RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted August 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 28, 2014 Refreshing honesty Captain Thank you. According to the local media here in 'Cheltenhamshire', the doubling was to improve the service to Gloucester and Cheltenham!!! The local MP is still hoping the improvements and additional platform accommodation can go ahead to maximise the benefits of the doubling and also provide additional paths on the cross country services. If this were to go ahead it might provide the GWSR with an easier access to the network than Honeybourne? Doug Hi Doug, Whilst not decrying any talk of service improvements along the line of route, I don't think that the root motiviation for doing the work now (as opposed to in 'x' years time) is meant to be any kind of secret. We know that a lot of possessions will be necessary on the South Wales main line in connection with electrification, and to divert via Gloucester has been made considerably easier with this section being redoubled. Not sure what you mean about a connection for the GWSR, though, as I understood that the only viable possibility was likely to be at the northern end (albeit not for a few years), due to development affecting the former trackbed at the Cheltenham end (much though I'd personally like to see something like that happen).... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 28, 2014 Refreshing honesty Captain Thank you. According to the local media here in 'Cheltenhamshire', the doubling was to improve the service to Gloucester and Cheltenham!!! The local MP is still hoping the improvements and additional platform accommodation can go ahead to maximise the benefits of the doubling and also provide additional paths on the cross country services. If this were to go ahead it might provide the GWSR with an easier access to the network than Honeybourne? Doug Assuming things have not changed all that much there is indeed one potential improvement arising from the redoubling and that is in respect of reliability and timekeeping. That apart all information in the public domain in the past about the justification for the scheme scheme has been absolutely clear and exactly as the good Cap'n has already stated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 A quick glance at Google suggests very little development has taken place on the trackbed between the main line and Cheltenham Racecourse, though most of the trackbed nearer the town is in use as a cycle path (including a modern bridge which doesn't look as if it would support the weight of a train) - the only other development on the trackbed is... a football pitch! Indeed a few years ago when the GWSR extended their line into the tunnel to use it as covered storage, they laid the track to passenger standards rather than siding standards in case extending back to Cheltenham itself became viable in the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Having used those paths in Chelthenham on a number of occasions I think the public and council would need to see a very good reason for handling them to a preservation group. I think that boat has sailed and a Northern connection is the viable one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted August 28, 2014 Author Share Posted August 28, 2014 It'd be nice to see the Melksham single re-doubled too so that a proper Weymouth - Westbury / Gloucester service can be set up. Those few through services recently introduced via that route are very useful and pretty well patronised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icknieldrobin Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Captain no wish to cause offence. The media reporting of the plans I referred to made no mention of the diversionary opportunities or as a requirement to the electrification of the GWR route to the west. The plans to develop Cheltenham 'Lansdown' which were put on hold earlier this year, did however include a proposal for a 'light railway' access to the race course and at the time seemed to have support from all stakeholders. It could have perhaps kept the track bed free of other more unpleasant developers or perhaps with co operation from NW Rail allowed the GWSR a quicker route to the 'big railway'. Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted August 29, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2014 Captain no wish to cause offence. The media reporting of the plans I referred to made no mention of the diversionary opportunities or as a requirement to the electrification of the GWR route to the west. The plans to develop Cheltenham 'Lansdown' which were put on hold earlier this year, did however include a proposal for a 'light railway' access to the race course and at the time seemed to have support from all stakeholders. It could have perhaps kept the track bed free of other more unpleasant developers or perhaps with co operation from NW Rail allowed the GWSR a quicker route to the 'big railway'. Doug No offence taken, Doug. I'm not totally 'in the know' with the light railway suggestion, but I don't think - from what I have gleaned - that it was meant to imply any extension to or association with the steam railway. I saw the consultant's report for Cheltenham Lansdown, which looked impressive, but unfortunately will not be supported by the majority of the rail industry. I do actually think that a southward extension of the steam railway is physically possible, but not as viable as a northern connection at the Honeybourne end in a few years time. However, probably best for the GWSR to concentrate on Broadway first... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Having used those paths in Chelthenham on a number of occasions I think the public and council would need to see a very good reason for handling them to a preservation group. I think that boat has sailed and a Northern connection is the viable one. As I believe the formation was originally double track, there ought to be room for a foot/cycle path and single line of railway side by side (as the Avon Valley do). And surely being able to bring main line trains through to Cheltenham Racecourse for the Festival and other special events, thus alleviating traffic pressure on the town, should be a "very good reason".... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted August 29, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 29, 2014 As I believe the formation was originally double track, there ought to be room for a foot/cycle path and single line of railway side by side (as the Avon Valley do). And surely being able to bring main line trains through to Cheltenham Racecourse for the Festival and other special events, thus alleviating traffic pressure on the town, should be a "very good reason".... Well, yes, you would have thought so... Sadly, I don't think there is the political support up there at the moment, in terms of local authorities, apart from anything else, plus the very real issue of 'who would pay'... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 The trackbed is built over at the junction, there are rebuilt bridges where the old GW terminus junction was and there is a gap to span where the footbridge now exists. That's a lot to overcome for a mainline connection that won't see regular use, the GWSR can still build a new terminus in Cheltenham within walking distance of the mainline station without having to overcome these difficulties. Then a northern connection would allow services onto the line, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Just a thought though - how practical would it be to use the GWSR as a diversionary route (via Oxford) for London-Cheltenham trains when Swindon-Didcot is closed for engineering works,or as a route to keep freight off the GWML. I seem to remember NR being quite keen for the trackbed to be reserved as a possible future diversionary/supplementary route some years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 1, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 1, 2014 The route it provided a diversionary capability for was the Lickey and even when it was open - albeit in its final years - I can't recall it ever being used for any sort of WR diversions. In fact by then I think the only time passenger trains ran over any of it was the specials for Cheltenham races. Just a thought though - how practical would it be to use the GWSR as a diversionary route (via Oxford) for London-Cheltenham trains when Swindon-Didcot is closed for engineering works,or as a route to keep freight off the GWML. I seem to remember NR being quite keen for the trackbed to be reserved as a possible future diversionary/supplementary route some years ago. Apart from local use the main reason it went was duplication of routes from, basically the west/South Wales to the Midlands and North West and there simply wasn't the level of traffic to justify keeping all three routes so this one went because unlike the other two it didn't serve anywhere of consequence between Gloucester/Cheltenham and Birmingham other than Stratford and in some respects it wasn't teh ideal route for freight traffic (so it was said). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Jones Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Re-double-tracked after more than a year of preparation/track work and 45 million pounds. It would be interesting to know what it cost British Railways in terms of planning time and cost to remove the second track in 1968. Probably only a very tiny fraction of the redoubling, even taking into account the difference in the pounds' value. So much red tape introduced in intervening years! Too many bean counters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy stroud Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Re-double-tracked after more than a year of preparation/track work and 45 million pounds. It would be interesting to know what it cost British Railways in terms of planning time and cost to remove the second track in 1968. Probably only a very tiny fraction of the redoubling, even taking into account the difference in the pounds' value. So much red tape introduced in intervening years! Too many bean counters. I would love to agree with you, as I'm not a fan of the privatized railway, however I do think what you say in this instance is a little unfair. I would imagine that decommissioning and then removing a running line is a lot easier than installing a new one. Dont forgot that in the intervening years, the single running line will have been re-aligned into the center during track renewals which would have been beneficial at the time to increase line speed etc. Also, as well as the new track, dont forgot the resignalling of the route (including the existing double track section) in order to increase capacity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2014 Re-double-tracked after more than a year of preparation/track work and 45 million pounds. It would be interesting to know what it cost British Railways in terms of planning time and cost to remove the second track in 1968. Probably only a very tiny fraction of the redoubling, even taking into account the difference in the pounds' value. So much red tape introduced in intervening years! Too many bean counters. I think Clapham meant it would have cost a much greater sum even in BR days. Not that it would have happened, of course - even 20 years later than the singling date you quote, the DTp (Department of Transport) think-tank was imposing new line-singling targets on BR. But Clapham, where a hard-pressed installer made a mistake in altering existing wiring, caused a sea-change in the way BR "did" things. That change, driven by the Hidden Enquiry, involved new safety processes and required far greater man-hours to achieve the same result. Then add-in the organisational complexity that Rail Privatisation spawned, and re-doubling and re-signalling for that sort of sum sounds modest enough cost. Welcome to 2014. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted September 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2014 The route it provided a diversionary capability for was the Lickey and even when it was open - albeit in its final years - I can't recall it ever being used for any sort of WR diversions. In fact by then I think the only time passenger trains ran over any of it was the specials for Cheltenham races. Just a thought though - how practical would it be to use the GWSR as a diversionary route (via Oxford) for London-Cheltenham trains when Swindon-Didcot is closed for engineering works,or as a route to keep freight off the GWML. I seem to remember NR being quite keen for the trackbed to be reserved as a possible future diversionary/supplementary route some years ago. Apart from local use the main reason it went was duplication of routes from, basically the west/South Wales to the Midlands and North West and there simply wasn't the level of traffic to justify keeping all three routes so this one went because unlike the other two it didn't serve anywhere of consequence between Gloucester/Cheltenham and Birmingham other than Stratford and in some respects it wasn't teh ideal route for freight traffic (so it was said). I travelled on what were intended to have been the last diversions from Tyseley through Stratford to Cheltenham on 30 November 1969. I don't know if it got any more passenger use as a through route, although a couple of freight trains used it in each direction until until 25 August 1976 when the 06.35 Toton toSevern Tunnel Junction derailed near Winchcombe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted September 27, 2014 Author Share Posted September 27, 2014 So much red tape introduced in intervening years! Too many bean counters. Not an incorrect observation as such but it should be noted that there is a very considerable difference between the extra cost due to the fragmented contract driven nature of infrastructure projects (and still to a degree in maintenance) these days and the extra cost required now because we now do things in a very, very, much safer way to avoid the mistakes that caused Clapham (as Olddudders pointed out). For example the introduction of RIMINI in 2003/4 vastly increased the cost of maintenance simply because in many places staff were not then permitted to do the same task with trains running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted September 27, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2014 RIMINI - shorthand for Railway Infrastructure Maintenance Is Now Impossible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted September 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 28, 2014 Southernman46, on 27 Sept 2014 - 21:32, said: For example the introduction of RIMINI in 2003/4 vastly increased the cost of maintenance simply because in many places staff were not then permitted to do the same task with trains running. Very true indeed, all of it! What worries me is the fact that its made things like patrolling the line (once done under traffic for the most part) highly un- productive. Can the industry sustain that in the long term? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 28, 2014 Very true indeed, all of it! What worries me is the fact that its made things like patrolling the line (once done under traffic for the most part) highly un- productive. Can the industry sustain that in the long term? ISTR that the introduction of CWR included among its many benefits a reduction in patrolling due to keys no longer needing knocking back in. Of course, that also meant the loss of all the other unspecified (and therefore uncosted) benefits of patrolling, including foliage control etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted September 28, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 28, 2014 The August 2014 blockade has now been on since last Monday night, and is due to be given up at 0700 hrs on Bank Holiday Monday morning, with the double track commissioned and in use from that time. Here are some photos taken on site visits last Tuesday to the blockade. Old and new Up platform starting signals at Kemble, the old bracket signal will have been removed by now: IMG_4151.JPG The new signal head at Kemble reminded me of this cartoon character!: http://despicableme.com/post/2475 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Woolford Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I went out today to have a look for a suitable location to take some photographs not too far from home as my car is currently out of action. Earl of Mount Edgcumbe is due to run tomorrow, passing through Kemble and Swindon, hence the reason for my trip out. I could have chosen Swindon junction (I've done this previously) but I want something in the countryside. This gave me a chance to also have a look a little further up the line than I have so far. Just a couple of quick images to give me an idea of how things will look tomorrow. Can you guess the location? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 3, 2014 The lower one is easy - Purton station site with Collins Lane Crossing in the distance, so looking towards Swindon. Is the other one the same place but looking the other way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Woolford Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Correct Mike, I was at one of the foot crossings. It's raining hard today so I'm off to Swindon junction instead as it's closer. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Woolford Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 As previously noted, the weather here in Swindon hasn't been the best this morning. Is still managed to get some photos, unfortunately, the rain is noticeable and has had an effect. Is this the first time a steam loco has gone over the line since it has been redoubled? Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.