Great Western Coffee Shop

Do you think this will happen?

2010/11 X Chippenham Re-instatement of redundant platform line Improved reliability and additional capacity for both
passenger and freight services
Network Rail
Discretionary

I found this on internet on the following site:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route%2013%20-%20Great%20Western%20Main%20Line.pdf
Page 29

I don't find this a very compelling cause. After all the passenger service is half hourly, and so there's no problem there with congestion. Unless the line becomes much more busy with freight from Southampton then I can't see the point, when there are many more congested stations (eg Cheltenham) that could really use a third platform.

Of course, if the third platform had a turnback facility then this would completely change the viability of the service that could be provided on the Trans-Wilts with a single unit, but I doubt whether that is the motivation for the enhancement.
     

One of the problems in the Chippenham area at the moment is that there is nowhere to sidetrack a train that's waiting to go down the TransWilts, so that a freight or passenger service arriving from the Swindon direction and going towards Westbury blocks everything else if there's something already on the way up from Westbury - a nightmare scenario if things get delayed and there happen to be two trains about. It's perhaps partly for this reason that FGW have chosen to run the morning Swindon to Southampton train even before the first London - Bristol service, and it's why - at current sparse track levels - it would be very hard to use the Chippenham - Trowbridge section anything like intensively. An extra track at Chippenham, providing a "down loop", would sort this out.

The current platforms at Chippenham (I think both of them) can already be used to reverse trains coming from Westbury, so a new track would not necessarily need the facility ... if a 125 could call at the new face.

There are huge benefits in being able to reverse TransWilts services at Chippenham - at the appropriate (Wilts CC evaluation, not mine) hourly service, it would reduce the number of trains needed from 3 to 2 for a service that goes to Salisbury at the other end, and so reduce running costs by 700k per annum.  There is already plenty of seating on 125s between Chippenham and Swindon, and sufficiently frequent a service for good connections to be routinely offered, and that 700k is the difference between it being viable and not.

That's interesting. Wonder whether the aim is to do this work before Reading starts in earnest, as presumably that remodelling will mean periods when the west to south curves are out of action, leaving the freightliners requiring an alternative route. 

Surely it is better for Transwilts services to go to Swindon. People won't want to rely on FGW for their connexions!

If memory serves, the old Platform 1 at Chippenham is too short for 125s. I think that was the main reason given for phasing it out in the first place.

I should imagine that the main reason from closing it was to save money as both platforms can be covered by two platform staff.  The shotrness of the platform is not a problem which can be easily extended.

The current bristol bound platform was lengthened to allow full length HST to fit in.

Indeed, yes.  However, if there were to be a choice between (let us say) the current service, and a Salisbury to Chippenham service running every hour or two, I know which I would go for  ;)  even if somewhat regretting the lack of a "Salisbury to Swindon train every hour or two" option!

Well, the platform seems very suitable for terminating trains, and after having visited Chippenham a few times it certainly seems like a suitable place to change trains- it would further justify a 2 TPH service to London/Bristol from the town, especially if it gave people from Westbury and beyond further connections to London Paddington (and vice versa).

For the Transwilts Service I think there would be benefit. FGW could run a service from one of the old but still existant and tracked platforms at Salisbury to Chippenham. Thus enabling more services on the TransWilts line. The Service could terminate on the disused platform at Chippenham and passengers for Swindon could pickup the London Paddington Services.

There would be a problem. If there were to be a service sitting on the disused at Chippenham and a service was traveling up the Melksham line. The train on the platform would have to wait for that train to clear the junction before proceeding. The train already on the line would need to wait on the main line for the disused to become available. Unless a passing place was also installed on the Melksham line.

Another option would be for the train to wait at Westbury until the service at Chippenham had reached Trowbridge. But this could hold up trains in Westbury and services from Bath Spa.

So unless the Melksham line is doubled or has passing places. There will always be a bottle neck.

Photo of Melksham doubled, with passing places (5 lines side by side in all!)

(http://www.terrascope.co.uk/images/MelkshamRailway.jpg)

OK, so it was a while ago*. And yes, I am well aware I was trespassing and putting myself and others at danger when I took this photo. I was young, stupid and irresponsible. I'm sorry.



*undated, but taken sometime in the 1970s

Why on earth was such a useful diversionary/goods line singled? >:(

I am sure you endangered nobody. You used your common sense and listened/ looked. H&S does not seem to think humans are capable of such things.

I think Phil was right to acknowledge the error of his ways. I'm not sure "using common sense" whilst describing trespassing on a live railway is an appropriate thing to say.

Wasn't the line axed/mothballed after Beeching though?

Interesting picture and another illustration of the vast amount of infrastructure removed from the open railway post Beeching.

I'm always amazed when you see old BTF films, of the number of running lines, loops and sidings at even quite minor stations, which even if they are still open now only have two (if you're lucky) or in many cases one running line, as per Melksham.

Although the loss of sidings has been positive - more car parking, more passengers.

Yep I agree to an extent, although perhaps there would be less lorries on the roads if there were more sidings handling freight.

However, it is the loss of running lines and loops, coupled with the additonal car parking on redundant sidngs  and hence more passengers that is now causing many of the problems posted on this board.

Including the loss of the platform at Chippenham and the singling of the Melksham line.

Reinstatement of the third platform at Chippenham hopefully extended to take a HST with bi-directional through running   on at least one line would be a good idea in its own right. However, it doesn't necessarily solve the Melksham line problems.

Is not one of the problems associated with increasing services on the branch Thingley Junction? From what I can see as a passenger Up trains coming off the Melksham line have to travel a reasonable distance along the down line before the crossing over. I would have thought with a more regular service this could create problems when services are running late.

A third platforn and terminating at Chippenham does seem to make sense though as it would remove the risk of 75mph DMU's clogging up the busy Wootton Bassett - Swindon section. The problems in the short term is where is the extra rolling stock going to come from? New units should initially be deployed on congested Bristol local services.

Almost like the Frome Branch, That used to be double track. The second platform is still at Frome Station :)