Should more XC services call at Gloucester?

[TheWalrus]

I noticed while travelling to and from Devon last weekend with the Newport diversions a significant number of people boarded and alighted at Gloucester. I realise it is a 9 minute penalty fir calling at Gloucester but the HST I was on filled up at Gloucester towards Plymouth and coming back about 20 alighted.

So the question is should more XC services to, and from the Southwest call at Gloucester?

 

[The Planner]

I noticed while travelling to and from Devon last weekend with the Newport diversions a significant number of people boarded and alighted at Gloucester. I realise it is a 9 minute penalty fir calling at Gloucester but the HST I was on filled up at Gloucester towards Plymouth and coming back about 20 alighted.

So the question is should more XC services to, and from the Southwest call at Gloucester?

You would likely be back and forward timing from Cheltenham as it would soon unravel further north. If XC wanted to do it though, I suspect they would have done so by now.
Off peak Northbound you have a 8/9 minute connection off a Padd Cheltenham into a Man Picc service and a 17 minute connection into an Edinburgh. Southbound its 9 minutes as well from a NE-SW into a GWR Padd service but a bit rubbish off a Manchester Bristol.

 

[cle]

If anything it should come off the Paddington-Cheltenham. There was once talk of a second London tph on the Golden Valley - one to Gloucester (and onward?), with a Cheltenham dedicated. Potentially on to Worcester. No chance these days of course.

 

[Austriantrain]

Have
- 2 fast tph nonstop between BHM - BPW (the current southwest-north XC)
- 2 tph BHM - CDF, giving CNM and GCR fast services from Birmingham
- 2 tph BHM - WOS - CNM - GCR - BRI, serving stops like UNI, BMV and ASC, but fast between GCR and BPW.

Obviously through running at New Street to somewhere else.

I know: no capacity at New Street and no money; but it could be the timetable a Swiss planner would propose

 

[RobShipway]

Have
- 2 fast tph nonstop between BHM - BPW (the current southwest-north XC)
- 2 tph BHM - CDF, giving CNM and GCR fast services from Birmingham
- 2 tph BHM - WOS - CNM - GCR - BRI, serving stops like UNI, BMV and ASC, but fast between GCR and BPW.

Obviously through running at New Street to somewhere else.

I know: no capacity at New Street and no money; but it could be the timetable a Swiss planner would propose

The only way you could make any changes is when HS2 has been completed and trains have started running on it through from London Euston. Then the Timetable you propose, could be implemented possibly.

 

[The Planner]

Have
- 2 fast tph nonstop between BHM - BPW (the current southwest-north XC)
- 2 tph BHM - CDF, giving CNM and GCR fast services from Birmingham
- 2 tph BHM - WOS - CNM - GCR - BRI, serving stops like UNI, BMV and ASC, but fast between GCR and BPW.

Obviously through running at New Street to somewhere else.

I know: no capacity at New Street and no money; but it could be the timetable a Swiss planner would propose

Depends which way your stopper is going. If the Bordesley chord gets built then that is probably a likely scenario. Though Id expect the Cardiff to still get another stop.

 

[cle]

Cheltenham Spa is a smidge busier than Bristol Parkway. Which has tons more service.

If anything you'd non-stop the latter (not that I think either should be skipped).

 

[TheWalrus]

You would likely be back and forward timing from Cheltenham as it would soon unravel further north. If XC wanted to do it though, I suspect they would have done so by now.
Off peak Northbound you have a 8/9 minute connection off a Padd Cheltenham into a Man Picc service and a 17 minute connection into an Edinburgh. Southbound its 9 minutes as well from a NE-SW into a GWR Padd service but a bit rubbish off a Manchester Bristol.

What about going between Gloucester and Plymouth?

 

[Pete_uk]

Voyager services could go via the Severn Tunnel if there is space to avoid reversing at Gloucester

 

[Bartsimho]

Voyager services could go via the Severn Tunnel if there is space to avoid reversing at Gloucester

That would require a reversal somewhere like Newport as there is no chord between the lines in the way you want

 

[irish_rail]

Plymouth to Birmingham is slow enough as it is without making 95 percent of the trains passengers suffer an extra 10 minutes to go into Gloucester. I agree its an important and nice city, but sadly railway geography doesn't support stops there on long distance trains.

 

[The Planner]

What about going between Gloucester and Plymouth?

6 to 9 minutes from a Bristol Worcester service into a Plymouth.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Probably time to mention the often proposed solution of building a parkway station at Barnwood, north of the city and close to the A417/A40. which could be served by both Bristol and South Wales trains. BR even considered building a sort of 'Gloucestershire Parkway' at Churchdown, to replace both Gloucester Central and Cheltenham stations. The short-sighted City Council in the 1970s wanted the removal of the level crossings into Eastgate rather than BR, and it has suffered ever since.

 

[lrailadventure]

Probably time to mention the often proposed solution of building a parkway station at Barnwood, north of the city and close to the A417/A40. which could be served by both Bristol and South Wales trains. BR even considered building a sort of 'Gloucestershire Parkway' at Churchdown, to replace both Gloucester Central and Cheltenham stations. The short-sighted City Council in the 1970s wanted the removal of the level crossings into Eastgate rather than BR, and it has suffered ever since.

It's very unrealistic and will never happen, but I'd argue the Gloucester area needs 2 new stations. One, as you've suggested north of the city to serve the areas such as Barnwood, Longlevens, Insworth and Churchdown etc, but there also needs to be one south of the city, to serve the rapidly growing areas of Quedgeley, Kingsway and Hunt's Grove. If either were to be a parkway, I'd say the south of the city station would be the better option, as it could be better located to the motorway and the roads driving into the city centre from Quedgeley and Kingsway are often a lot more traffic-heavy than the roads from the northern areas, it could potentially encourage more people out of their cars and onto public transport that way? It would also serve as a better interchange for those changing between the bristol line and the golden valley line. Keep the current station for the services through to Newport and Cardiff, but stop most of the services (maybe not all, keep some peak trains perhaps?) that have to reverse at Gloucester.

Realistically though, nothing will ever happen towards even considering the thought of additional stations, because to put it nicely, the council here are absolutely useless (unless somehow the Bristol Metro plans can somehow push for them and create business cases?)

 

[The exile]

Have
- 2 fast tph nonstop between BHM - BPW (the current southwest-north XC)
- 2 tph BHM - CDF, giving CNM and GCR fast serv
I know: no capacity at New Street and no money; but it could be the timetable a Swiss

Have
-
- 2 tph BHM - WOS - CNM - GCR - BRI, serving stops like UNI, BMV and ASC, but fast between GCR and BPW.

Obviously through running at New Street to somewhere else.

I know: no capacity at New Street and no money; but it could be the timetable a Swiss planner would propose

Couldn’t serve University that way but extending the Camp Hill shuttle by about 2000% of its proposed route length would solve the New Street capacity issue by not requiring any more.

 

[Austriantrain]

Couldn’t serve University that way but extending the Camp Hill shuttle by about 2000% of its proposed route length would solve the New Street capacity issue by not requiring any more.

The Cardiffs could serve UNI. But there is still that lack of money… and the paths would need to work together - not a lot of possibilities to change timings at New Street.

 

[tigerroar]

I like to walk up Robinswood Hill. It's great exercise and a lovely, serene place to sit and watch the world go by. And the Voyagers.

It's an insult to Gloucester, 150,000 residents, that these trains don't stop here. We have to suffer the inconvenience or either catching a train to Cheltenham, or trying to find a space in their ridiculously inadequate car park. I don't know anything about the council, a friend of mine Paul James was leader for a while, I'll ask him whether anything was ever proposed other than the pointless station at Barnwood. Building one at Waterwells is an absolute must. Stonehouse wants a station on the Bristol line but one at Waterwells would be ideal for not only Gloucester as a park and ride but for Stroud and Stonehouse too. It would even be far enough away from Cheltenham for XC to stop at both too.

 

[edwin_m]

It's very unrealistic and will never happen, but I'd argue the Gloucester area needs 2 new stations. One, as you've suggested north of the city to serve the areas such as Barnwood, Longlevens, Insworth and Churchdown etc, but there also needs to be one south of the city, to serve the rapidly growing areas of Quedgeley, Kingsway and Hunt's Grove. If either were to be a parkway, I'd say the south of the city station would be the better option, as it could be better located to the motorway and the roads driving into the city centre from Quedgeley and Kingsway are often a lot more traffic-heavy than the roads from the northern areas, it could potentially encourage more people out of their cars and onto public transport that way? It would also serve as a better interchange for those changing between the bristol line and the golden valley line. Keep the current station for the services through to Newport and Cardiff, but stop most of the services (maybe not all, keep some peak trains perhaps?) that have to reverse at Gloucester.

Realistically though, nothing will ever happen towards even considering the thought of additional stations, because to put it nicely, the council here are absolutely useless (unless somehow the Bristol Metro plans can somehow push for them and create business cases?)

Nobody would use this as a park and ride for travelling into Gloucester - the train frequency is just too low for a short journey, and few people would risk getting stuck in traffic and then having a long wait for the next train. In smaller cities without light rail, the only possibly viable option is bus-based P&R which can provide a much greater frequency. It follows that those intending to park and ride will be going to more distant places, so most are adding traffic to the local roads. For this reason and because those people are also at risk from traffic delays, it is best to put a Parkway station somewhere with uncongested road access.

Having trains reverse in Gloucester Central also has an operational purpose, as many of them are overtaken by non-stopping Cross Country trains while they do so. If those trains served only a Parkway, it might have to have platform loops to allow the overtake, and trains might have to stop there for 5+ minutes.

 

[lrailadventure]

Nobody would use this as a park and ride for travelling into Gloucester - the train frequency is just too low for a short journey, and few people would risk getting stuck in traffic and then having a long wait for the next train. In smaller cities without light rail, the only possibly viable option is bus-based P&R which can provide a much greater frequency. It follows that those intending to park and ride will be going to more distant places, so most are adding traffic to the local roads. For this reason and because those people are also at risk from traffic delays, it is best to put a Parkway station somewhere with uncongested road access.

Except a lot of people commute between the Gloucester, Stroud, Stonehouse, Bristol and Cheltenham areas via the Motorway. To have a park and ride station that would serve the housing explosion in Quedgeley / Kingsway / Hunts Grove etc area, as well as the motorway would provide faster travel for all those commuters (since it wouldn't just be used by those travelling into Gloucester), while (in theory) reducing the number of cars clogging up the city centres, since most of the stations around here are fairly well located to the town/city centres.

The frequency of trains serving Gloucester is an entirely different issue.

Gloucester, as well as many other cities in this country, are struggling for bus drivers. A bus based P&R wouldn't fix anything because people already know they can't rely on buses here. Look at the number 12 bus for example, does a loop of Quedgeley and then drives to the city centre. Buses are frequently cancelled and people would rather drive (hence very traffic heavy roads) than pray that their bus might turn up.

Having trains reverse in Gloucester Central also has an operational purpose, as many of them are overtaken by non-stopping Cross Country trains while they do so. If those trains served only a Parkway, it might have to have platform loops to allow the overtake, and trains might have to stop there for 5+ minutes.

Entirely why I started by saying it'll never happen.

Having to reverse at Gloucester causes its own issues though. Multiple times during distribution, I've been changing trains at Cheltenham and have had the trains that call and reverse at Gloucester announce they're running late and won't be stopping there (to catch up a fair amount of time). Easier to cut out a stop and leave people stuck (hoping that a XC or TfW Cardiff service appears - which especially in the case of XC is not guaranteed) rather than delay the train for its whole journey (I understand the logistics, no one needs to tell me). With a station serving Gloucester on the mainline the service wouldn't lose as much time stopping without having to reverse, nor would it annoy people by leaving them on the platform unable to get to their destination.

 

[Western Sunset]

So how many long-distance XC trains call at the new Worcester P'way station? Think one serving Glos would be a non-starter.

 

[lrailadventure]

So how many long-distance XC trains call at the new Worcester P'way station? Think one serving Glos would be a non-starter.

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).

Locate a new station south of gloucester right and it would have a leisure and commuter demand from the local housing estates as well as a commuter demand from the motorway, and an argument could therefore be made to get one (or some depending on how popular the station may prove) of the long distance XC trains to stop there.

 

[tigerroar]

All of the XC trains should stop at Waterwells and bypass Cheltenham. That place is pointless; it's a mile from the town centre and has quite limited parking.

 

[JonathanH]

All of the XC trains should stop at Waterwells and bypass Cheltenham. That place is pointless; it's a mile from the town centre and has quite limited parking.

Speak for yourself. The station still facilitates journeys to Cheltenham, and indeed Gloucester, even if it isn't ideally situated.

 

[py_megapixel]

All of the XC trains should stop at Waterwells and bypass Cheltenham. That place is pointless; it's a mile from the town centre and has quite limited parking

By that logic, Waterwells is equally pointless by being about 3.5 miles from Gloucester and 10 miles from Cheltenham. A mile is at least a vaguely sensible distance to walk, and there are also bus services to Cheltenham which, with the right will, could be integrated into the rail timetabling and ticketing system to offer through journeys to the town centre. Also I'm not sure about "limited parking" - the whole eastern side of the station is pretty much exclusively a carpark/taxi rank. Waterwells, in contrast, is in the middle of a field. Its only value would be for park and ride passengers.

This is before you even consider whether it would be practical. It's already a fairly busy section of line, with 2 XC services per hour, the Cheltenham-London (which would have to stop there if the XCs stopped serving Cheltenham, otherwise there would be nowhere sensible for passengers from Stonehouse/Stroud/Kemble to connect with XC services to/from the north) and now also 2tph Gloucester-Bristol stopper with the various extensions (which I suppose could skip Waterwells, but given those are the stoppers it would be odd). Is it feasible or indeed desirable to have all 5tph on that line stopping at Waterwells?

 

[tigerroar]

Waterwells would have two island platforms; up and down London and up and down Bristol.

XC could cut out Cheltenham and call at Waterwells and Worcestershire Parkway instead. Options for Cheltenham people wanting to go north or south with ample parking. Waterwells would be great for Stroud and Stonehouse too.

 

[JonathanH]

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

That is fantasy.

 

[tigerroar]

Speak for yourself. The station still facilitates journeys to Cheltenham, and indeed Gloucester, even if it isn't ideally situated.

It's plainly wrong that the main City in the county should have to go to the smaller town to catch a train.

That is fantasy.

All of this is fantasy, this is speculative discussion.

 

[cle]

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.

 

[py_megapixel]

XC could cut out Cheltenham and call at Waterwells and Worcestershire Parkway instead. Options for Cheltenham people wanting to go north or south with ample parking.

I still don't see the logic in replacing a stop in an actual place with two stops in the middle of nowhere, making the service both slower and less convenient.

Parking is not more important than places people actually want to travel to - if Cheltenham Spa station doesn't adequately serve Cheltenham, the solution is to implement through ticketing with the buses, not to move the train service even further away and expect people to drive to it.

Waterwells would be great for Stroud and Stonehouse too.

I don't really see how.

Very few people are likely to use it as a park and ride for local journeys towards Gloucester - once you've driven as far as Waterwells from Stroud/Stonehouse you might as well drive all the way into Gloucester - and people making journeys towards Bristol would surely be better served by a new station further south, after the Bristol line diverges from the Swindon line.

Perhaps there is a small market of people who would drive to Waterwells to make longer journeys to Birmingham and beyond. But the existing London service, which calls at Stroud and Stonehouse, is already timed to connect well with services to and from Birmingham at Cheltenham, so I don't think it really solves much of a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

I still don't see the logic in replacing a stop in an actual place with two stops in the middle of nowhere, making the service both slower and less convenient.

Parking is not more important than places people actually want to travel to - if Cheltenham Spa station doesn't adequately serve Cheltenham, the solution is to implement through ticketing with the buses, not to move the train service even further away and expect people to drive to it.

If the only station serving a city is a long way out of it then that may be good for local people with cars, but it's not so good for visitors who have to find their way from the station into the city. Thus there may be a tendency to change a city from a destination into a dormitory. That might happen with Gloucester to some extent, if some of the routes serving it only stop at an out-of-town station. Cheltenham probably suffers this to some extent but the centre is just about walkable from the station.