Great Western Coffee Shop

RAILWAY bosses should scrap plans to expand Cheltenham Spa station and build a new one in Tewkesbury Road.
That's according to Cheltenham resident Ian James, who said spending ^15.5 million on adding two new platforms to the station would be money "down the drain".
​
Cheltenham Spa Railway Station

Earlier this month, Cheltenham Development Taskforce announced plans to double the number of platforms at the station to provide a terminus for trains to and from London Paddington and Wales.
But Mr James said: "The time has come to give Cheltenham a completely new station rather than giving the existing Lansdown station an upgrade. By all means, keep Lansdown, but only as a hub station for passengers wanting to access the top end of town
 
"A railway station in the Tewkesbury Road would be no further away than the existing station and might even be closer. It would also have the advantage of good bus connections from Tewkesbury Road to the town centre and easy access to the motorway network.
"The main line goes that way anyway so this would make sense. It would also rejuvenate the town centre more than the existing station."

It is hoped the new platforms at Cheltenham Spa will free up the existing ones for trains not terminating at the station, increasing the capacity.
Jeremy Williamson, managing director for the Taskforce, which works to rejuvenate the town, said: "Plans to create two new platforms at the station have gone to the Local Transport Body (LTB) and the proposals were one of seventeen which were supported in principle last week.
"A number of options for the station, including relocation, have been explored previously. The challenge is finding space within the control of network rail or other landowners with available space.

"Equally two stations in one town would inevitably mean one becomes redundant as cross country trains would not stop at both stations.
"The benefit of the proposal being put forward is that it's contained entirely within Network Rail's land ownership and it comes with their support and that of a number of key partners. It's important to work within what is considered practical and realistic by the rail industry.
"The next step is a meeting of various rail partners to explore how this can be progressed. The LTB has a next round deadline of May 10."

There used to be some very useful existing bay platforms which were called Cheltenham St James's.   ;D   ::)

If the Honeybourne line is one day reopened (fortunately still not much obstacle in the way to shout about) then a good place could be just outside Waitrose, much more convenient for the Town Centre!  If they do build it at Lansdown, then one hopes they build it so as to retain it as a potential through line to Hunting Butts tunnel again.

Good news.  Do you have a link to that one ED?

Yes see the first link in my initial post.

Thanks ED, caught up now.  Btw, TrainBuff it is Public Inquiry (with an I), please excuse the pedantry.  This is indeed a most sensible initiative and has universal support added to it, a no-brainer hopefully.  The provision for future possible enhancements (light rail to Cheltenham Racecourse and town centre) also has great merit.  What folly is exposed in closing St James.

One point I would like to hear colleagues' views on; where does Gloucester access figure in all this?  Do we have insight into pax numbers at each city (town) that gives the answer to what should be done at Gloucester?

Essentially the scheme will consist of 2 new bay platforms designed to accommodate the new 170m IEP trains.

I think this proposal has much merit. The XC services can often be delayed with units shunting to and from Alston Sidings. This way there will be more time to turn GW services and prep them at Platform also enabling passengers to be loaded earlier. It is a shame that the bridges built either side of Gloucester over theM5 were only built to enable twin track rather than quadruple. Where are you Four Track Now? Lol

See:

http://www.gltb.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=114104

The station scheme is 4th in the GLTB priority list, which is quite an achievement.

I wonder if anyone ever gets confused between GLTB and LGBT - which is a whole nother thing.

video of scheme available on:

www.northtosouthrailways.co.uk

video of scheme available on:

www.northtosouthrailways.co.uk

Thanks RS,

Website development still in progress. Been focussing on creating the station instead ;-)

You are correct that this scheme prevents a direct heavy rail connection to the racecourse at Cheltenham Spa. However, there are other options that we are suggesting to make future provision for the very important Heavy Rail connection to CNM Racecource and Honeybourne, without digging up the middle of Cheltenham.

The scheme makes passive provision for future overhead electrification - with appropriate vertical clearances etc, but as the current electrification strategy does not include Swindon/Gloucester etc, it is not shown at this stage.

You are correct that this scheme prevents a direct heavy rail connection to the racecourse at Cheltenham Spa. However, there are other options that we are suggesting to make future provision for the very important Heavy Rail connection to CNM Racecource and Honeybourne, without digging up the middle of Cheltenham.

A spokesman said: "Network Rail and First Great Western has not supported or implied support for additional platforms at Cheltenham. There is no requirement for such an investment.

"We do however support, and have worked diligently with the local bodies concerned, a scheme to significantly improve the station building and car parking facilities, taxi/bus interchange arrangements, and are currently engaged in taking this forward with other stakeholders for the funding available."

I'm impressed - it's much posher than I had imagined. When the words "Bay platform" are used, I always think of the strangely disused example at Weston super Mare.

Martin Horwood MP lodges formal complaint against transport chiefs, says Cheltenham Spa train station revamp bid 'absolutely' short changed

A bitter row has broken out between Cheltenham^s MP and transport bosses after a multi-million pound bid to transform the town^s train station was dramatically short changed.

Martin Horwood has lodged a formal complaint against Gloucestershire Local Transport Board (GLTB) after it only awarded half of the money that was asked for to get a project to revamp the station off the ground.

Mr Horwood is calling on the GLTB to reconsider its decision to award the station bid, put together by Cheltenham Development Task Force, ^1.1 million instead of the ^1.95 million it sought. He has accused the GLTB of changing how it makes its funding decisions, claiming the board has shown ^no consistency^.

And he is not alone in his criticism with Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce accusing the GLTB of ^moving the goalposts^.

The gripes stem from a decision made earlier this year by GLTB to withdraw ^3.3 million it had awarded to the station scheme last year as part of the first round of funding hand outs which saw four projects across the county share ^10 million with each getting the funding they asked for.

But the original station plans included building two new platforms so when Network Rail informed the Task Force it would not support that aspect of the bid they were removed from the blueprint. And because the bid was changed the money from the GLTB was withdrawn.

The Task Force was invited to submit a revised bid for the cash, along with the rest of schemes which did not get any money the first time around, and the GLTB announced where the ^3.3 million would go earlier this month with three schemes, of which the station is on, sharing the money equally.

But with each of the three schemes scoring differently on the GLTB^s assessment of their worth and with schemes in the first round of hand outs receiving all of the money they asked for, questions are now being asked.

In a written letter of complaint Mr Horwood states up until April 2014 the GLTB^s approach was to ^fully fund the highest scoring schemes^ in so far as there was cash available to do so.

He believes the latest decision to share cash out equally is a departure from this process and he can ^find no explicit provision for part-funding schemes^ within the GLTB rulebook.

He states there was ^no assessment of the impact of the decision to part-fund schemes^ before the meeting earlier this month and as such he believes the ^process needs to be reconsidered^.

He told the Echo there has been ^no consistency^ to the GLTB^s decision making and that the station bid has ^absolutely^ been short changed. He said: ^When you are dealing with large amounts of public money you have to be transparent and consistent. They have really rather arbitrarily decided to split the funding three ways which means the Cheltenham scheme is very much shorter of funds than it should have been which will make delivering match funding for the project very difficult indeed.^

However, the chair of the GLTB, Gloucestershire County Councillor Vernon Smith, defended the decision to split the funding. He said: ^Cheltenham Spa train station has been given the second highest priority for funding in the entire county ^ that^s despite Network Rail refusing to support earlier plans to improve the station. I wish there was more money too ^ but the Government have only given us ^3.3m for every project right across Gloucestershire. Martin Horwood should be fighting in Westminster for more funding, not trying to pull money from other parts of our county.^

Meanwhile, Michael Ratcliffe, chief executive of Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce, which strongly backed the original proposals for the station, accused the GLTB of ^moving the goalposts^.  He said: ^The train station has had very little done to it in the last 50 years and it is not fit for purpose. It deals with just under two million foot passengers a year now and by 2015 it will be over two million. We thought that we would get the ^1.95 million only to find out that the GLTB had revised that down to ^1.1m, essentially moving the goal posts at the same time.^

Cold water poured over renewed hopes for two new platforms at Cheltenham Spa Train Station

(http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276334/Article/images/24206146/7908706-large.jpg)
Looking unlikely? How the proposed new bay platforms at Cheltenham Spa Train Station could look.

Rail chiefs have poured cold water over renewed hopes that two new platforms could be built at Cheltenham Spa Train Station.

A ^20 million plan to overhaul the transport hub was scuppered back in February when Network Rail and First Great Western said they did not believe such an investment was needed.

However, the architects of the bid thought the formal recognition in an important new policy document that Cheltenham is a ^constraint^ on the network because of capacity issues was enough to suggest their plan is not completely dead and buried.

But Network Rail and First Great Western have said their position has not changed and while they support making improvements to the station they do not support the platforms plan.

A joint statement from Network Rail and First Great Western said: ^The rail industry^s draft Western route study, which is currently open for consultation, identifies a number of capacity constraints along this route. One of these is the number of services that terminate at Cheltenham Spa station, ^blocking^ the line. As outlined in the study, a possible solution to this capacity constraint is to operate the station as a through-station, extending services through Cheltenham to reduce the number that terminate in the area and thus better utilise the capacity available. Our position therefore remains that there is no current strategic requirement identified for additional platforms at Cheltenham Spa station but we are happy to work with the scheme promoters on their proposal.^

Jeremy Williamson, the man in charge of Cheltenham Development Task Force which is leading the station bid, told councillors at the borough council this week that he believes the admission from Network Rail that the station is a ^constraint^ suggests rail chiefs are coming round to his way of thinking. ^The really good news is this starts to reflect a lot of the comments that we have been making,^ he said.

He told members of the authority^s overview and scrutiny committee on Monday night that nothing is set in stone and if they want to see the station improved they will have to fight for funding.

A revised plan, minus the new platforms, which is worth about ^10 million is still being progressed.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that decision makers in Cheltenham have looked at the possibility of moving the station but discarded the notion due to land ownership and location complications.

A joint statement from Network Rail and First Great Western said: ^The rail industry^s draft Western route study, which is currently open for consultation, identifies a number of capacity constraints along this route. One of these is the number of services that terminate at Cheltenham Spa station, ^blocking^ the line. As outlined in the study, a possible solution to this capacity constraint is to operate the station as a through-station, extending services through Cheltenham to reduce the number that terminate in the area and thus better utilise the capacity available. Our position therefore remains that there is no current strategic requirement identified for additional platforms at Cheltenham Spa station but we are happy to work with the scheme promoters on their proposal.^

Since the western Route Study was talking about 2043 services, stock as at 2019 isn't an issue. The idea is (AFAICS) to stop the current Cheltenham trains at Gloucester, and run another 1 tph to Cheltenham (saving 10 minutes by passing Gloucester) and on to give Worcester a second tph not subject to Cotswold line capacity issues.

So it would need extra stock.  I know it is looking into the future, but shouldn't the cost of that extra stock be considered less other benefits be compared to the cost of new platforms. 

Rail chiefs have poured cold water over renewed hopes that two new platforms could be built at Cheltenham Spa railway station.

A ^20 million plan to overhaul the transport hub was scuppered back in February when Network Rail and First Great Western said they did not believe such an investment was needed.

However, the architects of the bid thought the formal recognition in an important new policy document that Cheltenham is a ^constraint^ on the network because of capacity issues was enough to suggest their plan is not completely dead and buried.

But infrastructure operator Network Rail and train perator First Great Western have said their position has not changed and while they support making improvements to the station they do not support the platforms plan.

A joint statement from Network Rail and First Great Western said: ^The rail industry^s draft western route study, which is currently open for consultation, identifies a number of capacity constraints along this route.

^One of these is the number of services that terminate at Cheltenham Spa station, ^blocking^ the line.

^As outlined in the study, a possible solution to this capacity constraint is to operate the station as a through-station, extending services through Cheltenham to reduce the number that terminate in the area and thus better utilise the capacity available.

^Our position therefore remains that there is no current strategic requirement identified for additional platforms at Cheltenham Spa station but we are happy to work with the scheme promoters on their proposal.^

Jeremy Williamson, the man in charge of Cheltenham Development Task Force which is leading the station bid, told members at the borough council this week that he believes the admission from Network Rail that the station is a ^constraint^ suggests rail chiefs are coming round to his way of thinking.

^The really good news is this starts to reflect a lot of the comments that we have been making,^ he said.

He told members of the authority^s overview and scrutiny committee on Monday night that nothing is set in stone and if they want to see the station improved they will have to fight for funding.

A revised plan, minus the new platforms, which is costed at about ^10 million, is still being progressed.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that decision makers in Cheltenham have looked at the possibility of moving the station but discarded the notion due to land ownership and location complications.

From the Gloucestershire Echo (http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cold-water-poured-renewed-hopes-new-platforms/story-24206146-detail/story.html):

SouthWest Business reports (http://www.southwestbusiness.co.uk/news/06112014070229-rail-bosses-scupper-hope-of-extra-platforms-for-cheltenham-spa-railway-station/)

Hmm... I always wonder what people mean when they follow an ellipsis (...) with some extra dots.

Perhaps ... you're looking at a regular expression ( see http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/Perl/matching.html ) ?

if ($sauce =~ /.../) matches "red", "grey" and "squirrel" in $sauce
but
if ($sauce =~ /..../) matches "grey" and "squirrel" but not "red" in $sauce

But can't you get Gloucester - Bristol TM / BTM to Weston trains? No need to go up to go down.