|
ellendune
|
 |
« on: March 29, 2013, 23:42:14 » |
|
This proposal for two additional bay platforms for London Trains is proposed by Cheltenham Development Task Force and Cheltenham Borough Council. http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=55015&p=0Also correspondence in local press: Cheltenham needs a new railway station, resident saysRAILWAY 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."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
swrural
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2013, 14:40:40 » |
|
There used to be some very useful existing bay platforms which were called Cheltenham St James's.   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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2013, 15:53:45 » |
|
There used to be some very useful existing bay platforms which were called Cheltenham St James's. 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. The bid include passive provision for a light rail link to the Glos and Warks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
swrural
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2013, 17:16:11 » |
|
Good news. Do you have a link to that one ED?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2013, 17:42:45 » |
|
Good news. Do you have a link to that one ED?
Yes see the first link in my initial post. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trainbuff
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2013, 17:58:50 » |
|
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
I think it is economically sensible to concentrate on the Lansdown Road for a few reasons. Firstly all land needed appears to be owned by Network Rail. This does away in large part with dealing with landowners and a major Public Enquiry. Secondly, the line speed through Cheltenham is 40mph and all trains running through would have to adhere to this. So a stop on reasonably fast track (Tewksbury Road) and then slowing again at Lansdown Road is unlikely. I believe XC would reasonably only call at Lansdown Road.
When Virgin ran the XC franchise many Summer Saturday trains ran through Cheltenham. Even now when stops are missed on southbound XC trains, due to late running, Cheltenham Spa is still called at even though west of Bristol the train may run fast to Exeter and then Plymouth only. Maybe because the time saved in avoiding the Cheltenham stop does not pay dividends.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Invest in Railways in Devon and Cornwall!
|
|
|
|
swrural
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2013, 12:08:35 » |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
trainbuff
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2013, 16:53:06 » |
|
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?
Apologies for my spelling! It is indeed an I not E!!! Edit note: Quote marks amended, for clarity. CfN. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 17:07:01 by chris from nailsea »
|
Logged
|
Invest in Railways in Devon and Cornwall!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2013, 23:04:53 » |
|
Many thanks for posting that update on the relevant process, grumpysocks - and a very warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2013, 23:27:12 » |
|
An interesting read, and welcome to the forum, Grumpysocks Essentially the scheme will consist of 2 new bay platforms designed to accommodate the new 170m IEP▸ trains. 6 x 26 metre carriages (5 car IEP; allowing for an extra carriage later ??) 7 x 23 metre carriages (150, 153, 158) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
grumpysocks
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2013, 09:47:55 » |
|
It should say 260m IEP▸ trains (2x 5car). well spotted.
The design does include for this platform length (plus 10m overrun...)
The more detailed additional engineering scheme drawings can be requested from the LTB if anyone is interested...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 10:15:30 by grumpysocks »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grumpysocks
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2013, 11:17:44 » |
|
Attached are two scheme drawings (now in the public domain on the LTB website) outlining the proposals for two new platforms capable of accommodating new full length 10 car IEP▸ trains.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 11:44:17 by grumpysocks »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martvw
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2013, 17:11:38 » |
|
These plans for Cheltenham Lansdown Station seem to make a lot of sense, with more London trains in the future on the Kemble line. This new layout would free up the north south line for cross country services and the growing number of freight trains. OK the first great western services to Worcester will still use the old platforms but these are less frequent.I cant see the need to move the station north from were it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2013, 23:03:26 » |
|
Looks very sensible, and not before time too.
Just one question though- it looks as though the car parks will be built on the trackbed of the Honeybourne line. Would this preclude once and for all not only a through connection but also the opportunity to extend the line back into the heart of the town?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
