbers would drop significantly. Why can't you understand this? It's simple.

Cheltenham has 3 additional trains an hour (roughly). Cheltenham has a million (pre-covid) more customers than Gloucester per year. 3 additional trains an hour does not equal a difference in passengers as significant as that, especially since people from Gloucester can very easily change trains at Cheltenham (same platform typically, ideal connection times etc) if they want to use long-distance XC services. Cheltenham simply is and always will be a better used station. Those are the basic facts. If you're not willing to accept them, then that's your issue.

It actually makes me happy that snobs from Cheltenham have to sit and wait in Gloucester for almost ten minutes.

If that's the sort of thing that makes you happy, may I reccomend taking a walk outside, finding something to do in nature, perhaps with some friends, maybe taking up a new hobby, and finding something that's actually worth being happy over, instead of people waiting at a station..

Clearly you aren't going to be convinced by anything anyone says on here. Where's the "ignore thread" button?

The ignore user button is proving very useful. Only coming back to this thread now when someone with a bit more sense is replying

 

[tigerroar]

Clearly you aren't going to be convinced by anything anyone says on here. Where's the "ignore thread" button?

I've seen nothing here to convince me that it wouldn't be better if Gloucester had a station at Waterwells with two island platforms for up and down London and up and down Bristol routes, having all XC services stop there, bypassing Cheltenham if it caused a time penalty although they're far enough apart to stop at both. If not, bypass Cheltenham and call at Worcestershire Parkway instead, providing two Cities with nationwide direct connections rather than a conurbation of council estates with a few posh shops.

The ignore user button is proving very useful. Only coming back to this thread now when someone with a bit more sense is replying

No need to be so rude is there. If you can't debate in a sensible manner then keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[py_megapixel]

I've seen nothing here to convince me that it wouldn't be better if Gloucester had a station at Waterwells with two island platforms for up and down London and up and down Bristol routes, having all XC services stop there, bypassing Cheltenham if it caused a time penalty although they're far enough apart to stop at both. If not, bypass Cheltenham and call at Worcestershire Parkway instead, providing two Cities with nationwide direct connections rather than a conurbation of council estates with a few posh shops.

Two problems with this:

Firstly, Cheltenham has a greater population than Worcester. The "city" status is practically meaningless as it just comes down to whether a particular settlement is on a list or not.

Secondly, you wouldn't be serving Worcester and Gloucester, you'd be serving two carparks in the middle of fields vaguely near Worcester and Gloucester respectively, which isn't the same thing.

 

[lrailadventure]

No need to be so rude is there. If you can't debate in a sensible manner then keep your opinions to yourself.

It wasn't rude. There is no debate to be having. You're not listening to everyone explaining basic facts to you as to why your plan wouldn't work. Cheltenham needs long-distance XC services. Gloucester (and any station that would serve the housing explosion south of the city) doesn't. I know this is a speculative thread, but there's speculative and there's just plain daft.

Secondly, you wouldn't be serving Worcester and Gloucester, you'd be serving two carparks in the middle of fields vaguely near Worcester and Gloucester respectively, which isn't the same thing.

Arguably if a station would be built at or near Waterwells, it would serve the Quedgeley, Kingsway, Tuffley and Hunts Grove areas pretty well, as well as the motorway, it wouldn't necessarily just be serving just a car park, more so a few housing estates, however it's miles away from the city centre so wouldn't be of any use to anyone who wants to visit the City (nor those who want to travel to Cheltenham which is even further away). Worcestershire Parkway on the other hand is, as you've described it, just a car park.

Despite what Tigerroar seems to think, the current services work just fine, it would just be nice for south of Gloucester to have a new station, especially since another new housing estate has been approved for Kingsway and there is little else in terms of public transport serving the area, making it very car dependent.

 

[Trainguy34]

Another way would be adding a shuttle with good timings for changes at Cheltenham, potentially extending in the other direction to a new Station at Tuffley and beyond.

Edit: Just by looking at RTT, It looks like if the Notts-Cardiff trains were held for 5 mins, it would give a 5 Min connection from the Plymouth to Edinburgh

 

[tigerroar]

you wouldn't be serving Worcester and Gloucester, you'd be serving two carparks in the middle of fields vaguely near Worcester and Gloucester respectively, which isn't the same thing.

to be fair, the only people that would see this as a negative are those that live within easy walking distance of the railways station. Car or bus to the parkway works for the majority.

Another way would be adding a shuttle with good timings for changes at Cheltenham, potentially extending in the other direction to a new Station at Tuffley and beyond.

Why does the shuttle have to go to Cheltenham though? It should be from Cheltenham. It's insulting to Gloucester people that they have to go to the smaller town to catch a train. They should be there to serve the bigger places with the bigger populations.