Proposal for additional platforms at Cheltenham

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

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.

[paul7575]

Apparently this is now not happening, because despite all the work so far, Network Rail and FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have said that the extra bay platforms are not required...

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."

From:  http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-Spa-Train-Station-new-platform-scheme/story-20551316-detail/story.html

Paul

[bobm]

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.

Oh - you mean this one?   

[TonyK]

Not quite as disused as I thought then.. I say "strangely disused" because it would give level access to trains for the less nimble. It would fit the local services, the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) could still use P2, and a walk over the bridge would seldom be needed.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Gloucestershire Echo:

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.^

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Gloucestershire Echo:

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


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.

[ellendune]

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.^

Where would you extend the services to? You would have to extend them to Worcester before you had the capacity to turn them round elsewhere. A Swindon Worcester shuttle?  Extending the Cheltenham IEPs^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) to Worcester/  That would take some extra stock wouldn't it?

[stuving]

Since the western Route Study was talking about 2043 services, stock as at 2019 isn't an issue. The idea is (AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See)) 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.

[ellendune]

Since the western Route Study was talking about 2043 services, stock as at 2019 isn't an issue. The idea is (AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See)) 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. 

Their proposed service pattern makes transfer to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) trains from Swindon Kemble etc. more difficult as they don't stop at Gloucester.  Of course if they were to build the once proposed Gloucestershire Parkway station that might not be an issue. 

[stuving]

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. 

Possibly - when decision time comes. But I think the point of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western)/NR^» (Network Rail - home page) statement is that this isn't the only way of providing  the expected services, so can't be justified by saying "we need this whatever else we do". So it does not get pulled forward. And yes, "N2: Mainline platforms at Gloucester" (the preferred name) is included as an option.

But anyway, I think that train costs are usually amortised and become part of the cost of running the service, not the other way round. Given that a train can be used elsewhere, that makes more sense. Infrastructure costs may even be assessed the same way - i.e. is the capital recovered by the services using it? But that's trickier to do.

[ChrisB]

SouthWest Business reports

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.

[bobm]

From the Gloucestershire Echo:

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......

SouthWest Business reports

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.......

Well I wonder who actually wrote the article..... 

[Red Squirrel]

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

An ellipsis means something has been omitted, or that the sentence has fallen short (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis). Are the extra dots intended to signify that more than usual has been omitted? In this case, should we assume that the thing that has been omitted is 'the business case'?

[ChrisB]

Sorry, where's the ellipsis in this case?

[grahame]

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