Swindon to Gloucester line: More services?

[SwindonBert]

I can see 2tph working, but don't think there's the demand for 4tph (other than 1 week in March, but additional trains run anyway). Are there the paths / platforms between Swindon & Paddington to run another train to London? I could see the 2nd train being a local train, or, ideally for me, running the service to New Street, but could increase the service to Worcester.

I don't think we're need to start planning for a 2nd Gloucester station yet, really can't see it being a priority, especially if Cheltenham to Gloucester is increased with this extra tph

 

[Charlie M.]

I believe that this WILL happen, but when?

Also a 2tph frequency could push electrification in the next 7-15 years? It would then mean that the majority of Swindon trains are electric.

 

[SwindonBert]

I believe that this WILL happen, but when?

Also a 2tph frequency could push electrification in the next 7-15 years? It would then mean that the majority of Swindon trains are electric.

I would have thought the only ones that would not be electric in a year or so would be those on the West Wiltshire line & the occasional from Cheltenham that are not planned to be through to London. So a massive majority would be electric

 

[adrock1976]

Would something like this be useful?

Worcester Shrub Hill - Ashchurch for Tewksbury - Cheltenham Spa - Gloucester South Parkway (if built, otherwise Central), Swindon - Didcot Parkway - Reading General - London Paddington every 60 minutes

Gloucester Central - Gloucester South Parkway - Swindon - Didcot Parkway - Reading General - London Paddington every 60 minutes

Both of the above would provide a traditional Intercity service of every 30 minutes between Gloucester South Parkway and Paddington.

There would be a local all stations shuttle between Gloucester Central and Swindon every 60 minutes, which as well as connecting to and from London trains, would also connect with the below:

*Swindon - Westbury via Melksham every 60 minutes, with a train continuing to Salisbury every 2 hours calling at Dilton Marsh and Warminster, and a train in the opposite hour every 2 hours continuing to Frome. This would provide a combined frequency of a train every 60 minutes between Westbury and Frome assuming the Bristol Temple Meads - Weymouth is standardised at every 2 hours.

*PS I am thinking along the lines of a North Somerset and Wiltshire taktfahrplan.

 

[tgrb]

Would something like this be useful?

Worcester Shrub Hill - Ashchurch for Tewksbury - Cheltenham Spa - Gloucester South Parkway (if built, otherwise Central), Swindon - Didcot Parkway - Reading General - London Paddington every 60 minutes

Gloucester Central - Gloucester South Parkway - Swindon - Didcot Parkway - Reading General - London Paddington every 60 minutes

Both of the above would provide a traditional Intercity service of every 30 minutes between Gloucester South Parkway and Paddington.

There would be a local all stations shuttle between Gloucester Central and Swindon every 60 minutes, which as well as connecting to and from London trains, would also connect with the below:

*Swindon - Westbury via Melksham every 60 minutes, with a train continuing to Salisbury every 2 hours calling at Dilton Marsh and Warminster, and a train in the opposite hour every 2 hours continuing to Frome. This would provide a combined frequency of a train every 60 minutes between Westbury and Frome assuming the Bristol Temple Meads - Weymouth is standardised at every 2 hours.

*PS I am thinking along the lines of a North Somerset and Wiltshire taktfahrplan.

I presume with your plan the likes of Kemble lose their direct London trains, I can’t see the natives agreeing with you, especially if like me you get all set up to work etc, I avoid changing at Swindon as it’s a right PITA and either a rugby scrum to get across to get the connection (on the way back) or adds time to your journey... I know everyone can’t be served how they wish but I think this would be a loss.

 

[jimm]

I wouldn't worry overmuch about things that people who appear not to have much understanding of local travel patterns write on here.

People within the rail industry are well aware that they have just spent a lot of money taking car park capacity at Kemble from the not exactly modest 335 there already were at that station up to 668 spaces now, that yet another huge housing development is planned at Cirencester and that the catchment for Stroud station contains 30,000+ people.

If there were two London trains per hour - and that's a big if given that we haven't even got the 1tph London-Cheltenham service in place yet - I can't imagine that GWR or any other future franchisee would be sending trains non-stop through either station.

People from Worcester often demand that Cotswold Line trains should not stop at 'villages' on the way to Oxford and impede their journeys from their great metropolis to the more modest one called London - but any examination of the passenger numbers makes it pretty obvious where the bulk of passengers - and the revenue that comes with them - on that line are, and it's not Worcester.

Kemble and Stroud are already both busier than any Cotswold Line station, even with the existing mix of one HST or IET every couple of hours most of the day and dmus in between. The 2016-17 figures indicate combined annual footfall of 896,000 - 0.529 million at Stroud and 0.367 million at Kemble.

At Gloucester, with trains to all points of the compass and a far bigger catchment population, the total was 1,480,000 - a great many of whom were not travelling on the London route at all. Which is why the notion that 'InterCity' trains should just hurtle flat out between one big place and another is all a bit 1970s frankly.

 

[Charlie M.]

I wouldn't worry overmuch about things that people who appear not to have much understanding of local travel patterns write on here.

People within the rail industry are well aware that they have just spent a lot of money taking car park capacity at Kemble from the not exactly modest 335 there already were at that station up to 668 spaces now, that yet another huge housing development is planned at Cirencester and that the catchment for Stroud station contains 30,000+ people.

If there were two London trains per hour - and that's a big if given that we haven't even got the 1tph London-Cheltenham service in place yet - I can't imagine that GWR or any other future franchisee would be sending trains non-stop through either station.

People from Worcester often demand that Cotswold Line trains should not stop at 'villages' on the way to Oxford and impede their journeys from their great metropolis to the more modest one called London - but any examination of the passenger numbers makes it pretty obvious where the bulk of passengers - and the revenue that comes with them - on that line are, and it's not Worcester.

Kemble and Stroud are already both busier than any Cotswold Line station, even with the existing mix of one HST or IET every couple of hours most of the day and dmus in between. The 2016-17 figures indicate combined annual footfall of 896,000 - 0.529 million at Stroud and 0.367 million at Kemble.

At Gloucester, with trains to all points of the compass and a far bigger catchment population, the total was 1,480,000 - a great many of whom were not travelling on the London route at all. Which is why the notion that 'InterCity' trains should just hurtle flat out between one big place and another is all a bit 1970s frankly.

I agree: a shuttle would never happen and I’m sure, would cause grief to everyone involved.

A 2tph frequency would be great, it’s just making services equal for Cheltenham and Gloucester.

 

[Mintona]

I think the best compromise would be 1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Cheltenham-Worcester SH, 1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Lydney-Chepstow-Newport-Cardiff, and 1tph Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Cheltenham (as now). But I don’t think passenger numbers would really justify it, so it’ll probably stay as it is for the time being. When (if) the second train per hour happens, I imagine it’ll be a shuttle from Swindon calling at all the same (as current) stations to Cheltenham.

 

[CC 72100]

I think the best compromise would be 1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Cheltenham-Worcester SH, 1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Lydney-Chepstow-Newport-Cardiff, and 1tph Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Cheltenham (as now). But I don’t think passenger numbers would really justify it, so it’ll probably stay as it is for the time being. When (if) the second train per hour happens, I imagine it’ll be a shuttle from Swindon calling at all the same (as current) stations to Cheltenham.

Unrelated to the main scope of this thread, but I can only see it being a matter of time before there is demand for Severn Tunnel Junction to have a direct service to London.

Lots of nice houses in that part of the world, must be home to people with frequent travel to the big smoke...

 

[Charlie M.]

You would have to base passenger usage off of what you get when the shuttles get replaced by the directs, e.g passenger usage between different locations and whether more travel on towards Swindon, or beyond Swindon.

e.g.
1tp2h Cardiff - Newport - STJ - Chepstow - Gloucester&Parkway - Stroud - Kemble - Swindon - Reading - Paddington

1tph Shrub Hill - Cheltenham - Parkway - Stonehouse - Stroud - Kemble - Swindon - Didcot Parkway - Reading - Paddington

It seems unrealistic but an Oxford service would be amazing, with a connecting service to Marylebone.

 

[Charlie M.]

I have been spending my time off reading about the Gloucester area and this is what I have found out.

Network Rail Western Study:
- Gloucester Resignalling planned for 2021.
- Once complete 1tph London - Gloucester and 1tph London - Cheltenham ready to start between then and 2043
- Possibility that most Cheltenham services would call at Ashchurch and Worcester
- If electrification happened, would start with Bristol-Birmingham (including Gloucester) and then option for possible Gloucester - STJ and Gloucester - Swindon
- Line speed increase on GVL if electrification, 125 between Swindon and Kemble
- 1tph Gloucester to Bristol running in addition to current services, possible extention to Worcester on others.

If I find out more will post here.
Possible is meant in a way for the future (2043)

 

[Mintona]

You won’t get 125 between Swindon and Kemble without closing Pirton Collins crossing, and believe me when I say you wouldn’t want to go faster than 50/60 on the section between Sapperton Tunnel and Stroud.

 

[SwindonBert]

I have been spending my time off reading about the Gloucester area and this is what I have found out.

Network Rail Western Study:
- Gloucester Resignalling planned for 2021.
- Once complete 1tph London - Gloucester and 1tph London - Cheltenham ready to start between then and 2043
- Possibility that most Cheltenham services would call at Ashchurch and Worcester
- If electrification happened, would start with Bristol-Birmingham (including Gloucester) and then option for possible Gloucester - STJ and Gloucester - Swindon
- Line speed increase on GVL if electrification, 125 between Swindon and Kemble
- 1tph Gloucester to Bristol running in addition to current services, possible extention to Worcester on others.

If I find out more will post here.
Possible is meant in a way for the future (2043)

You won’t get 125 between Swindon and Kemble without closing Pirton Collins crossing, and believe me when I say you wouldn’t want to go faster than 50/60 on the section between Sapperton Tunnel and Stroud.

What's the max speed one can do between Sapperton Tunnel & Standish Junction even after electrification (just wonder if it's worth going that far with electric)?
I met up with a friend who said - it does not matter if you electrify the line, if the tracks & signalling aren't up to increasing the speed, all you're doing it wasting money.

 

[Mintona]

What's the max speed one can do between Sapperton Tunnel & Standish Junction even after electrification (just wonder if it's worth going that far with electric)?
I met up with a friend who said - it does not matter if you electrify the line, if the tracks & signalling aren't up to increasing the speed, all you're doing it wasting money.

It’s mostly 50 from Sapperton to Stroud with a small section of 60 between St Mary’s Crossing and Bagpath Foot Crossing. Then at Stroud it rises to 90 before falling again to 40 at Standish Jn. But in the middle of the 90 section is Stonehouse station so you never get to 90 if you’re stopping there, which is all trains on a normal day.

The line is very twisty and features steep gradients, I don’t think it’ll be an easy one to increase the linepseed of, if even possible.

 

[Pete_uk]

Very little straight track between Sapperton Tunnel and Stroud. It just follows the sides of the valley.

 

[cle]

I do like the idea of the slower Cardiff via Gloucester service. It covers the Gloucs/Chelt split, and gives it a bit more purpose - serving other markets and eliminates the reversal. Perhaps it could have cheaper tickets and be well used by students etc - and lead to removal of some Swindon stops on faster Cardiff services?

And then Cheltenham can have a dedicated service which would be quicker and could extend to Worcester. I’d propose this one run faster through the Golden Valley, especially to be competitive against the Cotswold line to Worcester. In turn, these might make a few more Cotswolds stops if Worcester itself is quicker via Swindon.

 

[jimm]

And then Cheltenham can have a dedicated service which would be quicker and could extend to Worcester. I’d propose this one run faster through the Golden Valley, especially to be competitive against the Cotswold line to Worcester. In turn, these might make a few more Cotswolds stops if Worcester itself is quicker via Swindon.

As noted above, nothing is going to be be running any faster through the Stroud Valley without substantial and unlikely re-engineering of the line. If there was a higher frequency on the route, Kemble would get 2tph from the word go, meaning about the only place you might save any time would be by not calling at Stonehouse. Other than omitting the Gloucester call and running straight past, any time savings would be marginal.

 

[SwindonBert]

I thought it would be a limited top speed, can't see much point spending significant amounts if there's not much improvement possible

A 2tph service would be more beneficial that electrification on this line

 

[Mintona]

I thought it would be a limited top speed, can't see much point spending significant amounts if there's not much improvement possible

A 2tph service would be more beneficial that electrification on this line

Definitely, the only way I can see it being electrified would be if Birmingham - Bristol and Lydney were being done, to prevent a diesel island. The 2tph would be very useful.

 

[jimm]

Definitely, the only way I can see it being electrified would be if Birmingham - Bristol and Lydney were being done, to prevent a diesel island. The 2tph would be very useful.

But maybe let's see how one London train every hour and the odd Turbo boosting the frequency between Swindon and Gloucester during the peaks get on first.

Not everyone in Cheltenham or Gloucester is desperate to travel up and down to London all the time. Plenty would be far more interested in higher frequency on the Bristol-Birmingham axis and higher-capacity trains there and on the Cardiff route.

 

[Mintona]

But maybe let's see how one London train every hour and the odd Turbo boosting the frequency between Swindon and Gloucester during the peaks get on first.

Not everyone in Cheltenham or Gloucester is desperate to travel up and down to London all the time. Plenty would be far more interested in higher frequency on the Bristol-Birmingham axis and higher-capacity trains there and on the Cardiff route.

Oh yeah for sure. I’m posting from the rather selfish viewpoint that it’s my favourite route to drive so more trains means more chance for me to go along!

 

[Class 170101]

I think the best compromise would be
1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Cheltenham-Worcester SH,
1tph London-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Lydney-Chepstow-Newport-Cardiff,
and
1tph Swindon-Kemble-Stroud-Stonehouse-Gloucester-Cheltenham (as now).

But I don’t think passenger numbers would really justify it, so it’ll probably stay as it is for the time being. When (if) the second train per hour happens, I imagine it’ll be a shuttle from Swindon calling at all the same (as current) stations to Cheltenham.

I would say the first two on your list would happen but perhaps with a call at Kemble in Worcester train. I could also see this being extended to Hereford instead of the North Cotswold services if the route via Kemble is faster. North Cotswold services would terminate at Shrub Hill instead.
The second I would probably add Severn Tunnel Junction as a stop.
However I see no point in the Swindon to Cheltenham shuttle and would probably look to extend the Nottingham to Birmingham service forward to Cardiff to cover the missing flow between Gloucester and Cheltenham that withdrawing GW services would create.

Definitely, the only way I can see it being electrified would be if Birmingham - Bristol and Lydney were being done, to prevent a diesel island. The 2tph would be very useful.

I think Lydney and Kemble routes would be only be wired if the feeder stations for Bristol to Birmingham needed to be located off this route, due to feeder station sites or could be done on the cheap by just installing OLE with power supplied from Swindon to Cardiff or Bristol to Birmingham routes.

 

[Noddy]

Not everyone in Cheltenham or Gloucester is desperate to travel up and down to London all the time. Plenty would be far more interested in higher frequency on the Bristol-Birmingham axis and higher-capacity trains there and on the Cardiff route.

Or Worcester!

 

[jimm]

I would say the first two on your list would happen but perhaps with a call at Kemble in Worcester train. I could also see this being extended to Hereford instead of the North Cotswold services if the route via Kemble is faster. North Cotswold services would terminate at Shrub Hill instead.
The second I would probably add Severn Tunnel Junction as a stop.
However I see no point in the Swindon to Cheltenham shuttle and would probably look to extend the Nottingham to Birmingham service forward to Cardiff to cover the missing flow between Gloucester and Cheltenham that withdrawing GW services would create.

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.

 

[Charlie M.]

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.

Yes, but the capacity at Cheltenham means that Network Rail are looking for a solution. Take a read of the Western Study for the “up to 2043 plans” which include extending services to Worcester for the purpose of additional Tewkesbury calls, connections and enabling Swindon to get to Worcester.

The study says that Network Rail plan to have alternate stopping pattern services between London to Gloucester and London to Cheltenham/Worcester. It would be additional to the North services, and that alternate Cheltenham services extend to Worcester.

 

[Parallel]

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.

 

[jimm]

Yes, but the capacity at Cheltenham means that Network Rail are looking for a solution. Take a read of the Western Study for the “up to 2043 plans” which include extending services to Worcester for the purpose of additional Tewkesbury calls, connections and enabling Swindon to get to Worcester.

The study says that Network Rail plan to have alternate stopping pattern services between London to Gloucester and London to Cheltenham/Worcester. It would be additional to the North services, and that alternate Cheltenham services extend to Worcester.

I know full well what is in that document, but given that there is currently a taskforce, involving the rail industry and other interested parties, looking long and hard at future development of the Cotswold Line, including more or complete redoubling, future service options, what to do around Worcester to remove the capacity bottlenecks there, etc, etc, I am not going to set too much store by what is in an already three-year-old long-term planning document.

If a robust 2tph service can be sent from London via Oxford to Worcester, that is always going to be the first choice, as it is likely to be far more useful to more people than a direct link between Worcester and Swindon all day. A far better way to improve the service at Tewkesbury and Worcester is an hourly GWR service between Bristol, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Worcester or, failing that, extending the Cardiff-Cheltenham service to Worcester, but I have my doubts about that one, given the political implications of extending WAG-sponsored services further into England.

Network Rail route studies are, by their very nature, meant to include all sorts of possibilities for future development - possibilities that, as I have already said, it is up to someone other than Network Rail to choose from and pay for. Some of the suggestions in the 2015 Western Route Study will happen eventually, others will not.

 

[D1009]

A few years ago LM ran a 153 shuttling between Worcester and Gloucester every 2 hrs to supplement the GWR service. It was largely empty.

 

[Noddy]

A few years ago LM ran a 153 shuttling between Worcester and Gloucester every 2 hrs to supplement the GWR service. It was largely empty.

It needs to be Bristol-Worcester, not stop at all the suburban stations in Bristol, and ideally use 100mph stock. That way an hourly service would compete with the M5. By using 75mph stock on the M5 corridor the car is always going to win.

 

[jimm]

A few years ago LM ran a 153 shuttling between Worcester and Gloucester every 2 hrs to supplement the GWR service. It was largely empty.

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.