Cheltenham Road Viaduct - scope for possible redoubling (split topic, ongoing discussion)

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

Thanks all; very useful.

There a some lines around Bristol (and Wiltshire!) which could benefit from re-doubling, and I have always assumed that if an alignment once had two tracks it should be piossible to re-double it without needing to acquire land.

I can see now that this may not always be the case -although thanks to Brunel, we may have more wiggle room than some!

[johnneyw]

Thanks all; very useful.

There a some lines around Bristol (and Wiltshire!) which could benefit from re-doubling, and I have always assumed that if an alignment once had two tracks it should be piossible to re-double it without needing to acquire land.

I can see now that this may not always be the case -although thanks to Brunel, we may have more wiggle room than some!

I've been having a ponder over any problem points for redoubling on The Beach Line, a line that I'm reasonably familiar with and which is relatively short but which may need additional passing loops for a more "metro like" frequency. 
Pleasingly, I'm hard pushed to think of any, save perhaps the railway arch over the A38 Gloucester Road (or is it Cheltenham Road there?).  Could there be gauge or weight restriction issues there?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Pleasingly, I'm hard pushed to think of any, save perhaps the railway arch over the A38 Gloucester Road (or is it Cheltenham Road there?)

It is Cheltenham Road there - hence the term 'Cheltenham Road arches'.

The A38 northbound doesn't become Gloucester Road until the junction with Zetland Road.

CfN^▸ (Chris from Nailsea, an administrator on this forum) (used to live in Kingsdown) 

[Red Squirrel]

With apologies for continuing the thread drift (does this warrant its own topic? Not sure...) Cheltenham Road Viaduct does look to be reasonably capacious (see Google Maps image). Clause 18 of The Great Western and Midland Railways (Clifton and Bristol) Act of 1871 implies that part or all of the line was originally built to broad guage, so I suspect they at least allowed for this - even though the iron spans of the bridge were cast in Derby, which suggests the contract may have been let by the Midland.

[Chris from Nailsea]

With apologies for continuing the thread drift (does this warrant its own topic? Not sure...)

It probably does: I'll look into that this afternoon. CfN^▸ (Chris from Nailsea, an administrator on this forum).

[Noggin]

With apologies for continuing the thread drift (does this warrant its own topic? Not sure...) Cheltenham Road Viaduct does look to be reasonably capacious (see Google Maps image). Clause 18 of The Great Western and Midland Railways (Clifton and Bristol) Act of 1871 implies that part or all of the line was originally built to broad guage, so I suspect they at least allowed for this - even though the iron spans of the bridge were cast in Derby, which suggests the contract may have been let by the Midland.

Apologies too for thread drift. AFAIK^▸ ('as far as I know') Cheltenham Road Viaduct is double-track as-built (standard not broad gauge). Assuming it's structurally sound, the problem is that if you redouble, you have to rebuild Montpelier and Redland stations which will mean lifts etc. and I suspect £10m+ each by the time you are done (not to mention they are tight sites very close to housing). IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly'), there is a plan being progressed by WECA^» (West of England Mayoral Combined Authority - about) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to redouble up to (St Andrews?) tunnel east of Montpelier Station with a revised junction onto the mainline which would give a significant capacity uplift for less money and minimal disruption.

[Western Pathfinder]

As well as the previous noted items, the bridge over the port entrance at Sea Mills needs replacing badly.

[Red Squirrel]

With apologies for continuing the thread drift (does this warrant its own topic? Not sure...) Cheltenham Road Viaduct does look to be reasonably capacious (see Google Maps image). Clause 18 of The Great Western and Midland Railways (Clifton and Bristol) Act of 1871 implies that part or all of the line was originally built to broad guage, so I suspect they at least allowed for this - even though the iron spans of the bridge were cast in Derby, which suggests the contract may have been let by the Midland.

Apologies too for thread drift. AFAIK^▸ ('as far as I know') Cheltenham Road Viaduct is double-track as-built (standard not broad gauge). Assuming it's structurally sound, the problem is that if you redouble, you have to rebuild Montpelier and Redland stations which will mean lifts etc. and I suspect £10m+ each by the time you are done (not to mention they are tight sites very close to housing). IIRC^▸ ('if I recall/remember/read correctly'), there is a plan being progressed by WECA^» (West of England Mayoral Combined Authority - about) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) to redouble up to (St Andrews?) tunnel east of Montpelier Station with a revised junction onto the mainline which would give a significant capacity uplift for less money and minimal disruption.

I understand that according to Colin Maggs' 1975 book 'The Bristol Port Railway and Pier', the line was indeed built to standard guage, rather than broad. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the structures weren't built to accommodate broad guage track... and the viaduct does look to be generously-porportioned. But it seems likely that it would need to be refurbished if the line were to be redoubled.

This isn't really the point though; the question is whether the line could be redoubled without the need to acquire land. The answer to that is probably, for the most part, 'yes' - with the exception being around stations which would, as you say, need to be rebuilt to be accessible with two platforms.

The WECA plan to make Narroways Jct a double lead junction would allow a 3 tph^▸ (trains per hour) service on the Severn Beach line. Questions have been asked about how resilient a service this would allow, however. But for a true metro-style service, 4 tph is required - and it's hard to see that being achieved without doubling all the way from Narroways to Clifton Down.

This would require reinstating second platforms at Redland and Montpelier. At Redland this may be achievable without costly lifts; Montpelier on its hillside site could be a harder nut to crack.

As well as the previous noted items, the bridge over the port entrance at Sea Mills needs replacing badly.

Yes, the state of Sea Mills Viaduct appears, to the layman's eye, shocking - rusty bits of it are falling into the mud!

[Ralph Ayres]

As well as the previous noted items, the bridge over the port entrance at Sea Mills needs replacing badly.

I hope you meant "...badly needs replacing."?

[Western Pathfinder]

Depends on who gets the contract ....

[Chris from Nailsea]

It is Cheltenham Road there - hence the term 'Cheltenham Road arches'.

Now that we've solved the topic drift issue, I'd like to pose the question I was originally going to ask.

Until I retired, I spent some ten years driving delivery vans through this junction, generally waiting minutes for the lights to change so I could turn right from North Road onto Cheltenham Road. To while away the time, I looked around at various historic features, including this old building.

Can anyone tell me what it used to be?

[stuving]

It is Cheltenham Road there - hence the term 'Cheltenham Road arches'.

Now that we've solved the topic drift issue, I'd like to pose the question I was originally going to ask.

Until I retired, I spent some ten years driving delivery vans through this junction, generally waiting minutes for the lights to change so I could turn right from North Road onto Cheltenham Road. To while away the time, I looked around at various historic features, including this old building.

Can anyone tell me what it used to be?

It was a public toilet. The door facing the street was the ladies', and had a sign until ca. 2008. The gents' entrance must have been round the side. It was built after 1912, since at that date there was an open-air multi-stall urinal there, along the base of the pier!

[Chris from Nailsea]

Thanks, stuving. CfN^▸ (Chris from Nailsea, an administrator on this forum).

[Red Squirrel]

Really pleased that after a few false starts, a planning application for this building has recently been approved (25/11304/F - I still haven't worked out how to link directly to these!):

Change of use from a disused public convenience (planning Use Class sui generis) to sale of food and drink (Use Class Eb); replace all existing windows, doors and frames; remove windows on west elevation and insert new front entrance with non-illuminated signage above; removal of door on north elevation and insert new windows.

[johnneyw]

Really pleased that after a few false starts, a planning application for this building has recently been approved (25/11304/F - I still haven't worked out how to link directly to these!):

Change of use from a disused public convenience (planning Use Class sui generis) to sale of food and drink (Use Class Eb); replace all existing windows, doors and frames; remove windows on west elevation and insert new front entrance with non-illuminated signage above; removal of door on north elevation and insert new windows.

The application doesn't seem to indicate if it's for a licensed or unlicensed premise selling food and drink but it conceivably could become a handy coffee stop serving passengers at Montpelier Station just a couple of minutes walk away.